I'm trying to put a case together to encourage my employer to upgrade from
its SQL 2000 Enterprise farm to SQL Server 2005.
We're interested in Enterprise functionality, such as:
- Improvement in backups
- Monitoring improvements
- Resilience improvements (mirroring, replication, failover etc).
- Cost / payback case.
Can anyone point me in the right direction to be able to put together such a
case.
Thanks"Joe Spears" <joespears@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u4mag.156498$tc.56861@.fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi
> I'm trying to put a case together to encourage my employer to upgrade from
> its SQL 2000 Enterprise farm to SQL Server 2005.
> We're interested in Enterprise functionality, such as:
> - Improvement in backups
> - Monitoring improvements
> - Resilience improvements (mirroring, replication, failover etc).
> - Cost / payback case.
> Can anyone point me in the right direction to be able to put together such
> a case.
>
What's New in SQL Server 2005
[url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/overview/whats-new-in-sqlserver2005.mspx[/ur
l]
There's lots of cool stuff:
Mirroring.
Monitoring performance with Server reports and DMV's.
Transactional Replication.
The new database maintence plan desiner is great.
Database Mail.
SSIS.
But what does your organization struggle with? Stories that start "Remember
when we had that problem ...", help motivate the upgrade. Heve a concrete
vision for how SQL Server 2005 fits in your environment. That's the
business case.
David|||And do your COTS or applications support SQL 2005 yet?
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:%23n5sSKQeGHA.3948@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "Joe Spears" <joespears@.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:u4mag.156498$tc.56861@.fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> What's New in SQL Server 2005
> [url]http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/overview/whats-new-in-sqlserver2005.mspx[/
url]
> There's lots of cool stuff:
> Mirroring.
> Monitoring performance with Server reports and DMV's.
> Transactional Replication.
> The new database maintence plan desiner is great.
> Database Mail.
> SSIS.
> But what does your organization struggle with? Stories that start
> "Remember when we had that problem ...", help motivate the upgrade. Heve
> a concrete vision for how SQL Server 2005 fits in your environment.
> That's the business case.
> David
>|||If you ask 10 people this question, you may get 10 different answers because
SQL2005 offers a wide array of new features and improvement. Personally, my
current reasons for upgrade are the following VLDB-related features (no
considerations given to rank these or other features systematically):
-- More robust DBCC
-- More granular backup/recovery
-- Table partitioning
-- x64 support
Linchi
"Joe Spears" wrote:
> Hi
> I'm trying to put a case together to encourage my employer to upgrade from
> its SQL 2000 Enterprise farm to SQL Server 2005.
> We're interested in Enterprise functionality, such as:
> - Improvement in backups
> - Monitoring improvements
> - Resilience improvements (mirroring, replication, failover etc).
> - Cost / payback case.
> Can anyone point me in the right direction to be able to put together such
a
> case.
> Thanks
>
>
>|||Actually you'd probably get 40 different answers.
Start the process with all of the things that you struggle with currently.
1. Does reindexing lock up your tables and make applications unavailble? -
Online reindexing in 2005 Enterprise Edition
2. Do you have to do large scale data loads or archives that cause massive
contention making the data unavailable? - Table partitioning
3. Have you ever had a production issue where you simply scratched your head
because the engine is just a great big black box that you can't get detailed
diagnostics from? - Dynamic management views and functions
4. Have you ever needed to create an index in order to improve performance
at a critical point, but couldn't because it would lock up the entire
table? - Online index creation in the Enterprise Edition
5. Have you ever had an index corrupt causing everything to be
unavailable? - online index creation in Enterprise Edition
6. Have you ever had a table corrupted that required restoring the entire
database? - page level restores
7. Have you ever needed to restore just a single filegroup into a database
without taking everything else offline? - online restores in Enterprise
Edition
8. Have you ever needed to encrypt data within a table? - encryption
features
The list goes on and on and on. You'll note that I didn't pick on a single
feature that is classified as "cool". Management doesn't care about "cool".
They care about the databases being online, always. Each one of the items
above hit very definite problems that many people have run across in
production that caused databases to be unavailable and management to be
unhappy. 2005 eliminates all of the issues above. (You can keep filling in
the blanks with additional issues from your enviroment.)
If you need to make a case to management, talking about "cool" features is
going to get the request denied. Talking about things that happened in your
environment (and will likely happen again) which will no longer occur by
deploying SQL Server 2005 is going to get management to listen.
Mike
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
Disclaimer: This communication is an original work and represents my sole
views on the subject. It does not represent the views of any other person
or entity either by inference or direct reference.
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E309B075-01DC-4E40-B4E0-7FBA6F4272F3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you ask 10 people this question, you may get 10 different answers
> because
> SQL2005 offers a wide array of new features and improvement. Personally,
> my
> current reasons for upgrade are the following VLDB-related features (no
> considerations given to rank these or other features systematically):
> -- More robust DBCC
> -- More granular backup/recovery
> -- Table partitioning
> -- x64 support
> Linchi
> "Joe Spears" wrote:
>
No comments:
Post a Comment