February 4, 2016 at 9:17 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Who's Got a Preteen SQL Server?
February 4, 2016 at 10:07 pm
I still have a SQL 2005 instance running in production. It works fine, but the hardware is getting up there in age. We've setup new hardware with SQL 2012 and are going to migrate the database to it.
We also have SQL 2008 instances running. These are our beefier servers and, while they're going to need to be upgraded, they're our real workhorses. They also represent a significant financial investment and are going to be a harder pill to swallow for replacement. The move to a per-core license model isn't helping anyone make the case for an upgrade.
As a medium sized business, buying new hardware is a real investment. And that doesn't include the time and cost of migrating everything to the new hardware. When we buy hardware, we do it right, but we just can't buy it as frequently as larger companies. Would I like to upgrade everything? Absolutely, but costs are a very real part of the equation for us.
February 5, 2016 at 12:41 am
Most of ours are, in fact there are still a couple of 2000 boxes and one 7.
They run well but like Ed said, the hardware is the flakiest part of them (and not supported in many cases).
-------------------------------Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden [/url]Smart way to ask a question
There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand (the world). There is no such thing as a dumb question. ― Carl Sagan
I would never join a club that would allow me as a member - Groucho Marx
February 5, 2016 at 1:12 am
We have a few sql 2008 versions (not RC) but no 2005. I changed job recently to a smaller bank in Sweden and saw some sql 2008 versions and pointed out that they are nearly living on borrowed time so we've begun to look into it amongst other things. On the bright side, we have some sql server 2014 versions as well 🙂
February 5, 2016 at 2:27 am
SQL 2005 all the way!
I have MI applications running on 3 SQL Servers and they're all 2005 (one of them was originally written for 7 and got ported to 2005). It has been working fine for ages and due to a new business deal the applications are going to be retired within the next 2 years so there seems little point in going to the expense of upgrading.
Ben
^ Thats me!
----------------------------------------
01010111011010000110000101110100 01100001 0110001101101111011011010111000001101100011001010111010001100101 01110100011010010110110101100101 011101110110000101110011011101000110010101110010
----------------------------------------
February 5, 2016 at 2:42 am
For those of you still running on unsupported versions of SQL server, or continuing to run on 2005 after the EOL date, I'm curious what your take is on no longer having security patches for those products?
Do you see this as a significant risk, if so do you mitigate against it in other ways?
We religiously upgrade to keep at least within extended support for both OS and DB platform, partly for this reason, but I'm curious to know what others think regarding this!
February 5, 2016 at 3:38 am
2005 - a few, 2008 a few more.
Security patches ending? Look at my face, does it look bothered? One job less...
Depending on client requirements they will be upgraded as and when of course but no great rush.
February 5, 2016 at 5:47 am
steve.austin (2/5/2016)
For those of you still running on unsupported versions of SQL server, or continuing to run on 2005 after the EOL date, I'm curious what your take is on no longer having security patches for those products?Do you see this as a significant risk, if so do you mitigate against it in other ways?
We religiously upgrade to keep at least within extended support for both OS and DB platform, partly for this reason, but I'm curious to know what others think regarding this!
I'm curious about something here...
How many outright "security" updates / patches has there been for the various SQL versions since say SQL 2000? Not the "this CU will help mitigate SQL injection" but out-and-out MS Security Bulletin security updates? (And yes, I know SQL injection is a security issue, but it can be handled at the front end just as easily unless your devs are numpties.)
I'm required to stay "on-support" for my SQL and OS, which is why in the coming months I'm getting the fun of migrating both my OS and SQL to new versions in one go. (Thank heavens for QA first, and all VMs, I can get the new boxes up, let people test them while keeping the old ones up as well.)
February 5, 2016 at 6:18 am
At our shop we have literally hundreds of SQL Server installs (~800 at last count) and they run the gauntlet from 2000 through 2014. We have an embarrassing number of SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 servers. The main problem is the applications on those servers continue to run and the people controlling the budgets don't see any ROI for upgrades. Of course some of them are so old we have no one around that even knows much about the applications. Most of these older server are internal use only so we have some small level of security from the outside world, but that is really as good as the rest of our network security. In regards to hardware, we have moved most of these old servers to VMs so at least we have some newer hardware. Of course there are always those couple that everyone is afraid to move for one reason or another. It is personally one of my biggest concerns about our environment, but the higher ups have been told the consequences and have made a decision. Where we can we still try to work around corporate restrictions to get some of these upgraded, but with this many servers it's a long road when you try to stay under the radar. We do always plan to install the latest version for our new servers at least.
In case anyone cares, our Oracle environment is a similar stretch of versions from unsupported to current.:-)
February 5, 2016 at 7:33 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/4/2016)
Comments posted to this topic are about the item <A HREF="/articles/Editorial/137086/">Who's Got a teenage SQL Server?</A>
I corrected your type. I am sure you meant to ask who has a teenage version, not a pre-teen. I mean, there can't be any vendors out there who actually keep up to date on product versions, are there?
Seriously, even the new installs we are doing are SQL 2012. I think there is a chance we will install 2014 when we implement new servers for SCCM, but that is in question due to the amount of money that MS demands.
Dave
February 5, 2016 at 8:55 am
steve.austin (2/5/2016)
For those of you still running on unsupported versions of SQL server, or continuing to run on 2005 after the EOL date, I'm curious what your take is on no longer having security patches for those products?Do you see this as a significant risk, if so do you mitigate against it in other ways?
We religiously upgrade to keep at least within extended support for both OS and DB platform, partly for this reason, but I'm curious to know what others think regarding this!
With no more service packs, cumulative updates and security patches for it, the product is finally stable. 😛
I don't apply all the latest patches right away. I'm sure we all remember SQL 2000 SP3, SQL 2005 SP4 and the first SQL 2014 SP1 and the problems they caused. I value stability and availability way too much to apply everything immediately. We don't have spare servers standing by to drop in place at a moment's notice when one breaks.
February 5, 2016 at 8:59 am
I must say that I'm relieved to know that others have preteen SQL Servers. I know the SQL 2005 forums still get questions, but sometimes I feel like I'm so far behind in my SQL Servers that I'll never get everything caught up to the current versions. It's nice to know that others are running SQL 2000 successfully.
The cost of upgrading a SQL 2008, 2005 or 2000 is a very real one. They're already paid for and work fine. The per core licensing model can add up very quickly.
February 5, 2016 at 9:12 am
We have two 2005 installs though one has been unused until recently because we couldn't upgrade it and it was still at RTM (seriously). Turns out the account or group created during original install was missing from AD and we had to recreate it then fiddle with the SIDs in the registry. Then we were able to get it fully patched.
Last year we tried to get an upgrade to 2014 but the penny-pinchers nixed us. We're considering options such as moving to postgres or even an Express version if we can work around some of the limitations.
Frankly, MS needs to have some sort of intermediate version or licensing for businesses that are too big for Express yet run only a couple databases or instances.
____________
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.
February 5, 2016 at 9:23 am
We have a mixture of SQL 2005, 2008 R2 and 2012 databases. I don't know the total number, but I know all of them are several hundred. Fortunately most are at least SQL 2008 R2. However we do have about 2 dozen SQL 2005 databases. We're working on migrating all of those to SQL 2012.
Kindest Regards, Rod Connect with me on LinkedIn.
February 5, 2016 at 10:31 am
Stuart Davies (2/5/2016)
Most of ours are, in fact there are still a couple of 2000 boxes and one 7.They run well but like Ed said, the hardware is the flakiest part of them (and not supported in many cases).
Any reason not to use VMs for these? Even 1:1 on the hardware host?
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply