We are looking for feedback on three items for SQL Server Code Name “Denali”. First, are the supported OSes. Second, are the supported upgrade paths. Third, is the way the installer handles unsupported OSes and upgrade paths. Specifically we want to know if these will slow down your adoption of SQL Server Code Name “Denali”.
1) The current support matrix for OSes is as follows:
2) Denali will support upgrading from these SQL Server versions:
3) The installer is going to block installation on unsupported OSes and it will block unsupported upgrade paths.
If the current support matrix for OSes, the current support matrix for upgrade, or the installation blocks will delay your adoption of of SQL Server called “Denali”, please provide this feedback to us! You can provide us this feedback by adding a comment below or submitting the feedback through the SQL Server Connect.
Sadly, I still see a lot of instances out there running SQL 2000. Yes - I know it's unsupported at this point, but the number of server running it out there is huge.
I'm not advocating an upgrade path from 2000 though.
I think those requirements are reasonable. I would rather SQL team spend more time on other things that supporting old operating systems and upgrading really old (un)patched SQL installs. I have had about 50% success rate with in-place upgrades, so I gave up on them and do backup/restore or logshipping to new servers running latest OS and SQL edition.
For the operating systems, I don't have a problem with it at all.
For the SQL Server versions, I don't think it will be wise to block an upgrade from SQL 2005 SP3 or 2008 SP1 or 2008 R2 RTM. These are the versions (I'll refer to them below as "currentish versions") that a lot of people are still running, as a service pack upgrade in a lot of cases requires as much planning and lead time as a major version upgrade.
Are there technical reasons that make "currentish versions"-1 harder to upgrade? Or is just that you only want to /*support*/ the upgrade from "currentish versions"?
For my full take, see sqlha.com/.../sql-server-denali-upgrading-supported-platforms-and-you. I think the OS list is potentially problematic depending on certain feature usage of Denali based on what we know right now.
Looks good and please, for the love of all that is good and right, don't add XP support. Companies need to have substantial reasons to rip that XP band-aid off. Anything to help put the legacy stuff to rest, the better IMO
Agree with all of this
My god. No XP Support! (Sarcasm there) I'm sure there are some edge cases out there for Server 2K3 but I don't think it's anything worth worrying about.
I'd be overjoyed if there was no 64-bit support, no XP support.
Sadly, that Windows XP is not supported. I know many developers use SQL Server Express + SSMS on their Windows XP corporate workstations. And they do not plan to move to Windows 7 soon. I do understand, that life is going on, but still ... I wish it would support XP.
I think that limiting the upgrade options are fine. My big concern is the lack of support for XP and how this may impact the uptake of Denali. Desktops are usually the first places to get new versions just because people can deploy them locally and play around with them, building a business case to get a server level install.
I recently left a company with > 10k desktops, all of which were running XP and there was no plan in sight to move to Windows 7. This is not an uncommon scenario. I would hate to see slow movement on Denali because of this (although at this point I can't see how there could be any option to run on XP).
It sounds great. But, Microsoft is famous for backward compatibility. If they have these restriction in the upcoming SQL Server version that leads to delay in using SQL Server code name Denali for some organization.
I would ask Microsoft to give some alternative to support the upgrade from all available older version to Denali.
Operating system, I can see may companies still using Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. So, I many expect SQL Server Denali to support some basic features in these operating system.
MSFT needs to cut that umbilical cord and I think the listed upgrade paths are reasonable. Vendors are quite liberal with their upgrades and if DBAs have MSFT behind them to enforce those upgrade requirements maybe we won't have that many SQL 2000s lingering about. I must agree that SQL upgrade path is a bit strict but I personally can live with that. We're currently maintaining four versions of SQL and because of SQL 2000 we need to have our maintenance jobs adhere to less than best practice procedures.
My company still using windows xp and their is no plan to change that.Win xp is the best operating system ms have.
I am not in favor of support for XP or Server 2003. Its time IT shops moved on.
Definitely should support XP. Windows XP is a great small footprint OS (can be made into) and it definitely makes testing easier on Virtual Machines.