[PROOF] Sql 2000 VS Sql 2008 R2

[Chernobyl*]

In my opinion, mssql 2000 WONT give that much performance as 2008 r2. Yes, it can eat less resources, use less cpu time, but performance should be also less. 2008 are optimized for multiprocessor systems, and must eat tons of resources to provide great performance. Maybe, do some query benchmarks ? I'd like to see them (because im not sure).

[silkbotter]

2000 also works with multiple processors.you can see that when selecting proprieties of the server in the management tool. o_0

server 2008 r2 does too many extra routines/checks/confirmations on each query.
i cannot provide any benchmark report of both system. i simply made the test on the servers, and as the 1k players surely can report, the server lost its well known lags.

you should also ask yourself, why even joymax is still using microsoft sql server 2000.

[lesderid]

Originally Posted by Schickl

that doesn't really make sense!
1.it won't stay in the stack
2.If it really crashes after some time it's not well programmed
3.why would it even crash???
4.if the sql server would be too slow the cpu usage would be higher
5.ever tried to run it more than a month?

silkbotter is right, it would be queued in a stack, either on the SQL server side or on the ShardManager side.

The SRO files are horribly programmed, that's just a fact.
Have you ever noticed how much resources all the servers use when they're not even fully loaded?
I bet they've never heard of garbage collection/deleting data.

[Schickl]

Originally Posted by silkbotter

you should also ask yourself, why even joymax is still using microsoft sql server 2000.

because they always used it
It would take too long and there's the risk that it won't work after the conversion

If they always used it's just logic that they never change it

@lesederid
Please explain that
don't get it for some reason xD

They should've increased the stack size anyway