Mixing
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 edited 2 days ago
Rich Benner
5,89982237
asked 2 days ago
altaaf.hussein
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.
add a comment |
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 edited 2 days ago
Rich Benner
5,89982237
asked 2 days ago
altaaf.hussein
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.
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
add a comment |
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 edited 2 days ago
Rich Benner
5,89982237
asked 2 days ago
altaaf.hussein
697
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 edited 2 days ago
Rich Benner
5,89982237
asked 2 days ago
altaaf.hussein
697
edited 2 days ago
Rich Benner
5,89982237
asked 2 days ago
altaaf.hussein
697
edited 2 days ago
Rich Benner
5,89982237
edited 2 days ago
Rich Benner
5,89982237
edited 2 days ago
Rich Benner
5,89982237
5,89982237
asked 2 days ago
altaaf.hussein
697
asked 2 days ago
altaaf.hussein
697
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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