If you would like to ask a specific (peculiar) question to SQL Server Development team in Redomond, what would you ask.<br /><br />During the MVP global summit 'MVPs' are having a good opportunity with topics/questions that would like to throw at the SQL Server team for an explanation/solution. <br /><br />So please post your questions here and I will do my best to get the answers for them.[<img src='/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif' alt='' />]<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Satya SKJ</b><br />Microsoft SQL Server MVP<br />Writer, Contributing Editor & Moderator<br /<a target="_blank" href=http://www.SQL-Server-Performance.Com>http://www.SQL-Server-Performance.Com</a><br /><center><font color="teal"><font size="1">This posting is provided AS IS with no rights for the sake of <i>knowledge sharing. <hr noshade size="1">The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes of mind.</i></font id="size1"></font id="teal"></center>
2005 -> 2009, 4 years, nearly as long as 2000 -> 2005. I remember them swearing the next version wouldn't take as long. Not that I want them to rush, upgrades are an expensive p-in-the-a!!
Yes..... I have couple of questions which i have already posted in MSDN and i did not got any satisfactory reply... There is no point in posting the whole problem here again. These are the link where i posted my problems :- http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1247138&SiteID=1 http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1180292&SiteID=1 if you want any further clarification... u can ask me... my main problem is with Service Broker and somehow i am handling that... what i just want to know the Architecture and why did MS conceived this method... The other one is really worriying one.... how could the system tables got deleted from Master database just like that... how come Visio could remove these table... if u could project these problem it would be gr8 thanks staya... Madhu
I thought the pattern was suppose to be 1 improvement upgrade followed a new architecture upgrade ie, SQL 6.5->7.0 was a new arch SQL 7.0-> 2000(8.0) was an improvement SQL 2000->2005(9.0) was a new arch so SQL 200x should be an improvement upgrade, like the 7.0->2000, which definitely less stressful than 2000->2005 I am thinking that by the time frame of the 10.0, the 8KB page structure will be obsolete because of the massive amount of memory in systems, and a 32-64KB page might be more appropriate. btw Windows 2000->2003 was an improvement upgrade so Windows 2008 is a new architecture(?) which may make it rather stressful given the experiences Merril described in his SQL 2000 to 2005 upgrade attempt, i would hope that this time MS make a more serious effort to describe the key differences with honest measurement of positive and negative performance impact, so people can identify adjustments necessary for a low stress upgrade instead of the usual marketing bullsh!t on how wonderful everything is and there is nothing that would go wrong we do not need such cr@p, it is reasonable to assume that the new version after 5 years work has justifiable improvements there has never been a change without some items having negative impact many of which can easily be accommodated if we knew what they were and this is not just a MS matter, but applies to all software including in-house stuff
