I want your SQL upgrade opinion. 6.5 to 7 or 2000?

[Scott2S]

We have about 35 remote SQL 6.5 installations. Each database is about 100 tables, 50 SP's and about 225MB in size. 15 of them have publications & subscriptions to a main 6.5 server, which by the way eventually ends up on a 7.0 SQL server (long story).

So, the question I want your opinion on is: Do I just stick with 7.0 since we have a big chunk of our remote systems going to a 7.0 server? Or do I go forward with SQL 2000? How much different is 2000 from 7? Is it small enough to shrug at and just go on with 2000?

If I do go with SQL 2000, I can start with the non replicated sites and then migrate to the replicated sites last.

 

[christine1]

Scott,

I cannot offer any insight however, I also am in the same situation. I want to know if it is feasible to go from 6.5 to 2000? Is it recommended? Are there known conversion issues. And finally the one I most have issues with, how to configure SQL Server on NT 4.0 to run and optimal production?

Any insight is welcomed.

Christine

 

[foxdev]

I don't have any useful insight, because I haven't upgraded 6.5 to either. My WAG is that if you don't need some of the neato new features of 2000 (indexed views, user-defined functions), then 7 is probably the way to go right now. If you dally long enough for 2000's first service pack, then I might suggest it instead.

Robert Bradley

http://www.foxdev.com/

 

[TomSark]

I would go with 2000. You are going to have to do a lot of work (most likely) to get to either 7.0 or to 2000. 2000 has a lot of functional enhancements that will make your like a lot easier. I wouldn't worry about being on the 'bloody edge', but if that's your concern, check the buglist on the microsoft site to see if you can live with the known 2000 bugs or not. Keep in mind that support for 7.0 is now time-bombed because 2000 is out.

Tom