| Author |
Topic |
|
AskSQLTeam
Ask SQLTeam Question
0 Posts |
|
|
spirit1
Cybernetic Yak Master
11752 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-31 : 12:18:05
|
you should add the option:after sp1Go with the flow & have fun! Else fight the flow  |
 |
|
|
graz
Chief SQLTeam Crack Dealer
4149 Posts |
Posted - 2005-10-31 : 18:40:04
|
| Great idea!===============================================Creating tomorrow's legacy systems today.One crisis at a time. |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
841 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-13 : 14:50:27
|
| anyone roughly know when sp1 is likely to come out? |
|
|
|
spirit1
Cybernetic Yak Master
11752 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-14 : 09:15:37
|
how accurate is this i have no idea...but my friend told me that his friend who works for MS here in slovenia told him it'll be at the end of 2006.i do think that Paul Randal is the guy to talk to though  Go with the flow & have fun! Else fight the flow |
|
|
|
elwoos
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2052 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-15 : 03:01:59
|
| It's usually around about a year after the launch isn't it?steve-----------Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
841 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-15 : 11:29:44
|
| great, that means i'm on 2000 for another year :-( |
|
|
|
elwoos
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
2052 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-16 : 03:41:11
|
| Alternatively it means you can play with 2005 for a year :)steve-----------Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
841 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 03:56:25
|
| I'll be too busy to play I'm afraid.Can we talk about this for a moment ladies and gents?What really is the course of wisdom here? What is the risk of running with SQL 2005 before the sp1 release?How many businesses out there (that turn over hundreds of millions of pounds) are going to run on SQL2005 before sp1 release?Is it safe enough to just apply the hotfixes as they come out?How time consuming/envolved/potentially dangerous is that?Side point:Has anyone had any problems upgrading a production database to 2005? |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 05:54:08
|
| "Can we talk about this for a moment ladies and gents?"What feature in SQL2005 can you NOT live without - or what feature [e.g. perhaps new maintenance tools or scalability] will make a significant difference to your business?How will you find "knowledge" when you have a problem specific to SQL2005 whilst it is still "new-ish"? What risk do you associate with that taking longer than with SQL2000? And based on that what is the increased-cost-of-working with SQL2005 whilst its new and "knowledge" is rarer?These are standard "early adopter" cost-benefit-analysis questions aren't they?In my position I add to that "How soon will our clients upgrade to the new version" - that takes budgets / roll-out timescales / etc. I can hassle them once SQL2005 provides clear advantage, but I know it will e a year or so, and overall that means that, for me, I'm in no rush.Kristen |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
841 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 06:36:30
|
| All good sensible comments Kristen. In my situation, I am in fulltime employment so I dont have "clients" to think of as such. My only client is my employer.I am going to be required to roll out an OLAP solution to go along with the OLTP one I have already provided which is launching in a couple of months. We are also wanting to go to 64 bit and get a SAN - and I would want to do these two things before going to SQL2005 and doing the OLAP DB. Robvolk sort of encouraged me therefore to start looking at 2005.Because I assume 2005 is a whole lot more resource hungry - especially if one server (maybe with virtual servers installed) with a SAN is required to run the OLTP and OLAP db. We are still choosing between one quad or two dual processor servers. Either way the 1 server or 2 servers would both use the SANI digress...OLAP seems a lot better to implement using 2005. And my employer wont wait a year for it. So I am faced with doing OLAP in 2000 or upgrading to 2005. |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 07:14:51
|
"OLAP seems a lot better to implement using 2005"Sounds like a good reason."We are still choosing between one quad or two dual processor servers"There are two routes:1) carefully tuned queries2) carefully selected hardware (lots of processors, lots of memory, lots of disk drives, several disk channels  )IME (2) beats the hell out of all the other things that get in your way. Then you can use "fine tuning" over time to get more out of the hardware, and thus retain the hardware for a decent length of time.I'm looking at the stats on a clients box just now, they sell toys online so its a busy time of year for them. They bought a fancy server last year, and this year its "activity" level is 1/3rd of last years, but they are doing nearly 2x as much business. The difference is the fine tuning that we have done to their application during the year. We have plans to halve the "activity" level again next year, so his machine is good for another year at least.Kristen |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
841 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 08:09:57
|
| so would you choose 1 quad processor server or two dual processor servers? (either way, the licensing remains the same) |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 08:25:02
|
| Depends if you can load balance the two servers.Two 2xCPU servers will do more work than one 4xCPU server, all other things being equal.More effort to maintain two servers (even assuming the warehousing of the data on each is identical). More backups(?), more pulling data [pulling the data into two servers and making two warehouses is going to cost bandwidth].But more redundancy / resilience tooKristen |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
841 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 08:35:03
|
| you see, this is my problem, too many choicesi wish i had a bullet-proof system analysis procedure that i could go through on paper that would guide me to a conclusion that I feel confident in - on balance |
|
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 09:13:11
|
| Analysis-paralysis eh?!Kristen |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
841 Posts |
Posted - 2005-11-17 : 09:28:59
|
| You prefer the "on-a-wing-and-a-prayer" approach then ey? |
|
|
|
sqlghost
Starting Member
23 Posts |
Posted - 2006-02-24 : 08:25:11
|
| I'm waiting for a server release of the Next version of Windows (Vista Server?)Then I will upgrade all machines, DB servers, web servers, workstations at the same time to a 64bit platform with the latest MS software. |
|
|
|
jen
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
4110 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-01 : 01:11:10
|
| you may wait a little longerattended a vista sneak preview last december and the screen just froze for 1/2 an hour till they just reboot the box Funny thing is that they have a new look to it, with the grass swaying in the wind and the grass just froze, ha ha hagood thing, the presentor acknowledges that it is still not in the "roll out" stage --------------------keeping it simple... |
|
|
|
jhermiz
3564 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-23 : 13:29:27
|
I read that vista wont be released till after the holiday season so going into 2k7.
Keeping the web experience alive -- [url]http://www.web-impulse.com[/url]RS Blog -- [url]http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/jhermiz[/url] |
|
|
|
coolerbob
Aged Yak Warrior
841 Posts |
Posted - 2006-03-23 : 14:50:07
|
| man oh man, just tried to use sql2005 integration services for the first time. got slam dunked. it's such a world apart from what went before it. dont know where to start! there's so much of it! couldnt even get something simple done like select data from an odbc driver for sage into a sql table.i think i will leave it well alone for a while. |
|
|
|
Next Page
|
Poll: Plans to upgrade first production server to 2005