x

Advantages of upgrading SQL 2008 machine to Windows Server 2008?

Currently running SQL Server 2008 Enterprise Edition on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition. What are the pros and cons of upgrading to Windows Server 2008?
more ▼

asked Aug 01, 2011 at 08:06 AM in Default

EnrightMcC gravatar image

EnrightMcC
42 2 2 2

won 2008 Ent Edition too ?
Aug 01, 2011 at 08:36 AM Fatherjack ♦♦
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

4 answers: sort oldest

Microsoft gives a marketing list of reasons here - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/why-upgrade.aspx

The unlisted reason I really like, because most shops seem to overlook it, is that Disk Partition Alignment is finally fixed by default - [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd758814(v=sql.100).aspx][2]

You won't get this benefit if you simply re-attach your unaligned W2K3 disks, you need to go with freshly formatted disks. It also won't help if you have already manually aligned your W2K3 disk partitions.

[2]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd758814(v=sql.100).aspx
more ▼

answered Aug 01, 2011 at 08:49 AM

KenJ gravatar image

KenJ
19.7k 1 3 11

+1 for the partition alignment mention.

Saves a lot of hassle but not sure how that works on an in-place upgrade. If you fix the issue on 2003 after commissioning the server then you have to (re)format the drive. An in-place upgrade wont format the disk so I wonder if it would fix the alignment issue.. .. ..
Aug 01, 2011 at 08:56 AM Fatherjack ♦♦
W2K8 must format the disks to fix the partition alignment. If you re-use your existing partitions, and haven't corrected the alignment, the misalignment will carry over.
Aug 01, 2011 at 09:04 AM KenJ
(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

Apparently if you are using replication you can see some improvement running it on Server 2008, see [here][1]. You will never see any cons for running the current operating system with Microsoft :).

[1]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd263442.aspx
more ▼

answered Aug 01, 2011 at 08:52 AM

Shawn_Melton gravatar image

Shawn_Melton
5.3k 19 21 29

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
For me I have seen much better usage of memory with Windows Server 2008 over Server 2003. Depending on your hardware specs you might be able to get around having to have Ent Ed of Windows. The disk partition alignment @KenJ mentioned is huge for SQL Server. I was very excited to hear that was taken care of in Server 2008. Running on an Operating System that is current is a plus by itself.
more ▼

answered Aug 01, 2011 at 09:48 AM

Tim gravatar image

Tim
36.4k 36 41 139

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left

Could I suggest that if you take the step, go for 2008 R2. There aren't many differences, but stuff like Powershell have been improved upon and the clustering too, if that were to come up in the future.

The network improvements that @meltondba talks about really do work!
more ▼

answered Aug 01, 2011 at 11:59 AM

WilliamD gravatar image

WilliamD
25.9k 17 19 41

(comments are locked)
10|1200 characters needed characters left
Your answer
toggle preview:

Up to 2 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 524.3 kB each and 1.0 MB total.

New code box

There's a new way to format code on the site - the red speech bubble logo will automatically format T-SQL for you. The original code box is still there for XML, etc. More details here.

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

SQL Server Central

Need long-form SQL discussion? SQLserverCentral.com is the place.

Topics:

x1837
x68
x12
x12

asked: Aug 01, 2011 at 08:06 AM

Seen: 1628 times

Last Updated: Aug 01, 2011 at 08:11 AM