I know the advantages of upgrading from sql server 2005 to sql server 2008, but upper management could care less about t-sql debugging, intellisense, the merge statment, etc..., so what are some features in sql server 2008 that upper management might actually find worth while.
I suppose you could try showing them some of Microsoft's case studies that have some relevance to your company. It might give them some warm fuzzies to see that someone else has done something similar.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/case-studies.aspx
Honestly, if the level of management that is deciding which database technology to buy doesn't understand t-sql debugging and intellisense then your company has the wrong people making technical decisions.
Transparent database encryption - even if the backup files get stolen (or the entire data files) the database cannot be read. Reduces the cost of data loss and embarrassing media attention.
SQL Audit - see who's doing what with the data with no 3rd party tools necessary
Policy-based management - reduce the amount of time needed to ensure the servers adhere to a defined policy.
You can definitly get the product released faster.
Related
I have 2 databases that have the same structure, one on a local machine and one on the company's server. Every determined amount of time, the data from the local DB should be synchronized to the server DB.
I have a general idea on how to do this - create a script that somehow "merges" the information that is not on the server DB, then make this script run as a scheduled job for the server. However, my problem lies in the fact that I am not very well experienced with this.
Does SQL Server Management Studio provide an easy way to do this (some kind of wizard) and generates this kind of script? Is this something I'll have to build from scratch?
I've done some basic google searches and came across the term 'Replication' but I don't fully understand it. I would rather hear some input from people who have actually done this or who are good with explaining this kind of stuff.
Thanks.
Replication sounds like a good option for this, but there would be some overhead (not technical overhead, but the knowledge need to support it).
Another SQL Server option is SSIS. SSIS provides graphical tools to design what you're trying to do. The SSIS package can also run SQL statements, if appropriate. An SSIS package can be started, and therefore scheduled, from a SQL Server job.
You should consider the complexity of the synchronization rules when choosing your solution. For example, would it be difficult to resolve conflicts, such as a duplicate key, when merging the data. A SQL script may be easy to create if the rules are simple. But, complex conflict rules may be more difficult to implement in a script (or, replication).
SQL Server Management Studio unfortunately doesn't offer much in this way.
You should have a serious look at some of the excellent commercial offerings out there:
Red Gate Software's SQL Compare and SQL Data Compare - excellent tools, highly recommended! You can even compare a live database against a backup from another database and synchronize the data - pretty nifty!
ApexSQL's SQL Diff and SQL Data Diff
They all cost money - but if you're serious about it, and you use them in your daily routine, they're paid for in no time at all - well worth every dime.
The only "free" option you have in SQL Server 2008 would be to create a link between the two servers and then use something like the MERGE statement (new in SQL Server 2008) to transfer the data. That doesn't work for structural changes, and it's limited only to having a live connection between the two servers.
You should definitely read up on transactional replication. It sounds like a good fit for the situation you've described. Here are a few links to get you started.
How Transactional Replication
Works
How do I... Configure
transactional replication between two
SQL Server 2005 systems?
Performance Tuning SQL Server
Transactional Replication
What you want is Peer-to-Peer Transactional Replication, which allows data to be updated at both databases yet keep them in sync through a contiguous merge of changes. This is the closes match to what you want, but is a fairly costly option (requires Enterprise Edition on both sites). Another option is Bidirectional Transactional Replication, but since this requires also two EE licenses, I say that peer-to-peer is easier to deploy for the same money.
A more budget friendly option is Updatable Subscriptions for Transactional Replication, but updatable subscriptions are being deprecated and you'd bet your money on a loosing horse.
Another option is to use Merge Replication. And finally, for the cases when the 'local' database is quite mobile there is Sync Framework.
Note that all these options require some configuration and cooperation from the Company's server DB.
There are some excellent third party tools out there. For me, xSQL Data Compare has always done the trick. And because the comparisons are highly modifiable it is suitable for almost every data compare or data-synchronization scenario. Hope this helps!
I'm in a situation where I came into a new job and I have to support several legacy systems. The original developer is no longer around. These legacy systems are really hammering away at our SQL Server and killing performance. I know that there are a lot of things that can be done in the code, but rewriting code is really my last resort.
What I'm looking for is some sort of tool that will monitor the queries coming into the server and give recommendations on indexing solutions. I know I can use the SQL Server Profiler but I'm looking for something a little more user friendly and something that can help me make the indexing decisions.
I know I didn't explain it very well, but I'm sure this is a common request. I'd like to make informed decisions on what to index and avoid "shooting from the hip" and indexing everything in sight. Thanks for any recommendations!
You don't need a third party tool for this.
Assuming SQL Server 2005+ as long as you can use SQL Profiler (actually SQL Trace - Don't use the Profiler GUI for this to reduce tracing overhead as much as possible) to collect a representative workload you can use the Database Tuning Advisor to automate analysis of the workload and make indexing recommendations.
You can also use the Missing Index DMVs for a quick overview of areas to investigate but the DTA will do more holistic analysis and take into account possible adverse effects of indexes on data modification statements.
