April 30, 2011 at 11:24 am
We're ready to consider upgrading from sql 2005 Enterprise. I'd like to find some articles describing the differences, pros/cons of going to 2008 versus waiting for Denali.
April 30, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Simply type Denali in the window in the upper right hand corner of this forum screen and then click on "go" button to its right.
You will find 171 items that your can read
May 1, 2011 at 7:31 am
Ok, I was hoping for information specific to the decision of whether to go from 2005 to 2008 or directly to 2011. Along the same lines, what is meant by the statement that Denali Sql 2011 cannot be installed on "mapped" drives. We currently have a sql cluster with shared storage on a Netapp which uses several mapped drives along with data files on mount points located on a "K" drive.
May 1, 2011 at 8:56 am
I do not think that you should base your decision based on Drive Mapping.
Eventually you are going to have to migrate to SQL Server 2011.
Perdorm an advanced Goggle Search and type in some simple keywords and you will get a lot of links.
Be careful what criteria you use and modify and refine your search to find the intended results.
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
May 1, 2011 at 9:14 am
Ok, one thing. Denali is not SQL 2011.
It's called SQL 11 because the major version (SELECT @@version) is 11.0
It has no official name yet.
It has no release date yet.
It may, at some point, be named SQL 2011, or it may not. That's up to marketing at some point in the future.
Considering that there is only one public CTP so far, and no definitive list of features that it will have, I doubt there's any article that can tell you what to upgrade to.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
May 1, 2011 at 9:22 am
Gail,
When I saw this post and I looked the following article I made an assumption that conflicts with other articles that I have read:
http://newtech.about.com/od/databasemanagement/a/Sql-Server-2011-Denali.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=SQL+Server+2011&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=
Regards,
Welsh
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
May 1, 2011 at 9:38 am
The about.com article is wrong. Currently the product is code named Denali, sometimes called SQL 11 (it was called that before the code name was announced), but it is not officially (or unofficially) called SQL 2011. They're making an incorrect assumption, the product has no official name yet.
A lot of people are calling it that, doesn't make it true.
See the official pages, no mention of 2011 at all.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/product-info/future-editions.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms130214%28v=sql.110%29.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=6a04f16f-f6be-4f92-9c92-f7e5677d91f9
Denali may end up getting called SQL Server 2011. It may not. Up to marketing.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
May 1, 2011 at 9:42 am
Gail,
Thank you very much for validating that.
Regards,
Welsh
For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/
For better answers on performance questions, click on the following...
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply