March 8, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Old, but stable
March 9, 2012 at 1:19 am
Yes, it is there on my Test server along with instances with all the later releases. I use it every week. I found it a very exciting release at the time, because it solved a number of rather subtle and irritating bugs that had caused me a lot of grief. Where possible, I still try to write code for publication that work on SQL 2000 as well as the later releases just because there are still so many IT shops still using it.
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
March 9, 2012 at 1:30 am
Yes we are using SQL 2000 server with replication and it is working fine without any issues. However in the near future we are going to migrate to newer version of SQL Server.
March 9, 2012 at 2:36 am
Oh indeed, it is still there for a couple of projects, mainly slightly older ones with some 'funky' code that is going to need a little attention to upgrade it to 2008. In fact one of these upgrades is due to be my next job. 2012 might be a bit of a leap yet.
Funnily enough I might work hard find some other things to be doing for, well, as long as possible?
March 9, 2012 at 2:53 am
I come across the occasional client that does. I am sometimes surprised at what business processes are being run on unsupported OSs, server applications and desktop applications developed and maintained by tools no longer supported.
I must say that I would be more than a little reticent running business critical processes on top of a technical stack with unsupported elements or combinations. If I was running a delivery company I would want all the trucks is tip top condition or at least serviceable.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 9, 2012 at 3:00 am
Yes, two servers. One is gradually having things rewritten and moved to 2008 whilst the other has had everything moved to 2005 ages ago bar one last project waiting for a business decision on where they want to go with it before we re-write all the DTS in SSIS. But the server's started giving daily errors so the warning bells are ringing and it may get shifted sooner rather than later.
March 9, 2012 at 3:38 am
After contracting as a DBA in UK for nearly ten years I can report that many companies are still using SQL 2000 (and quite a few at SP3! :w00t:) in a production environment. Working at a bank a few years ago I was asked to take a backup from SQL 6.5. Yep, it was running in prod, the db's were quite small and the client was happy with it and did not want the bank to upgrade ANYTHING! All we did periodically was copy backups to tape. They also had many instances of SQL 7 running in prod but eventually they were migrated to SQL 2005.
I still have an affection for SQL 2000 as it was what I started on when I "morphed" into a DBA (Technically SQL 7 but that was in a former life as a classic ASP developer.) It's a decent product for what it does but doesn't have the robustness and the ability to think for itself like 2005/8 can do. Still, I always have a smirk when I'm asked to fire up Query Analyzer! 😉
qh
March 9, 2012 at 3:45 am
Yep, we've got a couple of servers running SQL 2000, one was only commissioned 12 months ago!
Love SQL 2000 (it's what I cut my DBA teeth on), but it's "pre-SSRS" offering was a horror!
March 9, 2012 at 3:48 am
Gazareth (3/9/2012)
Love SQL 2000 (it's what I cut my DBA teeth on), but it's "pre-SSRS" offering was a horror!
I'm still having nightmares from trying (and mostly failing) to get SQL 2K to work with Crystal Reports. :crazy: :crying:
March 9, 2012 at 3:54 am
Yes, still running/supporting a major system using SQL 2000.
The system uses multiple servers across the world, synchronized with Merge Replication, all containing sensitive data.
The cost of upgrading the SQL licences is (fairly) insignificant. The main thing holding back an upgrade is the sheer cost of planning and testing... not just the upgrade of SQL itself, but a full regression test of the application as well. For that reason, it's worth forking out for paid MS support.
Luckily, as said, SQL 2000 seems to be fairly bulletproof.
March 9, 2012 at 4:27 am
I'm still having nightmares from trying (and mostly failing) to get SQL 2K to work with Crystal Reports. :crazy: :crying:
Luckily the company was down to 3 monthly Crystal Reports by the time I started.
Of course, this was offset by the 1,000+ reports in SSRS... :blink:
March 9, 2012 at 4:30 am
I work for a national media company in the UK. We use SQL 2000 for ETL of sales data, and DTS to generate daily reports, directly from which commissions are paid at the end of the month. I've been begging to be moved to one of the company's existing SQL 2005 platforms for years, but because the system works I'm told I'd have to come up with a compelling business case for it :¬/
Maybe it's time I encountered some problem which "can't be done in 2000 so we'll have to upgrade"...
March 9, 2012 at 4:38 am
andrew.armitage 40391 (3/9/2012)
I work for a national media company in the UK. We use SQL 2000 for ETL of sales data, and DTS to generate daily reports, directly from which commissions are paid at the end of the month. I've been begging to be moved to one of the company's existing SQL 2005 platforms for years, but because the system works I'm told I'd have to come up with a compelling business case for it :¬/Maybe it's time I encountered some problem which "can't be done in 2000 so we'll have to upgrade"...
In my experience it is a choice better left to others. Technical recommendations are just that. Recommendations.
This view is less to avoid taking responsibility for any results (when I recommend an action I have to stick by it anyway or change my recommendation) but more due to the scope of my recommendation tends to be technical and operational. Not financial and rarely involves business risk planning etc.
I see my opinion as input to the decision makers who control budget, resources and risk.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 9, 2012 at 5:36 am
We do not use sql server 2000.
All thou we have sql server 2008, not the RC version... which is annoying and bad, apparently none or few before me pressed this issue. However there is work being done to prepare for sql server 2012.
March 9, 2012 at 5:39 am
If it is not broken ... don't fix it 😉
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 57 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply