Upgrading from SQL Server 2005 to 2016 [on hold]











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have a requirement to get rid of our old servers, however one of them includes a database server that is currently using SQL Server 2005.



We have a new server running with 2016 so I wanted to know the best way to upgrade. From what I have discovered is that ideally we would need 2008 as an interim step. However as we do not have 2008 and this cost more I have been looking at the possibility of doing a 2005 back up and then a 2016 restore.



I have tested this out with a very simple db and it seems to work. However I have read that I should change the compatibility level from 100 (use to be 90) to 130. My question is, is the necessary? After all some of these old db's are old legacy databases which require very little change. Is it really worth it?



So what I will not be able to use the fancy new ways of doing stuff, but as these are old does that matter? After all its not like it is needed otherwise we would not have created these db. I am yet to still test with a more complex db but wanted to make sure I am on the right path.



Thanks






sql-server sql-server-2005 sql-server-2016







share|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by Rich Benner, Mitch Wheat, Owen Pauling, greg-449, Andrea 2 days ago



  • This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • You might get better answers posting on the DBA site of the network
    – Cid
    2 days ago










  • Not upping the compability level means not getting the functionality of newer version.s Would you you not want to functionality of the latest version unless there are breaking changes that affect you?
    – Larnu
    2 days ago










  • While it would be nice to have the functionality of the newer versions, this is not really needed for the db's. Plus as some are very old and designed by people who have left I am thinking the least things i can change the better to avoid potential breakages.
    – altaaf.hussein
    2 days ago

















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have a requirement to get rid of our old servers, however one of them includes a database server that is currently using SQL Server 2005.



We have a new server running with 2016 so I wanted to know the best way to upgrade. From what I have discovered is that ideally we would need 2008 as an interim step. However as we do not have 2008 and this cost more I have been looking at the possibility of doing a 2005 back up and then a 2016 restore.



I have tested this out with a very simple db and it seems to work. However I have read that I should change the compatibility level from 100 (use to be 90) to 130. My question is, is the necessary? After all some of these old db's are old legacy databases which require very little change. Is it really worth it?



So what I will not be able to use the fancy new ways of doing stuff, but as these are old does that matter? After all its not like it is needed otherwise we would not have created these db. I am yet to still test with a more complex db but wanted to make sure I am on the right path.



Thanks






sql-server sql-server-2005 sql-server-2016







share|improve this question















put on hold as off-topic by Rich Benner, Mitch Wheat, Owen Pauling, greg-449, Andrea 2 days ago



  • This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • You might get better answers posting on the DBA site of the network
    – Cid
    2 days ago










  • Not upping the compability level means not getting the functionality of newer version.s Would you you not want to functionality of the latest version unless there are breaking changes that affect you?
    – Larnu
    2 days ago










  • While it would be nice to have the functionality of the newer versions, this is not really needed for the db's. Plus as some are very old and designed by people who have left I am thinking the least things i can change the better to avoid potential breakages.
    – altaaf.hussein
    2 days ago















up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I have a requirement to get rid of our old servers, however one of them includes a database server that is currently using SQL Server 2005.



We have a new server running with 2016 so I wanted to know the best way to upgrade. From what I have discovered is that ideally we would need 2008 as an interim step. However as we do not have 2008 and this cost more I have been looking at the possibility of doing a 2005 back up and then a 2016 restore.



I have tested this out with a very simple db and it seems to work. However I have read that I should change the compatibility level from 100 (use to be 90) to 130. My question is, is the necessary? After all some of these old db's are old legacy databases which require very little change. Is it really worth it?



So what I will not be able to use the fancy new ways of doing stuff, but as these are old does that matter? After all its not like it is needed otherwise we would not have created these db. I am yet to still test with a more complex db but wanted to make sure I am on the right path.



Thanks






sql-server sql-server-2005 sql-server-2016







share|improve this question















I have a requirement to get rid of our old servers, however one of them includes a database server that is currently using SQL Server 2005.



We have a new server running with 2016 so I wanted to know the best way to upgrade. From what I have discovered is that ideally we would need 2008 as an interim step. However as we do not have 2008 and this cost more I have been looking at the possibility of doing a 2005 back up and then a 2016 restore.



I have tested this out with a very simple db and it seems to work. However I have read that I should change the compatibility level from 100 (use to be 90) to 130. My question is, is the necessary? After all some of these old db's are old legacy databases which require very little change. Is it really worth it?



So what I will not be able to use the fancy new ways of doing stuff, but as these are old does that matter? After all its not like it is needed otherwise we would not have created these db. I am yet to still test with a more complex db but wanted to make sure I am on the right path.



Thanks






sql-server sql-server-2005 sql-server-2016




sql-server sql-server-2005 sql-server-2016






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago









Rich Benner

5,89982237




5,89982237










asked 2 days ago









altaaf.hussein

697




697




put on hold as off-topic by Rich Benner, Mitch Wheat, Owen Pauling, greg-449, Andrea 2 days ago



  • This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




put on hold as off-topic by Rich Benner, Mitch Wheat, Owen Pauling, greg-449, Andrea 2 days ago



  • This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.












  • You might get better answers posting on the DBA site of the network
    – Cid
    2 days ago










  • Not upping the compability level means not getting the functionality of newer version.s Would you you not want to functionality of the latest version unless there are breaking changes that affect you?
    – Larnu
    2 days ago










  • While it would be nice to have the functionality of the newer versions, this is not really needed for the db's. Plus as some are very old and designed by people who have left I am thinking the least things i can change the better to avoid potential breakages.
    – altaaf.hussein
    2 days ago




















  • You might get better answers posting on the DBA site of the network
    – Cid
    2 days ago










  • Not upping the compability level means not getting the functionality of newer version.s Would you you not want to functionality of the latest version unless there are breaking changes that affect you?
    – Larnu
    2 days ago










  • While it would be nice to have the functionality of the newer versions, this is not really needed for the db's. Plus as some are very old and designed by people who have left I am thinking the least things i can change the better to avoid potential breakages.
    – altaaf.hussein
    2 days ago


















You might get better answers posting on the DBA site of the network
– Cid
2 days ago




You might get better answers posting on the DBA site of the network
– Cid
2 days ago












Not upping the compability level means not getting the functionality of newer version.s Would you you not want to functionality of the latest version unless there are breaking changes that affect you?
– Larnu
2 days ago




Not upping the compability level means not getting the functionality of newer version.s Would you you not want to functionality of the latest version unless there are breaking changes that affect you?
– Larnu
2 days ago












While it would be nice to have the functionality of the newer versions, this is not really needed for the db's. Plus as some are very old and designed by people who have left I am thinking the least things i can change the better to avoid potential breakages.
– altaaf.hussein
2 days ago






While it would be nice to have the functionality of the newer versions, this is not really needed for the db's. Plus as some are very old and designed by people who have left I am thinking the least things i can change the better to avoid potential breakages.
– altaaf.hussein
2 days ago



















active

oldest

votes






















active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes

Popular posts from this blog

Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

Image
28 6 $begingroup$ Per the Font of Magic feature, sorcerer can use Flexible Casting to create 5th-level spell slots at level 7, even though they are not typically available until level 9. You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot of [5th level is 7] If such a sorcerer levels up while still having this 5th-level spell slot, can they choose a 5th-level spell as the spell they gain upon levelling up? The Spellcasting feature states: Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
Read more

Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

Image
up vote 13 down vote favorite 1 After the 2018 errata, the disintegrate spell description now reads: A creature targeted by this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points. If you were to polymorph an enemy into a rat and then disintegrate it, would the enemy be disintegrated or would it just return to its original form? I know that for Druids, it’s not an instant kill anymore, but is this the case for polymorph as well? dnd-5e spells polymorph errata share | improve this question edited 18 hours ago
Read more

A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$

Image
3 3 $begingroup$ Recently, I saw a construction of topological invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$ with $ngeq 2$ : $$ N=frac{1}{24pi^2}int_{S^3} d^3x epsilon^{ijk} Tr[(U^{-1}partial_{x_i}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_j}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_k}U)] , $$ where $Uin U(n)$ depends on $boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)in S^3$ , $epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $i,j,k=1,2,3$ , and the duplicated indexes are summed over. It is claimed that $N$ is an integer, but why? Update 02/02/2019 I think I got an argument for $n=2$ . In this case, $U=e^{i varphi} q$ with $qin SU(2)$ . Due to the trace and the Levi-Civita symbol in $N$ , $varphi$ does not contribute to $N$ . As $Tr[q^{dagger}partial_i q]=0$ and $(q^{dagger}partial_i q)^{dagger}=-q^{dagger}partial_i q$ , $q^{dagger}partial_i q$ in geneeral has the form $q^{dagger}partia
Read more