SQL 2012 edition

[Nezekan]

Originally Posted by silkbotter

lol?

surely not.
let's keep this a discussion and let's not turn this into a flame thread.

I'm sorry, but, if you remember that blitzkrieq thingy, you also remember the fact that vsro's company in Vietnam (joymax?) was using sql 2000 servers on their huge gaming cluster :P

I'm not acting like a god. i defend my point of view. because in my eyes, you haven't yet gave a valid statement why sql server 2005 is better then the 2000 version for the server files.
clustering is supported on sql server 2000 as well. don't think that a big company like joymax isn't clustering their servers (2000!).
I'm sorry, i don't wanna mess with you.
but you just come along, give the statement that "using 2005 is better then using 2000" without giving a proper reason WHY IT IS SO! and that's something that pisses me off.

c'mon, IF you say so, then explain people why it is.
that's what i do.

and that's what your boss would demand from you if you would come with such response to anything.
in real-life the difference between sql2000 and sql2005 would cost a couple of thousands of dollars. either for the server licenses or for the new hardware that would have to be bought.
so i ask you....again... please, give the community a reason why sql server 2005 is more suitable then sql server 2000!

Well I never said that 2005 is better, I was just saying that 2000 has grown really old. I didn't mean that it is less stable or somthing. But it is a fact that it is not as optimized as 2005 for the newest technologies, since it was simply not available at that time. Anyway you wanted a proper reason: MSSQL 2000 is not supported by microsoft anymore, since 2008. You can simply not buy a license for it, and extended support will end in a couple of months too. Hence it's not a really great idea to run software this old. The second reason would be 64 bit support, mssql 2000 can not take advantage of more than 4GB of memory this is a huge waste since currently 8GB RAM memory only costs around 50$...

Of course there is mssql 2003 with x64 support, but yeah we're not talking about that are we.

I hope we can end the discussion with this, I am not interested in having a fight with you

[silkbotter]

thanks
mhm..i guess you misunderstood this :P this isn't a fight it's a discussion. hehe

ok. concerning the pros you gave, i've gotta say, that nobody who hosts a sro private server is interested in buying a license. furthermore nobody is interested in getting support by microsoft for their illegal servers :P

mssql runs as a 32-bit system. it is able to handle up to 4gb of ram.. hm?
*cough* *cough* :P

we're talking about a sql server, and not an operating system. if the sql server eats 4gb of ram, then there surely is something wrong with that server. we need to distance sql-server from operating system. the amount of ram a sql server 2000 can consume is up to 32gb of ram. check the link for that .

again, i must mention, that we are talking about silkroad servers here.
none of these will have a license, and none of these will ask for ms-support.
none of them will also require more then 32gb of ram for 1 database server.

"mssql2003" ? there is no such thing, but i guess you ment windows server 2003

anyways, it runs smooth and way better then all other server configurations.
if you want the best server experience, then use a windows server 2003 x64 and a sql-server 2000 database. it doesn't eat-up much ram, it's fast, light, and it doesn't consume huge amounts of ram for all kind of crap that you won't use anyways.
I'm pretty sure about all this.
feel free to add anything that comes up to your mind.
this is not meant to be an i-own-you thread. i am trying to "teach" something to the people over here. and since 100 different opinions may cause confuseness and misinformation, i rather ask the people to give a proper reason (they should know what they are talking about, and therefore it should be a piece of cake for them to explain the reason of their choice) then just ignoring it and saying "mý ýs ßest"
take this "fight" as some infos that might help you out in the future
(to the whole community)

[Nezekan]

I meant mssql 2000 64-bit edition, it was brought out in 2003 hence I was confused of how it was named. I do not reguraly use mssql, but I do come in contact with linux servers as a hobby now (used to be my "job")

Anyway a lot of memory usage does not neceseraly mean that it's not optmized, you could even say it's the opposite if all that memory is used for caching. mssql 2000 can simply not use more than 4GB ram, unless you take the 64bit version or use some dirty tricks, but that's not the point really.

Of course you are right that nobody will need support since they can simply not get it lol

[silkbotter]

it'S not a dirty trick. it's just a little KB from microsoft.

you only need to run the following sql query in order to increase the ram (to 6gb in this example):

sp_configure 'show advanced options', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'awe enabled', 1
RECONFIGURE
GO
sp_configure 'max server memory', 6144
RECONFIGURE
GO

anyways, i guess people who aren't too lazy to read the whole topic will understand what advantages/disadvantages it brings by using a ultra-new database server software for these, originally sql2000 intended server files.
i really made positive experiences with sql server 2000. on a fair server competition it's vital to have a lag-free server. and you need to rationalize on everything you can.
cut the stuff out you don't need
and one of the things you can and should cut out would even be sql server 2005. the difference between 2005 and 2008 in terms of resources isn't that much. but the difference between 2000 and 2005 is pretty huge already.
you can save up to 10% cpu usage, 1-2gb of ram and 5-10% faster queries with an sql-server 2000. I'm gonna launch an old-**** server soon, with a sql2000 database. let's see how good it is on max load

[Bаne]

I really don't know what you mean, I have been using SQL since 2000 and my current favorite is 2008! I could make a 2123141 word post regarding how much better it is compered to 05 or even 2000 but I feel it would be a waste.

Now the whole, will 2012 be better then 08 is a iffy even for me, and I never said things are better just because they are new, 50% of the time when a game release a major update it kills it, but then again there is that other 50 when it acctualy does something of use. XD

Anywheys i gusse we won't really know till 2012 comes out!

[rushcrush]

anyway we would use sql 2012 if it better then 2008 and 2005
i mean if 2012 have more stuff, then it will own the others vers

[FoxRayz]

Originally Posted by silkbotter

this is a forum.
a lot of people here read stuff, and a lot of stuff is simply incorrect.
you are not giving any point why 2005 is better then 2000.and, ew, stable? c'mon. i never had any crash on a 2000 server. that reason is pure bullshit, pardon sir.

this is no way how you teach people something.

teaching, yes, because this is an official discussion, and people read this and perhaps even do it because they want to learn something. and if a bunch of kids start saying "the newest is the best and the most appropriate" then the "students" will have shitloads of problems in their future life if they want to do something on IT.

i ask you gently again: please give us (the community) a decent answer wh sql server2005 is better then sql server 2000. "stability" is not an issue/reason, cuz as a matter in fact 2000 is more stable then 2005 )

you are talking bout modern use. ok, then what kind of modern technique would require a 2005 instead of a 2000?
i'm sorry, but it looks like you have no idea about the difference between 2000 and 2005 an you're giving wrong arguments :S
anyways... this is sro. so let's sick to the requirements of server files built on the year
2011!


please don't spread wrong informations!
we're talking about sro server files and the requirements.
you said 2005 is better, then please tell me why.
i bet you haven't even worked with sro files on a sql server 2000.
awaiting an answer
peace.

A quick summary of the differences:

Feature SQL Server 2000

Security: Owner = Schema, hard to remove old users at
times

Encryption:No options built in, expensive third party options with proprietary skills required to implement properly.


High Availability: Clustering or Log Shipping require Enterprise Edition. Expensive hardware

Scalability:Limited to 2GB, 4CPUs in Standard Edition. Limited 64-bit support.




SQL server 2005:

Security: Schema is separate. Better granularity in easily controlling security. Logins can be authenticated by certificates.

Encryption:Encryption and key management build in.

High availability: Clustering, Database Mirroring or Log Shipping available in Standard Edition. Database Mirroring can use cheap hardware.

Scalability: 4 CPU, no RAM limit in Standard Edition. More 64-bit options offer chances for consolidation.

I made brief summary for the differences because im really surpised about you choice to even choose a SQL 2000 in front of a 2005. You're not so familiar with servers huh?

[silkbotter]

hey foxy
actually i do :P
please read the rest of the posts on this topic.
the server 2k actually goes up to 32gb of ram.
2k is lighter then 2k5. and these server files were coded on a base sql2000 so there's absolutely no need of using "the latest shait"

[Kape7]

The license is too expensive for even give it a try.
Also as silkbotter said, there is no need to use the latest version, since the files were coded for 2k version.