February 5, 2016 at 10:31 am
BenWard (2/5/2016)
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.
I tend to agree.
February 5, 2016 at 10:45 am
djackson 22568 (2/5/2016)
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?
SQL 2005 is 10, pre-teen, not teenage.
February 5, 2016 at 11:19 am
For us, the push to get off SQL2005 over the last year hasn't been to get away from SQL2005 as much as to get off the Windows Server 2003 that they were all running on. Security patches for SQL have been few enough over time that running on an unsupported version of SQL for a few extra years has been considered an acceptable risk by our IT Security group. That is not the case with unsupported versions of Windows Server.
February 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Tony Lanterman (2/5/2016)
For us, the push to get off SQL2005 over the last year hasn't been to get away from SQL2005 as much as to get off the Windows Server 2003 that they were all running on. Security patches for SQL have been few enough over time that running on an unsupported version of SQL for a few extra years has been considered an acceptable risk by our IT Security group. That is not the case with unsupported versions of Windows Server.
I think that's definitely an issue. I'd also note that hardware is a bigger issue as well, so I'd P->V, and then upgrade to Win 2008 or Win2012 at least.
February 5, 2016 at 3:14 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/5/2016)
Tony Lanterman (2/5/2016)
For us, the push to get off SQL2005 over the last year hasn't been to get away from SQL2005 as much as to get off the Windows Server 2003 that they were all running on. Security patches for SQL have been few enough over time that running on an unsupported version of SQL for a few extra years has been considered an acceptable risk by our IT Security group. That is not the case with unsupported versions of Windows Server.I think that's definitely an issue. I'd also note that hardware is a bigger issue as well, so I'd P->V, and then upgrade to Win 2008 or Win2012 at least.
P->V can be a nice option for getting rid of the ancient underlying hardware, but has a large financial hit for SQL licensing if your virtual cluster uses VMotion and didn't keep Software Assurance up to date.
We've found upgrades from SQL2005 to SQL2012 can be problematic. Far too much older code using practices which Microsoft no longer supports in SQL2012.
February 8, 2016 at 6:20 am
I have been pushing app folks for 3 years to get into their budgets upgrades OR replacement products for things running on Windows 2003/SQL 2005. We only have three apps left, one of them will be upgraded in March, second one is in parallel in production and will cut over in March or April. The third is going to be SAAS to replace it by end 3rd quarter we hope. Last year we upgraded about a dozen applications from 2005 to 2012. This year I have begun a heavy push to prod folks about 2008 database applications. That is what we have the most in and will take a good 4 years to upgrade everything. 2019 extended support date for 2008 and 2008R2 will be here before we know it.
We still have 98 Windows 2003 servers here and now there is a great push on to upgrade or sunset these.
February 8, 2016 at 7:31 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/5/2016)
djackson 22568 (2/5/2016)
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?
SQL 2005 is 10, pre-teen, not teenage.
My point is that it might have been "more accurate" to ask how many had teenage, as I am betting very few people are on 2014 or newer. We have over 50 production installations of SQL Server, and only one of them is 2014.
2012 and older? Yeah, pretty much everyone should have those at this point, given how business is reluctant to spend money, and how Microsoft is overcharging.
Dave
February 9, 2016 at 9:31 am
I don't know if MS is overcharging, but they are certainly charging quite a bit. Upgrades, especially when you hit 2012, are big decisions with cost implications.
I do survey people, and it seems most people are in the 2008-2012 range. Certainly a good amount of 2014 out there, and not a lot of 2000/2005, but they are there.
February 9, 2016 at 11:34 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/9/2016)
I don't know if MS is overcharging, but they are certainly charging quite a bit. Upgrades, especially when you hit 2012, are big decisions with cost implications.I do survey people, and it seems most people are in the 2008-2012 range. Certainly a good amount of 2014 out there, and not a lot of 2000/2005, but they are there.
My attempt at humor was not meant to imply that you don't survey people. I apologize if it sounded that way. 🙁
I guess it depends on various things. What industry we are in, whether we purchase from a software vendor that requires a particular version, whether we do our own development...
Dave
February 15, 2016 at 8:10 am
Before joining here some years ago I would have been surprised by the number of supported "older" versions of SQL Server. Having listened to the arguments, debates and discussions over the years I am far from surprised.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
March 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Everything is 2008 R2. Wish we would upgrade.
April 6, 2016 at 5:43 am
I think in some cases (or maybe a lot more) the problem is that some application have not been tested with higher versions of SQL Server. I've seen cases where the CTO has said "Can't upgrade as the app won't work with SQL 2008/2012. I was quite shocked by that.
qh
April 6, 2016 at 6:11 am
I don't know if MS is overcharging, but they are certainly charging quite a bit. Upgrades, especially when you hit 2012, are big decisions with cost implications.
When database server license costs are one of the largest percentages of the applications budget, customers have some serious considerations to make.
April 7, 2016 at 5:26 am
Back in 2007/2012 our company was in flux and we didn't do many upgrades at all and we fell way behind in keeping upgrades going... had a lot of SQL2000 and 2005. Fast forward to 2013 till now and we are in much better shape as we are moving forward with upgrades at the IT budget level. I have also been prodding apps folks to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade as well which moves things along well. We had our last SQL2000 db in May 2014 and I have been actively moving everything off of SQL2005... we have two old apps still on it thought I must say... one is going to SAAS in June and the other is in parallel testing to SQL2012. I have been attempting to be ahead of the game with everything we have still in SQL2008 and 2008R2. Hope to be close to off of it before it goes completely out of support in 2019.
Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply