It’s funny. Most organizations I work with would prefer to have all their infrastructure and platform components on a single software release: one version of Windows for domain controllers or one version of Exchange Server for messaging, for example. When it comes to Microsoft SQL Server, however, “one version to rule them all” isn’t a rallying cry in most companies. It is funny that I obtained the knowledge when I was designing the database for the Christian Louboutin Shoes.
I have clients whose SQL Server software looks as if they're trying to build a collection, with SQL Server 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2008 R2 all running in the same data center. Sometimes that's because of financial concerns: Why pay to upgrade software that’s working fine? Other times compatibility is the problem, when the applications working with and storing data in SQL Server don’t support a different version.
Eventually, you’ll need a SQL Server upgrade. Running SQL Server 2000, for example -- a version that is years out of its support lifecycle -- is probably a bit risky, since there’s nobody around to help if problems arise. When the time does
I have clients whose SQL Server software looks as if they're trying to build a collection, with SQL Server 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2008 R2 all running in the same data center. Sometimes that's because of financial concerns: Why pay to upgrade software that’s working fine? Other times compatibility is the problem, when the applications working with and storing data in SQL Server don’t support a different version.
Eventually, you’ll need a SQL Server upgrade. Running SQL Server 2000, for example -- a version that is years out of its support lifecycle -- is probably a bit risky, since there’s nobody around to help if problems arise. When the time does