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

'app-layout' is not a known element: how to share Component with different Modules

Image
0 My application was working fine until I decided to go with lazy loading: So, my shared component looks like this: import { Component, Renderer2 } from '@angular/core'; export interface FormModel { captcha?: string; } @Component({ selector: 'app-layout', templateUrl: './app-layout.component.html', styleUrls: ['./app-layout.css'] }) export class FullLayoutComponent { } app-layout.component.ts I am using this component in my Another component say school-home.component.html like this: <app-layout> </app-layout> and it was working fine until I created a Module school-home.module.ts like this: import { NgModule } from '@angular/core'; import { CommonModule } from '@angular/common'; import { SchoolhomeRoutingModule ...
Read more

android studio warns about leanback feature tag usage required on manifest while using Unity exported app?

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 0 This is a simple project showing cubes on Unity, exported to android project and imported on Android studio. On maifest file it showed following warning: Expecting <uses-feature android:name="android.software.leanback" android:required="false" /> tag I have no information about it. And also on default emptyview android project does not use/mention this feature. I know it is required by TV's and such but why its not added by default? Why is this? And Should I concern about it? android unity3d ...
Read more

WPF add header to Image with URL pettitions [duplicate]

Image
up vote 0 down vote favorite This question already has an answer here: Image source URI requiring authorization 3 answers Add header to all* HTTP requests on a machine 1 answer first of all sorry for my english. Recently I added some security in the backend of my project, and now I need to send a validation code(apiKey) inside the headers to retrieve the images. I have a problem with ALL images in my project that I had attached in my UI. For example, before I had: <Image Height="90" Source="{Binding Video.Thumbnail}"/> Now I need to change my code to create a CUSTOM petition add the apiKey in the header:...
Read more