September 26, 2008 at 5:09 am
Hello!
First time poster and hoping you can help me with some doubts.
My company sells an application that administers it's database by SQL Server 2005 Express and as such, the application demands that SQL be installed in the costumers computer or net.
The big doubt is that we have a proposal to upgrade to SQL Server 2008 from our software company, but we have the fear that the requirements of 2008 will give us a lot of headaches (the computers that usually get the application installed are anything but top technology and we have already had problems because of this...) and also if it's new features will be helpful or not.
Comparing requirements, the big clincher, apart from hardware technology requirements, is double the minimum processing speed, and when you are installing on XP computers with 256 MB of RAM that are 10 years old, every thing that makes it easier counts.
At the moment, the biggest interest for us from 2008 is the possibility of not being limited to 4GB of database size and that it's faster during the treatment of information, but as for the rest, it doesn't really seem that necessary to me, the client will use it as a closed database, so it's not like they can use any of it's functions and the development team already has everything made with a 2005 base.
We also have the interest of making a content manager so that we can add new content and alter it without depending on the software company for changes, so I don't know either if SQL 2005 is a solid base for this or if it will make it easier to go to 2008.
Any suggestions and comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading.
September 26, 2008 at 7:03 am
In my opinion, if you do not need to use any of the new features in 2008, I'd stick without the upgrade for now. You do realize that unless you actually use the new features you could run on 2005 or 2008. One issue to consider is that apparently 2005 does not run on Vista 64.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
September 26, 2008 at 7:19 am
At the moment, the biggest interest for us from 2008 is the possibility of not being limited to 4GB of database size
Sql Server 2008 Express: 1CPU; 1GB of RAM; 4 GB DB size.
If that is the only feature you were interested in, then it didn't change from SQL 2005.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-specialized.aspx
September 26, 2008 at 8:16 am
Because you guys are running express, you actually have choices. I've got a machine with at least three versions of express from three different third party apps all running side-by-side with no issues. If it were up to me, I'd test the software with 2008, which, if you're already running it on 2005, should be easy. Verify that you support it and then offer it as a possibility, just to keep up with the Jones'. But I don't think, based on what you've said, that there's a compelling reason to force a full upgrade.
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
September 26, 2008 at 11:29 am
If you have the required horsepower, and I don't think it changed much for Express, I'd go with 2008. No reason to go with 2005, which will be out of support before too much longer. A few more years, save your clients another upgrade.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
September 29, 2008 at 1:56 am
Glen (9/26/2008)
At the moment, the biggest interest for us from 2008 is the possibility of not being limited to 4GB of database size
Sql Server 2008 Express: 1CPU; 1GB of RAM; 4 GB DB size.
If that is the only feature you were interested in, then it didn't change from SQL 2005.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/compare-specialized.aspx%5B/quote%5D
Isn't there a new internal function that allows to save the database apart and use it as needed, bypassing that way the 4GB limit? At least that's what the software company said...
As for those suggesting to try if the software can take it or if it can take it, to upgrade. The huge problem is that the application is sold to clients without us knowing how their hardware or software is, we are already having a hard time with installations between computers that can't even take it and those that have strange incompatibilities. We still have to actively sell this, and it is not a product directed to anybody with interest in having top of the line equipment. If it was something internal or if the client base was big enough to ignore those with underpowered machines, I would probably upgrade in a heartbeat, but seeing how things are now, I don't know if it's really justifiable to get into possible new problems where the only ones benefited by it are the software company using a more intuitive application and testing it out.
That's the real problem, we are already installing in underpowered computers a lot and I don't know if 2008 will make it even worse. Another problem I heard is something about sql server 2008 having additional demands when being installed in a server, this I heard from a 3rd party and I'm still trying to find anything that might confirm if it even exists, so if anybody could solve this doubt it would be greatly appreciated.
These are the hardware requisites of the application if it might help
PC with processor of 30 (x86) or 64 bits (x64) with 1GHz
512MB RAM
Hard drive with at least 10GB of free space
Thanks for all your replies, this is helping quite a bit 😉
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply