April 18, 2013 at 11:18 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Upgrading to 2012
April 19, 2013 at 1:14 am
The shift to per core licencing rather than per CPU while a reasonable thing to do does have big cost implications.
"Always-on" technology puts us in a good place for hybrid cloud implementations.
Column store indexes definitely justify the cost if you are running a data warehouse.
If security is a constant concern then the security enhancements of 2012 may be worth it.
I'm going to say something contraversial here. You can do cold hard financial logical analysis of cost vs benefits and put forward a recommendation but if your business people read about a fabulous new feature that will solve all their problems then somehow fact based cost analysis goes out of the window. Even if the facts say don't the "feeling" is do. A bit of a double-edged sword that one so make sure you are holding the handle.
April 19, 2013 at 3:04 am
I'm happily using SQL2008 and still finalizing the shift from older 2005/2000 servers to 2008, with one exception our sharepoint 2010 install is run using SQL 2012 as the BI integration is far beyond all previous versions and the only selling point as far as the business was concerned. The majority of business apps need a working database and unless application vendors insist on new versions we stay where we are.
April 19, 2013 at 5:14 am
We're in the process of upgrading, and in fact, we're going live this weekend with SQL 2012. It's only one instance of many.
Our company skips releases, so we're moving from SQL 2005 to SQL 2012. For us, it is NOT cost effective to upgrade to every SQL release because it takes us about 3 years to migrate all databases over to the next version; which coincides with MS 3 year release plan. If we upgraded with every release, my full time job would be upgrades.
SQL 2012 is an outstanding release.
April 19, 2013 at 6:07 am
Our customer base still mostly runs XP and they don't plan to upgrade their OS soon. So we go where the money is therefore we will stay with 2008 R2 for quite long.
So long that I'm not ever sure if we will upgrade on the next release of SQL server (v. 12) either.
I know, this will be quite an issue.
April 19, 2013 at 6:32 am
We have no plans to upgrade to 2012. For us, there is so discernible business benefit to doing so.
We have a mix of applications running both 2005 and 2008, and they're all working fine. These are straightforward client server apps with nothing fancy involved, just basic d/b functions and a little BI. If it ain't broke ...
Sigerson
"No pressure, no diamonds." - Thomas Carlyle
April 19, 2013 at 6:51 am
Many of our SQL server instances are running packaged software. It's up to the vendors when they switch. We usually follow suit about a year later.
We have two vendors still running 2005, most are on 2008 and none are planning for 2012.
April 19, 2013 at 7:36 am
We're a US government (US Air Force) organization and we'll be sticking with 2008 R2 for the forseeable future. My specific application runs using SQL 2008 on three different networks, all of different classification levels. In order for us to upgrade anything we have to get Information Assurance and the security officers to approve the new software for all three networks. That's typically a nightmare. Fortunately SQL is US-owned software so the process is much simpler. Getting software developed by foreign-owned companies approved is nearly impossible.
April 19, 2013 at 7:45 am
Greetings,
I am currently in the process of updating our system to SQL 2012. Our present system is SQL 2005. Needless to say, this is causing us some problems as 2005 is no longer supported or being updated. So, by making the big jump from 2005 to 2012, the company felt that we could avoid the need to run a database upgrade for at least 5 years. We can also keep our system more secure with the better security enhancements and encryption techniques. We felt it was easier than upgrading to 2008 and then needing to upgrade again in 2 - 3 years.
Have a good day.
April 19, 2013 at 7:51 am
Two words: Columnstore rocks! It's a game changer in SQL Server 2012, & even more so now that it's writeable in SQL Server v.next codename SQL 14 (& already in production in PDW). By itself, columnstore can be a compelling reason to upgrade.
April 19, 2013 at 7:52 am
Friday Greetings! 😀
The "Always On" high-availibilty cluster is reason enough for us to upgrade our production environment. Doing away with an older marathon solution and offloading our SSRS reports to the secondary server using "ApplicationIntent=ReadOnly"...
In testing as we speak and scheduled to go-live at the end of the month! 🙂
April 19, 2013 at 9:01 am
We are running SQL Server 2008 R2 and I am putting my case together to move to SQL Servre 2012 in from of management. We are 24*7 SaaS company and using Mirroring+ Log shipping for HADR. I Alwasys On feature will help us a lot in case of any disaster.
April 19, 2013 at 9:30 am
SQL Server 2012 has introduced some significant changes in services and features like availability options, Semantic Search, FileTables, ColumnStore indexes, to name a few. For a DBA or BI developer, it's a leap forward.
From a T-SQL developer's perspective, the ability to THROW and error from a CATCH block is nice to have, and I'm liking the CONCAT and CHOOSE functions, but 2012 is less of a game changer than 2005 or even 2008. It also depends on whether you're leveraging spacial or file related types in your data model.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
April 19, 2013 at 9:53 am
I have been using SQL Server 2012 in production since SP1 was released. We are a small organization, however, and it is easier to make changes. My main motivation for upgrading (SQL Server 2008 R2 SE -> SQL Server 2012 EE) was to take advantage of Master Data Services, and that has worked out very well (though I went through a bit of hell getting it to work prior to SP1).
I am currently evaluating the BI features of SharePoint 2013, also running against SQL Server 2012. It was surprisingly easy to set up, relatively speaking. We may also decide to take advantage of AlwaysOn at some point.
Several production databases are still running on the old SQL Server 2008 R2 server, but only because we haven't taken the time to move them yet. AlwaysOn may provide incentive for doing that.
(Edit: old servers are SQL Server 2008 R2, not 2008 RTM.)
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 37 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply