April 30, 2012 at 5:44 am
We have one database that we'll be migrating from 2005 to 2012 this year and another that we'll be migrating to 2008R2. Aside from those two, the rest of our databases are 2005. We'll be slowly migrating them, but I'm not sure if they'll go to 2008 or 2012.
April 30, 2012 at 5:59 am
Our client base (for our software solution) mainly uses XP so upgrading is not even "thinkable". We're a particular niche and we must conform to this situation.
April 30, 2012 at 5:59 am
We are in the middle of our largest SQL Server in our stores upgrade right now. The DB is moving from a Win2003 Active/Passive cluster running on SQL2000. The new environment is all Win2008R2 and the db is an active/passive Win2008R2 cluster running SQL2008R2. It will be rolled out to all of our stores by July. Our other large SQL2000 Cluster has 25 dbs and two of them have been moved to another Win2008/SQL2008R2 Cluster with the others in the beginning stages of dev/test.
Other than that we have a handful of other smaller dbs in SQL2000 yet to convert. I expect 90% of those will be converted by June of next year.
We have about 250 SQL Server dbs here.
Based on the fact that our critical store apps dbs will be just fresh moved to SQL2008R2 this year I just don't see SQL2012 being a we need to upgrade to it in the next few years at all. I am sure we will have a few apps that we will upgrade in the coming few years that will require SQL2012. However, I just don't see us upgrading just because the new version is out.
April 30, 2012 at 6:52 am
If I want to use a recent version of SQL Server in production, I'll have to change companies. I have more up-to-date hardware and software than my employer does...:w00t:
April 30, 2012 at 7:00 am
This is a business, in the business to be profitable. There is no justifiable business reason for us to spend the incredible amount of time and money it would cost to upgrade when the current version works just fine. Microsoft makes so many changes to licensing models that determining which edition you need to go to to keep the features you have is mind boggling. Can't simply go from 2005 Standard to 2012 Standard and assume that they didn't bump some of your required features up to the much more expensive editions (which they have, of course). That bad habit alone will keep us in 2005 for a long, long time.
April 30, 2012 at 7:35 am
We couldn't upgrade to 2012 even if we wanted to. A good portion of our data warehousing services are contracted out to a 3rd party vendor and they've not yet tested and certified their product for 2012. We really don't have much to gain by migrating to 2012 anyway unless the vendor makes some appropriate modifications to their product, which is doubtful for the near future. We are a public school system with limited funding and although we get SQL Server at heavily discounted rates, we just can't justify migrating to 2012 when our licensing fees would increase multifold and we would realize what amounts to no real advantages to offest the increase.
Although I've got no hard evidence to back me up, I would be willing to bet that Microsoft's change in the licensing model will result in slower than usual migrations to SQL Server 2008.
Oops! I just realized that the line above should have read "no hard evidence". I've made the necessary modification. Please forgive.
April 30, 2012 at 7:48 am
All the reasons you have stated are true, and the most important one among them is that businesses use technology, same way as one uses plumbing or electrical appliances or anything at home. Why would you replace them if they are working? I see so much tweeting and such from high end consultants on deploying 2012, maybe true of some niche businesses who can throw money at it, or technology companies. The real world is not anywhere close and will need a few years to catch up. This 2 year relase schedule Ms has itself is getting very difficult to keep up with. I think software as complex as databasaes should have one release every 5 years not before, if they want to see more adoption.
April 30, 2012 at 8:01 am
Our two store critical systems have been on SQL2000 because the cost justification just was not there. Our one system that is in rollout of a new application release and the back end dbs are now on SQL2008R2 the vendor supported all three versions of SQL Server for that very reason. The upgrade to our application was put off twice due to the sheer cost of getting all new hardware for the application servers and db server and Windows, SQL Server license. It is a huge cost not to mention the tons of hours of application folks and DBA staff. It has been a 6 month process already getting to this point. At this point there is NO way I could go to the VP and say I want to spend XX dollars to upgrade from 2008R2 to 2012. The benefit just isn't there. Granted, our SQL2000 environments were being pushed to their limits being 32 bit but now with a ton of memory and 64 bit I just cannot see how we can justify the upgrade until the hardware is fully depreciated. The key kicking us to upgrade dbs from SQL2000 is that Microsoft extended support ends in less than 12 months now.
April 30, 2012 at 8:18 am
Although I've got hard evidence to back me up, I would be willing to bet that Microsoft's change in the licensing model will result in slower than usual migrations to SQL Server 2008.
This is big around our company. We run a few very large databases and a swarm of smaller ones and right now management is locked in a struggle over that very topic. One wants to go forward, others do not want to spend money, it's cheaper to go this way now, some can't take the disruption until fall, etc etc. In the past the money wasn't really a big part of the planning, but now the technical and project planning aspects are definitely not driving things.
The larger problem for us is that some vendors, not necessarily MS, are doing more frequent, smaller releases and we're really in a culture of challenging upgrades now. It used to be the case that our fees allowed us to upgrade to whatever was next, and it was infrequent enough that moving to new hardware at the same time made sense. But now we get requests to take on upgrades with outages, regression testing and fees where the "feature" being sought is pretty minor. This is true for a range of software types and it makes life really hard for the staff we have on hand. I understand the vendor perspective of something New! to sell every year. Once a market goes that way it's hard to be pushing three year old code. But man, I don't need what a lot of these guys are selling. We only have so many hours to go around, and we have to choose based on our needs rather than their schedules.
[font="Arial"]Are you lost daddy? I asked tenderly.
Shut up he explained.[/font]
- Ring Lardner
April 30, 2012 at 8:25 am
This kind of puts people into a quandary because on the one hand the business for whatever reason(s) is not ready for the upgrade, and then on the other hand keeping up with the technology is put on hold, and as a result your resume tends to fall behind. Almost as soon as a new SQL version is out, companies start looking for it on your resume. This happened not only for SQL2008, but for SQL 2008R2 too. I suspect it will also happen for SQL 2012 shortly as well.:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
April 30, 2012 at 12:49 pm
TravisDBA (4/30/2012)
This kind of puts people into a quandary because on the one hand the business for whatever reason(s) is not ready for the upgrade, and then on the other hand keeping up with the technology is put on hold, and as a result your resume tends to fall behind. Almost as soon as a new SQL version is out, companies start looking for it on your resume. This happened not only for SQL2008, but for SQL 2008R2 too. I suspect it will also happen for SQL 2012 shortly as well.:-D
Sometimes I have to wonder if this is considered an unexpected bonus to companies. It doesn't drive their decisions to upgrade/not upgrade, but is considered an unexpected bonus when it works in their favor.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
April 30, 2012 at 1:16 pm
In the DW world the new column stores present a compelling case but if you are not in the DW world what problems does SQL2012 solve for you? Emphasis on the "YOU".
Another consideration is the versions you currently have to support. It's a pain to have to support 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2008R2 because you constantly have to context switch.
Replication behaves one way for 2000, and differently in 2008.
SSIS goes tits up between 2005 & 2008.
Security actually works properly from 2005SP2.
Combine the version numbers with service pack levels and the thought of introducing yet another version without deprecating or migrating off an old version just doesn't apeal.
If I can say migrate and consolidate will save you money due to fewer machines, fewer licenses and longevity of your SAN due to lower IO in your DW then I've got a strong case.
If I say that scarce resource will be freed for the projects the business want to enact in 2012 then I'm in with a chance.
If I say that it will make my pain go away then their threshold for my pain is incredibly high!
Is the developer version out yet?
Bless me but I'm still running XP at home quite happily and my PC is too old to run Windows 7. There's a recession on and I can't afford to replace a machine that continues to work absolutely fine with SQL2008, Office2010, fireFox etc.
April 30, 2012 at 1:57 pm
We do backups to tape using Netbackup and SQL 2012 is not supported by Symantec yet. Does anyone have a release date for that one?
April 30, 2012 at 2:07 pm
As far as resumes and interviews go, it is good to say you know something about the new product. but it ends there. I have attended more interviews where folks want and keep old versions and couldn't care less how much of the new one you know. But as a technologist i find this stance very discouraging. Go the pass conference this year, for example, and you wont see much on any earlier versions. Those of us who are on earlier versions are considered old in the techie community no matter how many reasons you list out. It is the hot new savvy consulting guys who get to showcase their work and in some cases also move on ahead.
April 30, 2012 at 5:54 pm
David.Poole Posted Today @ 3:16 PM
Is the developer version out yet?
Ordered my copy early this morning from Amazon,delivery
Monday, May 7, 2012
Price Shipment Total: $56.26 -- includes shipping via US Mail.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 35 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply