Solid
-
It's been half a year since SQL Server 2005 was released and it's shown itself to be a fairly solid product. There have been a few reports testifying to the fact that no major bugs have shown up. In fact, the only thing that seems to be slow with SQL Server 2005 is the adoption rate.
Some of the surveys I've seen on all types of Microsoft products usually show that companies like to wait until the first service pack is released before adopting a product. In most of the companies I've worked for with more than 1,000 people, you need that much time just to test the product for deployment. When the service pack comes out, you just do a short regression test before deployment.
I understand waiting until some time has passed before deployment. Personally I don't like working on Beta/CTP/early release software myself because I don't often have time. I'll see Vista when it's released, not before. I made some exceptions with SQL Server 2005, but I certainly didn't install all the CTPs. It's too much work.
This version of SQL Server has been very solid, however, and it's time to start looking at it if you haven't. With the long development cycle and support for SQL Server 7 gone, it won't be too long before support for SQL Server 2000 will wane. It's a couple years, but that will pass quicker than you expect.
And you have a lot to learn!
SQL Server 2005 is a very solid product, with very few bugs. Service Pack 1, which brought Database Mirroring to RTM, may lead to more deployments as will the culmination of the testing cycles in progress right now.
Interestingly enough, it seems that the RTM version of SQL Server 2005 has fewer bugs than the SP1 patched version. There were quite a few reports of issues brought on by the service pack, though I'm sure that many minor things were fixed.
Now if Microsoft would just get that quarterly SP cycle going ...
Steve Jones
-
Hi Steve,
what would be the major business justifications for moving to SQL Server 2005?
David
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
-
I have installed SQL 2005 on a test server for me to play with and get used to it. My personal feeling is the product is better, but, the install part that lets you now pick which things you install vs. installing everything is a little too vague. I have to say I do not like the Ent. Manager replacement as much.. it is a little confusing and not as simple to use. The Maint. wizard is more confusing and takes more steps to do the same tasks as in SQL 2000. I think they took away ease of use here for sure. I used to be able to tell our Oracle DBA in less than two minutes I can setup and schedule a db backup... Oracle is much more challenging here... The ability to delete backups easily through the wizard are gone. You have to manually add this task and I still cannot figure out how to get it to work. I have the task added, says it works but doesn't delete anything. Why couldn't they just simply have it as an option in the wizard to check a box like in 2000.. I don't understand.... I also then, applied SP1.. now when I try to edit Maint. plans and make changes it prompts me at save for a description... description for what ?... something is broken... Also, the import/export data doesn't work after SP1.... Our MSFT support contract has expired so I cannot open a call to them but as soon as the contract is signed I will. I have also seen there is a hotfix for SP1 for some issues... seems a little sloppy to me. I am not getting a good warm and fuzzy about SQL 2005 deployment to production at this point.
-
Maybe I am just missing something, but I don't get the picture of the rock with the caption 'I ain't as stupid as I look.' What's the rock suppose to be?
Is there suppose to be some kind of a fossil or is the X some kind of marking? There is no reference to the rock in the article.
Live to Throw
Throw to Live
Will Summers -
I think Steve is implying that SQL Server 2005 is as 'solid as a rock'.
Of course, he could be implying it isn't all it is cracked up to be...
I suggested to my boss that we get a copy for evaluation, but couldn't convince him that there was any good reason to migrate from SQL Server 2000.
David
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
-
David asked about business justifications for moving to SQL Server 2005. As Steve mentioned in his article, support for SQL Server 2000 will eventually wane (both from Microsoft and the community). Beyond that, I don't see any such justification.
Sadly, until the small/medium-sized business community moves to open source alternatives (and there's no indication that they will)...MS has us by the proverbial b*#%s.
With regard to the impression that SQL Server 2005 is relatively solid. I don't have direct experience, but the reviews I'm reading are mixed. In addition, people don't seem thrilled with the new interface tool. As for me, I'm not to excited about having to re-tool, or possibly discard, DTS packages that took much effort to perfect.
From a technical point of view, this upgrade seems unnecessary. Having said that, after putting it off as long as possible, we'll eventually have to make the change.
-
I wonder are there any figures available for the take-up of SQL Server 2005 that differentiate new installations and migrations/upgrades?
David
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
-
The rock is Solid as a rock, meaning the title. Wasn't the best image I could find, but I know some of my friends will like the caption and remind me at softball this week
.As far as the business justifications, I'll probably get some hate mail from MS on this, but I think that if your SQL 2000 installation is running well and it meets your needs, there's no reason to upgrade.
If you are running 7, then you need to upgrade for support reasons, and I'd recommend 2005 so you don't get into the support issue in 2 years. But 2000 would be a closer upgrade for v7 installations as not much changed. When 7 was released, the PASS Summit after that showed a 7.5 release in the works. Add a few features and all of a sudden we had 2000 instead of a point release.
If there is something in 2005 that you are looking for, Service Broker messaging, CLR functions, bigger clusters or partitioning, or even some of the T-SQL enhancements, then look at the upgrade. It's a good product, runs well, and seems to handle much larger loads.
However it's a paradigm change, so it means more administrative overhead and training while your staff gets up to speed. Good for people like me that write articles, we do training now, etc., but not so great for the average company. The next version of SQL Server definitely needs to resuse Management Studio (although fix it), and keep as much of this paradigm as possible so the training investment sticks.
Also, not to be plugging myself, but I am finishing a short e-book on Maintenance Plans because I thought they were more complicated than a couple articles. I address some of those issues and also point out those faults that you found.
-
We are currently trying to migrate to SQL2005. I have found that the two biggest differences are system tables and SSIS. Migrating from DTS to SSIS is anything but simple especially if any vbscripts are involved. Unfortunately, while it is nice, Microsoft's migration wizard doesn't seem to do as well as it many place on the net, which flaunt it, claim.
I did get a copy of Brian Knight and friends SQL Server 2005 Integration Services book which has helped immensly. But like the book says, you pretty much have to throw out all your DTS skills and start over.
I guess my main point is, don't expect a simple migration unless you only have a basic set of simple databases without any fancy DTS packages.
On the bright side of things, once you do get migrated over, SQL2005 coupled with SSIS does seem to live up to its name in capabilities. It takes a little adjusting but overall it is much nicer.
-
We have a guy on our team that's really chomping at the bit to upgrade, but there are two things that keep holding us back. DTS and Analysis Services.
There aren't a lot of people out there that use AS, but we have a pretty large install base of Proclarity (recently purchased by Microsoft), and have a large AS data warehouse as the backend for Proclarity. From what we've seen so far, AS in 2005 is a big change, similar SSIS compared DTS. So we're going to have a pretty big job moving to AS 2005. Also, we have literally hundreds of DTS packages that perform the database to warehouse conversion, and moving to SSIS is going to be another large job. So for now, we're sitting on our laurels.
I'm going to make an unpopular comment, but I've never liked DTS. So I'm not sad to see it go away, as I've been pretty happy with the previews I've seen of SSIS. However, regardless of how good SSIS and AS 2005 are, we are looking at 2-3 months of man hours to do the upgrade.
-
I didn't see the solid title. The two shades of blue pretty much hide the text if you aren't looking for it. I didn't see any reference to rock in the article, so I didn't make the connection. Thanks.
Live to Throw
Throw to Live
Will Summers -
SQL2005 is noticeably faster.
SQL Management Studio is a dog.
Security is a whole new ball game.
I suspect a lot of features will only reveal their value as and when people really start to use them.
-
or their problems
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply