April 27, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Regular Service
April 28, 2010 at 1:01 am
So far I've found SQL Server 2008 SP1 to be rock solid. I run the X64 version on a Windows Server 2008 x64.
I'm now contemplating R2 i.e. not worried about SP2.
My company is likely to adopt Power Pivot so we need R2 and Office 2010.
It is nice to be bleeding edge for a change but with 2008 I have nothing bad to say about it, only praise.
David
April 28, 2010 at 1:11 am
Hi Steve,
I'm sure you won't be surprised a bit about my comments 😀
it is intended to correct only the problems that are described in this article. Apply it only to systems that are experiencing these specific problems.
if you are not severely affected by any of these problems, we recommend that you wait for the next SQL Server 2005 service pack that contains the hotfixes in this cumulative update package.
These are two quotes from this KB article on CU8 for SQL2005 SP2. All other CUs I checked have, and always had, the same or similar advice. Many companies will take this advice seriously, so until they run into real problems, they will avoid the CUs and wait for the next SP.
Another problem I have with the "no SPs" policy is that this text above is, maybe not explicit, but at least implictly a promise that there will be a next service pack. How can you tell customers to wait for a next service pack, than not release one?
So yes, I do think that service packs should be released, and on a regular and predictable cycle. The first one 6 months after RTM, and then a 12-month cycle. Unless really serious or annying bugs are fixed, that should warrant an intermediate extra SP (or, better, a CU with a different advice).
Either that, or increase the testing of CUs, advice customers to install each CU, and abandon SPs completely.
April 28, 2010 at 1:20 am
David Conn (4/28/2010)
It is nice to be bleeding edge for a change but with 2008 I have nothing bad to say about it, only praise.
David
[font="Verdana"]Please add 1 more vote to it. If not biased about Oracle etc Releases.[/font]
April 28, 2010 at 3:21 am
I agree with Steve, a regular Service Pack, every year for the supported life of the product. That would mean Service Pack 4 is that last for SQL Server 2008. You can live with that, without getting to SP5a (remember SQL 6.5). It also gives you an upgrade schedule and some known certainty, without having to lobby for a service pack (SQL 2005). The wider implication would be not just for SQL Server but for every Microsoft supported product.
April 28, 2010 at 4:46 am
I am with you, Steve. There are always security vulnerabilities to mitigate and features to tweak. SPs could also be used to stair step the product into the next major release.
April 28, 2010 at 5:07 am
Releasing CU's and SP's must be incredibly expensive and laborious for MS. And yet, they are freely available to anyone - even those who DON'T own the product. And yet, here we are complaining that we aren't getting our FREE update.
I don't know about you, but I have to pay good money (usually about $350) for regular servicing on my car. Trust me, I would wait an extra month or two or six if I could get it for FREE.
James Stover, McDBA
April 28, 2010 at 6:06 am
I guess I am confused by all of this from Microsoft. CU's originally were supposed to ONLY be applied if you were experiencing a problem that was addressed by a CU as CU's originally had a disclaimer stating that fixes within these were to undergo more testing to be rolled up into a SP. However, it almost appears that CU's are now patches to be applied instead of a rolled up SP anymore. The last time I opened a case with Microsoft on a SQL 2008 issue the technician suggested applying the latest CU eventhough it had nothing to do with my issue.
I wish Microsoft would at least officially state one way or another what CU's intention is and if and when we will get a SP4 for SQL 2005 or a SP2 for SQL 2008.
April 28, 2010 at 6:20 am
I vote for the SP's on a regular basis. I like to avoid the Cu's unless it fixes a problem.
Mike
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”...Robert McCloskey
___________________________________________________________________
April 28, 2010 at 6:28 am
I vote for SP's on a regular basis. My gut instincts tell me that cherry picking CUs is going to cause me problems at some point.
April 28, 2010 at 6:39 am
I agree with the idea of committing, in writing to a minimum of yearly service packs, with a set date for release. Too many depend too much on enterprise level systems like SQL Server for it to be left to Microsoft's whims on what and when they will provide maintenance and updates.
April 28, 2010 at 6:44 am
The analogy is not really accurate. Auto maintenance is to combat wear and deterioration, which inevitably occur.
Software does not wear, does not deteriorate. With the same inputs it behaves exactly the same today as it did 6 months ago. So, unless there are critical bugs or vulnerabilities discovered, if it is doing everything you want ...
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
April 28, 2010 at 6:56 am
Regular auto service is one thing. But, comparing that to SQL Server updates is like comparing apples to elephants; unless you're actually putting oil in your server and rotating the motherboards. 😉
I think Microsoft does admirable job with its SPs. It's a very compliacted product and to chastise Microsoft for being "late" is short-sighted. I'd rather they release a correct SP than release something on time that needs to be patched again.
April 28, 2010 at 6:57 am
bwillsie-842793 (4/28/2010)
I vote for SP's on a regular basis. My gut instincts tell me that cherry picking CUs is going to cause me problems at some point.
Note that you can't cherry pick. The CUs are built on top of each other, so they are in effect, rolling up some changes from previous CUs.
April 28, 2010 at 6:58 am
jay holovacs (4/28/2010)
The analogy is not really accurate. Auto maintenance is to combat wear and deterioration, which inevitably occur.Software does not wear, does not deteriorate. With the same inputs it behaves exactly the same today as it did 6 months ago. So, unless there are critical bugs or vulnerabilities discovered, if it is doing everything you want ...
Correct, but there are constant issues that are being corrected, as shown by the CUs. Are any of them biting you? You might be working around something that is fixed in a patch.
The analogy is weak, but I think regular attention to bringing the product up to speed is something that ought to be considered.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 48 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply