SQL 2012 edition

[Bаne]

For those of you that didn't know, Microsoft is releasing there 2012 SQL server, (soon I think I didn't read too the release date), I just wanted to hear everyones opinion on this and see who will shift there SRO servers DataBase over to 2012.

I myself think that if it had all the upgrades 2008 brought too 2005 I will, but I will probably test it on a random game before I completly bring all of my Shaiya/SRO work over too it.

[xavi]

I seriously doubt SRO server will gain any benefit of SQL 2012 new features, unless you have access to sro source code.

[Bаne]

It's cloud ready, (but what isn't...), which would be good for backing up your data! D:

[Biboja]

mhhh .. Idk now... We will see.. but everybody should test it with a copy of the files
;D

[Nezekan]

There is no reason to choose 2012 over 2008, or even 2005. The database was originally running on 2000 so there is no reason at all to even use anything above 2k5. unless you are in need of the new tools, but I doubt anybody cares about that. I don't see the extra value of cloud databases anyway, no sro server is in need of even clustering

[LastThief]

tbqh you should run sro db on sql2000

[silkbotter]

u fool people!

why are you even thinking about this?
why are you even using sql server 2008?
then you wine that your server lags?
i give you an advice: stick to sql server 2000 SP4 since the server files were made for this type of database!
there is absolutely NO advantage of using a version above 2000! only disadvantages like major waste of system resources.

it's as you driving a ferrari in Africa (no asphalt) without even having enough money to buy fuel!
ferrari:sql server 2008
Africa:the amount of functions the server files need
fuel: system resources

sometimes something old is better for what is needed.
keep it as simple as possible!

[Nezekan]

Originally Posted by silkbotter

u fool people!

why are you even thinking about this?
why are you even using sql server 2008?
then you wine that your server lags?
i give you an advice: stick to sql server 2000 SP4 since the server files were made for this type of database!
there is absolutely NO advantage of using a version above 2000! only disadvantages like major waste of system resources.

it's as you driving a ferrari in Africa (no asphalt) without even having enough money to buy fuel!
ferrari:sql server 2008
Africa:the amount of functions the server files need
fuel: system resources

sometimes something old is better for what is needed.
keep it as simple as possible!

Nice analogy, but I wouldn't advise running it on 2000, it has just become too old now. However anything above 2005 is just plain waste

[18andLife]

Originally Posted by silkbotter

u fool people!

why are you even thinking about this?
why are you even using sql server 2008?
then you wine that your server lags?
i give you an advice: stick to sql server 2000 SP4 since the server files were made for this type of database!
there is absolutely NO advantage of using a version above 2000! only disadvantages like major waste of system resources.

it's as you driving a ferrari in Africa (no asphalt) without even having enough money to buy fuel!
ferrari:sql server 2008
Africa:the amount of functions the server files need
fuel: system resources

sometimes something old is better for what is needed.
keep it as simple as possible!

Yeah, it's true that the files were 'made' for sql2000, but I couldn't restore the DB when I had sqlserver2000 =\

[silkbotter]

Originally Posted by Nezekan

Nice analogy, but I wouldn't advise running it on 2000, it has just become too old now. However anything above 2005 is just plain waste

then please tell me where the difference between 2000 and 2005 regarding the server files is!
all of you say "new is better". i already stated it here! i ran several games on sql server 2000. and everything worked fine.
so, please tell me, why sql server 2005? a DATE is NO excuse! just tell why 2005 is in this particular case better!
if you don't have any decent answer, then i guess you should listen to me instead writing that.

don't take it personally, but I'm sure you also are using windows 8 already because it's cool having the newest stuff as soon as they come out, huh? just because it has an 8. and an 8 is better then a 7, right?

please look at the technical side of the system and forget dates!

this is about server systems and not some random fancy wanna-be-ultra-modern-server-thingy!
if you're into computers and servers, you will have to learn that resources is everything, and I'll re-quote Albert Einstein: Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Originally Posted by 18andLife

Yeah, it's true that the files were 'made' for sql2000, but I couldn't restore the DB when I had sqlserver2000 =\

because the stuff you downloaded was for an above version. some edited crap database thing from li or from someone else.
i restored mine back to server 2000. it's not that easy. you need to work a lot with import/export, native clients, and sql scripting.
but at the end the server runs way more smooth then with any newer version of mssql :P

[Nezekan]

Originally Posted by silkbotter

then please tell me where the difference between 2000 and 2005 regarding the server files is!
all of you say "new is better". i already stated it here! i ran several games on sql server 2000. and everything worked fine.
so, please tell me, why sql server 2005? a DATE is NO excuse! just tell why 2005 is in this particular case better!
if you don't have any decent answer, then i guess you should listen to me instead writing that.

don't take it personally, but I'm sure you also are using windows 8 already because it's cool having the newest stuff as soon as they come out, huh? just because it has an 8. and an 8 is better then a 7, right?

please look at the technical side of the system and forget dates!

this is about server systems and not some random fancy wanna-be-ultra-modern-server-thingy!
if you're into computers and servers, you will have to learn that resources is everything, and I'll re-quote Albert Einstein: Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Look at my first post, I have never said that newer is better. But it is a fact that 2005 is just much more stable than 2000 in modern use. There is no need to explain me all this either

[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.

[Nezekan]

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.

Do you think you're the only one here who knows something about servers?

The files are obviously developped originally to be used with 2000, but who says vsro themselves aren't running 2005? The point is that 2000 was developped in a year where multithreading, caching a lot in memory and clustering were not yet industry standards.

I don't think anybody even cares, how many players do these servers have? 200? I don't think it would matter a bit. Anyway please stop acting like you're some kind of server god

EDIT: Obviously no offense intended, you might have more experience than 99% of the people here but you're not the only one. There is no reason to keep talking about it since well you should just choose the version you want yourself. If you want clustering or cloud support you should choose a newer version, if you don't care about all these new 'functions' then you should simply use an older version. It's as simple as that

[audi0slave]

Originally Posted by Nezekan

Do you think you're the only one here who knows something about servers?

The files are obviously developped originally to be used with 2000, but who says vsro themselves aren't running 2005? The point is that 2000 was developped in a year where multithreading, caching a lot in memory and clustering were not yet industry standards.

I don't think anybody even cares, how many players do these servers have? 200? I don't think it would matter a bit. Anyway please stop acting like you're some kind of server ***

why not ? he is one.

[silkbotter]

Originally Posted by audi0slave

why not ? he is one.

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 ***. 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 ****** 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!