Applying the latest 2K5 CU Patch Scare me out of it

We're late to the party, as far as rolling out SQL2K5. I would like
to *GASP* apply the latest SP2 cumulative update to the servers(looks
like CU6). We of course have not yet encountered any of the errors
that are addressed in the CU updates. The probably-not-unique-to-us
deal is this: If we encounter any of the addressed bugs in
production, without 'proactively' applying the patch, we will get into
a lot of political hot water. Yes, MS says don't apply UNTIL you
encounter an issue, but that may not fly with the higher-ups.
I think it comes down to this for us: Are these CU patches any more
or less prone to create additional issues than a SP release?Examining how 'buggy' SQL Server service packs have been since SQL 2000 SP3,
I would say that CUs can't be any worse. :-))
There are some very significant bugs fixed in the CUs though, so I would see
if Microsoft will give you 6, or at least 5. I think CU4 (build 3186') is
the latest one you can get without going through MS.
--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
<SqlRandall@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80f70278-531e-4db5-a9cf-dc0c5b5ecd81@.60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> We're late to the party, as far as rolling out SQL2K5. I would like
> to *GASP* apply the latest SP2 cumulative update to the servers(looks
> like CU6). We of course have not yet encountered any of the errors
> that are addressed in the CU updates. The probably-not-unique-to-us
> deal is this: If we encounter any of the addressed bugs in
> production, without 'proactively' applying the patch, we will get into
> a lot of political hot water. Yes, MS says don't apply UNTIL you
> encounter an issue, but that may not fly with the higher-ups.
> I think it comes down to this for us: Are these CU patches any more
> or less prone to create additional issues than a SP release?|||I cuold be wrong, but I think CU4 is .3200, which is our default. Has
proven to be stable, or we have lots of really lucky customers...
--
Kevin3NF
SQL Server dude
You want fries with that?
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com/
I only check the newsgroups during work hours, M-F.
Hit my blog and the contact links if necessary...I may be available.
"TheSQLGuru" <kgboles@.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13stt3t4ijltrb4@.corp.supernews.com...
> Examining how 'buggy' SQL Server service packs have been since SQL 2000
> SP3, I would say that CUs can't be any worse. :-))
> There are some very significant bugs fixed in the CUs though, so I would
> see if Microsoft will give you 6, or at least 5. I think CU4 (build
> 3186') is the latest one you can get without going through MS.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> SQL Server MVP
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> <SqlRandall@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:80f70278-531e-4db5-a9cf-dc0c5b5ecd81@.60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>> We're late to the party, as far as rolling out SQL2K5. I would like
>> to *GASP* apply the latest SP2 cumulative update to the servers(looks
>> like CU6). We of course have not yet encountered any of the errors
>> that are addressed in the CU updates. The probably-not-unique-to-us
>> deal is this: If we encounter any of the addressed bugs in
>> production, without 'proactively' applying the patch, we will get into
>> a lot of political hot water. Yes, MS says don't apply UNTIL you
>> encounter an issue, but that may not fly with the higher-ups.
>> I think it comes down to this for us: Are these CU patches any more
>> or less prone to create additional issues than a SP release?
>|||I have found the same with 3215; it is now on all of our dev, qa and
production servers. I have only installed 3228 in one development machine
so far due to time constraints.
"Kevin3NF" <kevin@.SPAMTRAP.3nf-inc.com> wrote in message
news:ue9k0zvfIHA.5996@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I cuold be wrong, but I think CU4 is .3200, which is our default. Has
>proven to be stable, or we have lots of really lucky customers...