+1 for Martin's answer, but since you asked about 3rd party tools, I'll mention one of my favorites (and no, I don't work for the company). Ignite for SQL Server does an excellent job of analyzing server activity in terms of wait time analysis. It won't make recommendations for you, but it will quickly identify the worst performing queries where you need to focus your effort.
SQL Server 2005+ has a lot of DMV's (Dynamic Management views) that you can query to get server info, as well as the Profiler / SQL Trace tool.
We administer several large database servers.
Idera is a good tool to manage multiple database servers easily.
I think you'd make a much better DBA if you learn more about the inbuilt functionality of SQL server.
Have a browse of
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188754.aspx
to find out more about DMV's and functions.
Another common issue with performance could be your indexes.
Theres a great tutorial that combines the DMV's with improving indexes here:
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/Using-dynamic-management-views-to-improve-SQL-Server-index-effectiveness
Idera is really worth checking out though as a good starting point. Combined with DMV's & SQL trace there shouldn't be much you won't be able to fix.
Idera just takes most of the leg work out of doing things.
http://www.idera.com/Content/Home.aspx
Idera: SQL Diagnostic Manager
We have been using sql server 2005 during development and have had no real issues.
Now at the time of the release, it has been suggested we go with SQL server 2008. The installation of it is a bit of a nightmare with all the configuration options and I am sure this will confuse the customers (even with documentation). Powershell etc had to be installed together some other apps before it could install, as well as some windows updates.
Should we just release with SQL server 2005 (if I am not wrong the installation was easier) or would it be better to go with 2008 (and just accept the installation issues)?
JD
If you've developed and tested on 2005, then stay with 2005 to avoid complications, but I would upgrade everything to 2008 at some point.
Based on the information provided, stick to 2005.
Migrate to 2008 after you've been able to run the application in a test environment, thoroughly test it, and check documentation to be sure things line up.
I'm always wwary of making last-minute changes to an application before release. If you decide to switch to SQL 2008 will your team have time to fully regression test your application? I wouldn't just assume that everything will work fine.
If you have the time for full regression testing then the question is, what does SQL 2008 offer to you? Obviously there's no critical technical reason - no function that is in SQL 2008 that isn't in 2005 but which you absolutely must have. Do you think that your customers will care one way or another? Do you have customer that already have 2008 servers and want to leverage that? Will it help your sales to be on the "latest and greatest" version?
Those are just some of the questions to ask.
You can always save the switch to 2008 for a future upgrade.
The install/config issues shouldn't really be the primary focus, because those are one-time things and a well-written guide can address the vast majority of the issues you encounter.
Here's what I would consider making my decision:
Testing - Everything should work fine out of the box, but you're responsible either way. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. There is a time and a place for upgrades, and right before a release isn't it.
Licensing - Remember that newer software often comes with a higher price tag, and you don't want to be forcing more expensive software on your users without some tangible of benefit.
All in all, I would stay away from upgrading for upgrade's sake. Stick with what you know, until there is a legitimate gain from upgrading.
In a few years time new customers will not be willing to run with SQL Server 2005, so you will have to support SQL Server 2008 at some point.
My experience is it can be very hard to get current customers to update to a new version of a database server when you wish them to take an upgrade of your software, so you will most likely be forced to support SQL Server 2005 for a long time if you allow your customers to use it now.
So do you wish to?
Have some pain now getting SQL Server 2008 working
Or, have the cost of testing and supporting both SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2005 every time you do a new release for many years to come
You have to decide if a small delay in releasing is worth it to save the ongoing cost...
This is hard, as time-to-market is often more important in the real world then ongoing maintenance costs. After all if you don’t hit the market window, you have no ongoing maintenance costs!
Will this delay your release? Will it delay it enough to cost money?
I wouldn't worry too much about the installation complication. Your customers will experience the same (or worse) when they have to upgrade to 2008, which they will eventually because you won't stick with 2005 forever. I'd be more concerned about how it affects your project and sales. That would be the trade-off that I would focus on.
Are there any performance benefits of using SQL Server 2008 over SQL Server 2005?
Moving a single database from SQL Server 2005-2008 will not notice a difference really. However, there are new tools and options available in SQL Server 2008 that you MIGHT be able to leverage to provider better performance later on in your application.
One item that comes to mind is filtered indexes. Allowing to create an index on a subset of information.
There may be new features in the engine which execute queries in different ways. This includes changes to the optimiser.
Therefore, the only way you can POSSIBLY tell, is to gather detailed performance data from your application on MSSQL2005, and then repeat the experiment on the same (production-quality) hardware with SQL2008.
You will need to make sure your application works correctly- such a migration can't be done lightly as any change could introduce bugs.
Also, the new version of the database could have performance regressions - which you need to be very careful about.
So in summary:
Benchmark YOUR application on SQL2005
Benchmark it on SQL2008
Use the same production-grade test hardware in your lab both times
Don't run VMs (unless that's what you do in production)
Don't change other parameters
This may not be easy if your application is big / complicated.
Yes. You can compress data in SQL 2008 which can have drastic impact on backup and data transfer times.
Actually SQL2008 has built-in compression that you can enable out of the box which could definately improve performance, but it may depend on what is being returned. I would try this option and benchmark to see if you feel its a worthy change.
I'm starting a new project here (Windows Forms). What's the best option today for a small (free as in beer) DBMS?
I've used SQL Server Express on the past projects, but time and time again I hear people saying that the product from Oracle is faster and more powerful.
It will be used in a small company (around 20 users) and will not reach the 4 GB limit any time soon :)
I don't want to start a flame war on my first post, so please point me to some link showing a good (and actual) comparison between the 2 products, if possible.
PS: I've heard about IBM DB2 Express too, but I coudn't find any information about it. (Marketing material from IBM doesn't count :) )
I would go for the SQL Server Express solution, unless you absolutely have to use a feature in Oracle that SQL Server does not have and you have no usable workaround.
Example of Oracle's strengths:
Analytical Functions in Oracle ROCK!
PL/SQL is better than T-SQL.
If you're going to scale up the system to 1,000's of users all updating the same small dataset
You scale upto multi-TB databases,
You need to scale to need big numbers of CPU's in your server (over 8).
need instant failover (RAC)
you really cannot afford to lose a transaction.
Maybe you can tell, I'm a big Oracle fan! But I think that Oracle Express is a commercial reaction to SQL Server Express and I don't think Oracle really deep deep down likes it.
You know with SQL Server that there is an upgrade path (SQL Server 2008 is soon) plus service packs.
SQL Express is also more "install and forget" than Oracle.
and it will integrate better with your IDE (if your using .NET)
In terms of speed, both are going to be lighting quick with such a small dataset size.
It would be hard to argue either way given the needs you outlined, that either would shine over the other.
What I will say is this:
You say you are already familar with SSExpress, then that is a good reason to stick with it
IMHO the tools with SSExpress are superior and easier to use than the Oracle equivalent
That said, I have much more experience with SS than Oracle so YMMV.
Sorry, no link, but one advice. Because we support Oracle and SQL Server, I know that getting fixes for the 'normal' Oracle database, is not something what I call fun. You have to pay for it, and if you have no tool which updates your Oracle system for you, it's a pain in the a.., if you ask me. Check out how the Oracle XE is supported with updates/fixes. I don't know, I only use the 'normal' Oracle (Developer) database.
I think it's great to rethink things every once in a while and that it's very smart to consider alternative products when you are at a junction to do so.
If you are comfortable optimizing systems and are dba level in skills, I'd consider PostgreSQL. I do not consider myself a dba and have middling database skills and find SQL Server Express extremely easy to use. Also, I've had products exceed the limits of SQL Server Express - the transition to SQL Server Standard/Enterprise is seemless.
I realize that this doesn't matter at a technical level, but Larry Ellison buys jets and prostitutes with his profit. Bill Gates is solving problems of immense importance to humanity with his. All things being equal, I always prefer to give my money to Bill Gates.
Is this any use:
https://web.archive.org/web/1/http://downloads.techrepublic%2ecom%2ecom/5138-9592-6028761.html
NB Registration is required
Both of KiwiBastard's points are very good and I completely agree with him.
If you really want a free alternative that is similar to MS SQL and supports growth should you need it, you could have a look at MySQL or PostgreSQL. SQLite also seems a good choice.
Surely you can afford an old Linux server if you work in a company with 20 employees.
100% SQL Express, more easy to install and maintain than Oracle.
IMHO the major problem with SQL Server, has for a long time been, no multi-version read consistency. Fortunately this has been corrected since SQL Server 2005 with the snapshot isolation level.
If your looking for a good RDBMS for a small project requring minimal knowledge for maintenance, SQL Server Express Edition is a good pick. The SQL Server Express Edition UI is much easier to understand than RMAN or the "easier"-to-use backup scripts included with Oracle Database XE which requires offlining your database.
Oracle Database XE is on my *** list. They recently released an ODBC driver for Linux that wasn't compiled properly (ld returns missing symbols for required ODBC functions) to be at all usable (10.2.0.4). With this kind of lack of attention to any reasonable amount of QA even for a 'free' product I would think twice about going down that road.
For DB2 Express-C see:
"DB2 Express-C™ is the free version of one of the most advanced
database management systems in the world. Why pay when you can have
all you need for free? DB2 Express-C is free to develop, deploy and
distribute.
It is a fast, secure, reliable, and amazingly scalable dataserver,
ideal for most startups and small/medium sized businesses. DB2
Express-C 9.7 is available on Linux, Unix, Windows, and now Mac OS X
as well! It also enables developers to easily handle XML through the
native storage technology called pureXML™. Whether you develop in
Java, .Net, Ruby, Python, Perl or pretty much any other programming
language out there, DB2 can be your technological advantage."