March 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Evil Kraig F (3/9/2012)
I'm afraid we're going to have another polite disagreement, Travis. 🙂TravisDBA (3/9/2012)
1. Shop doesn't want to spend the money to upgrade software/hardwareThere's no reason to spend money 'fixing' something that works quite well. Upgrades are not important to a product that doesn't require the new features and is out of development.
2. Legacy application(s) their STILL using requires SQL 2000.
So, not only a DBA team but a development team would be required to perform work to upgrade an application, and the only reason to pay that would be to follow MS's release schedule? No, no. I've left software on 6.5 to avoid that very problem.
3. DTS to SSIS and Visual Studio conversion is too big of curve and scares alot of DBA's that I know. This was scary when I first did it too, but once I got used to SSIS and VS I would never go back to DTS. No way.
This can be done from a foreign server without affecting the base database design. SSIS hooks quite nicely up to SQL 2k, and is thus not a significant concern.
4. Replication changed a whole bunch over the version years and would literally have to be retooled and/or startover and this too scares DBA's that already have this working.
The majority of systems (that I'm familiar with) that are sitting on 2k boxes are standalones, not integrated projects that require replication and the like.
5. Full_text indexing has changed radically from SQL 2000-2008 and would also have to literally be relearned and redone, including the queries that use it.
This is true and it depends on how invasive your usage was throughout your structure. If something is stable and dependable, do you simply make sure the tires are full of air and the oil's full, or do you swap out the engine block which costs you money and you hope it's as good?
Being scared, or not wanting to spend the money is more of an excuse nowadays than it is a reason to not upgrade. Come on, jump on in, the water is only cold at first.. 😀
I'm afraid I consider it a perfectly valid reason. There's limited IT resources at most companies, no matter how you want to slice the cost. You can work on problem children, or you can chase Microsoft's upgrade plan for every piece of software you own. I find chasing MS to be a silly endeavour. Upgrade a software when you have reason to work on it beyond minor adjustments. I disagree with starting major overhauls just to 'stay up to date' with no other gain than saying "Yay! We're on SQL 2k8!"
Agreed, I am aware of the silly notion of just keeping up with the "bleeding" edge of technology. However, I didn't say they were valid, or nonvalid reasons for that matter. I just said they were reasons I have heard in the past. Some of them sounded to me more like excuses though than valid reasons. Just my take. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
March 9, 2012 at 12:42 pm
That is why we had/have so many SQL 2000 DBs. Most are low end simple databases and don't need any new features in 2005/2008/2008R2. I can't go to Mgt and say lets spend a quarter of a million bucks and spend 9999 hours of IT work to upgrade and I really have no justification or cost savings to balance that with.
With extended support ending and some of the hardware at the place where the server team can cost justify the hardware plus some of the bundled apps are finally to the point where we need to upgrade we are consolidating to some and upgrading to new hardware others.
March 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Old.. stable.. reliable.. and too expensive to replace.. that sounds like a description for most of us SQL Server developers and DBAs who have worked with versions 6.5 - 2008. 🙂
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
March 9, 2012 at 4:45 pm
We recently upgraded our SQL 2000 server to SQL 2008. The upgrade required an expensive upgrade of our Accounting software, which is why we waited so long.
March 12, 2012 at 9:38 am
We have SS2000, SS2005, SS2008 and are looking into SS2012. Why do we still use SS2000?
Money and stubborness are two of the biggest reasons.
Money - we are constantly expanding and money has to be put into the best places...normally that means new server and new SQL Server builds to accommodate new business. Not enough money to upgrade what already exists and is working.
Stubborness - when we do have the money and time to upgrade a SS2000 server, the business users usually dig in their heels and fight it. Why? What they have works and upgrading even just to SS2005 means major changes. DTS packages need to become SSIS packages, old style joins have to be changed, and there are other things in SS2000 that don't exist in SS2005 and beyond (textcopy is one). That can mean major re-writes and headaches for the business group and their developers...it's easier to put it off and say we'll work on changing our existing stuff and once we have it all re-writtten then we can upgrade (of course it never happens).
-SQLBill
March 12, 2012 at 9:52 am
Yes, still running an application with a lot of stored procedures with the obsolete join syntax. New system has been developed and is slated to go into production next week!
March 12, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Still using 2000 for a couple data collection projects, but we are working with molding machines that are equally as old. The interface to the PLCs doesn't change, and the server is running stable in a VM, so no reasons to upgrage.
Its sort of like an older car, yes, it might break down, and Ford or GM might not support it, but at least for now there is still a large number of people that can work with 2000, so no need to run out and change, plus we haven't had a single issue with it in 10 years.
May 16, 2012 at 3:45 am
Dustin Tabor-299352 (3/12/2012)
Its sort of like an older car, yes, it might break down, and Ford or GM might not support it, but at least for now there is still a large number of people that can work with 2000, so no need to run out and change, plus we haven't had a single issue with it in 10 years.
Something SAAB owners will now have to get used to! 😉
qh
May 16, 2012 at 5:54 am
The big problem with running it beyond 2014 is that if a virus comes out that effects SQL2000 Microsoft will no longer create a fix for it. THAT is the big issue really... are you willing to allow your company to become a victim.
May 16, 2012 at 6:49 am
Markus (5/16/2012)
The big problem with running it beyond 2014 is that if a virus comes out that effects SQL2000 Microsoft will no longer create a fix for it. THAT is the big issue really... are you willing to allow your company to become a victim.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point, but if someone is still using SQL Server 2000, they just need to keep their firewall, anti-virus scanner, and disaster recovery plan updated.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
May 16, 2012 at 6:55 am
Not enough really. I don't think a CIO/CEO would say that is acceptable if someone wreaked havoc on that SQL Server install or stole data from it and I don't think SOX would say that is acceptable either. A new virus could be exploited and there would be no fix for it and since it will be 100% out of support next year Microsoft won't create a fix for it.
May 16, 2012 at 7:05 am
Markus (5/16/2012)
Not enough really. I don't think a CIO/CEO would say that is acceptable if someone wreaked havoc on that SQL Server install or stole data from it and I don't think SOX would say that is acceptable either. A new virus could be exploited and there would be no fix for it and since it will be 100% out of support next year Microsoft won't create a fix for it.
If a virus hit your SQL Server box, would you call Microsoft?
I mean, the process would be to either scan/clean or wipe the server, re-install SQL Server if needed, and restore the database from backup if needed. None of that necessarily requires collaboration with Microsoft.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
May 16, 2012 at 7:27 am
I guess what I mean is a new vunerability that can be exploited in SQL Server... remember Slammer in 2003... Microsoft had to write a fix to the binaries that run SQL Server.... there have been about 8 since 2003 as well, the last one was last summer MS11_49.... MS09-062, MS08-052, MS08-040 MS03_031..... Not a Windows virus a SQL Server virus!
Viewing 13 posts - 46 through 57 (of 57 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply