Hi,
Does anybody know if the creation of maintenance plans for Compatibility
Mode 70 databases will be possible with SQL Server 2005 SP2?
According to what I've heard so far, there is no chance to do that in
SP0/1 installations of SQL Server 2005 (CM 70 databases won't show up in
the wizard). I consider this a severe shortcoming in the product, which
should be tackled by MS.
Any opinions/workarounds?Hi
I would not say that this would be deemed a major issue as it is simple to
write your own maintenance procedures, and there are examples if you search
the web.
It is also recommended that compatibility mode is mainly designed as a
transient part of an upgrade and should not normally be something to be
relied upon long term, unless there is no way you can upgrade change the
database. If the latter is the case then your buisiness may be at risk if yo
u
are relying on such software.
John
"Axel Bender" wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anybody know if the creation of maintenance plans for Compatibility
> Mode 70 databases will be possible with SQL Server 2005 SP2?
> According to what I've heard so far, there is no chance to do that in
> SP0/1 installations of SQL Server 2005 (CM 70 databases won't show up in
> the wizard). I consider this a severe shortcoming in the product, which
> should be tackled by MS.
> Any opinions/workarounds?
>|||Thanks for the answer, John.
Although I generally agree with you in saying that a compatibility mode
should not be used on a long-term basis, I have to make some additional
points on that topic:
a) We have deployed a lot of CM 70 databases; changing the compatibility
mode for them would not break our application, but it would give the
users very slow response times in parts of the app (this is due to the
change MS made to the query optimizer when it comes to selecting
indexes). We know we have to make changes to the app, but frankly, we
simply cannot afford the time for this now.
b) Most of our customers are not able to write maintenance procedures
(nor are all of our supporters).
c) There is no common scheme that our users follow when it comes to
backing up and checking their databases.
d) S2k5 supports maintenance plans for CM 80 databases, why not for CM
70 ones?
I think, that supporting CM 70 databases would not be a big deal for MS;
for us it would be.
Kind regards,
Axel|||Hi Axel
I suggest that you ship some standard jobs and procedures that will do this
for them and avoid the maintenance plans.
I don't really have any idea how widespread this issue is how much it would
actually take to implement this additional feature, but I can only assume
that it is not as big an issue as you think or MS is not aware of the
magnitude. If you wish to formally request a response and make them aware of
this issue I would raise a support call.
John
"Axel Bender" wrote:
> Thanks for the answer, John.
> Although I generally agree with you in saying that a compatibility mode
> should not be used on a long-term basis, I have to make some additional
> points on that topic:
> a) We have deployed a lot of CM 70 databases; changing the compatibility
> mode for them would not break our application, but it would give the
> users very slow response times in parts of the app (this is due to the
> change MS made to the query optimizer when it comes to selecting
> indexes). We know we have to make changes to the app, but frankly, we
> simply cannot afford the time for this now.
> b) Most of our customers are not able to write maintenance procedures
> (nor are all of our supporters).
> c) There is no common scheme that our users follow when it comes to
> backing up and checking their databases.
> d) S2k5 supports maintenance plans for CM 80 databases, why not for CM
> 70 ones?
> I think, that supporting CM 70 databases would not be a big deal for MS;
> for us it would be.
> Kind regards,
> Axel
>
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Compatibility Mode 70 databases in SP2
Labels:
compatibility,
compatibilitymode,
creation,
database,
databases,
maintenance,
microsoft,
mode,
mysql,
oracle,
plans,
server,
sp2,
sp2according,
sql
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment