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...

anyone use a 3rd party product to load balance SQL Server?

I'm working on a project needing a high-end large mission critical database
solution. The data is in 1 database. So SQL 2000 doesn't support load
balancing, and neither will 2005. That sucks. Oracle supposedly does load
balancing and I can't understand why even SQL Server 2005 won't do it. So
either I go with an 8+ CPU SQL Server or consider a 3rd party load balancer
that will somehow (?) make it work so that multiple SQL brains can balance
the load of 1 single database that is presumably shared on 1 set of disks.
I'm finding very little information on load balancing SQL Server when
searching the net. Is there a product like Legato, for example, (I haven't
tried it) that will somehow give me load balancing with SQL Server?
HK wrote:
> I'm working on a project needing a high-end large mission critical
> database solution. The data is in 1 database. So SQL 2000 doesn't
> support load balancing, and neither will 2005. That sucks. Oracle
> supposedly does load balancing and I can't understand why even SQL
> Server 2005 won't do it. So either I go with an 8+ CPU SQL Server or
> consider a 3rd party load balancer that will somehow (?) make it work
> so that multiple SQL brains can balance the load of 1 single database
> that is presumably shared on 1 set of disks.
> I'm finding very little information on load balancing SQL Server when
> searching the net. Is there a product like Legato, for example, (I
> haven't tried it) that will somehow give me load balancing with SQL
> Server?
You may want to take a look at Federated Database Servers on SQL Server
2000/2005 if that architecture will work for you.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
|||"David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
news:uzLN8u5wFHA.3180@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> HK wrote:
> You may want to take a look at Federated Database Servers on SQL Server
> 2000/2005 if that architecture will work for you.
> --
> David Gugick
> Quest Software
> www.imceda.com
> www.quest.com
>
Creating the partitioned views sounds very challenging for an already-in-use
DB that needs to be cut over in the middle of the night. Plus ongoing
maintenance. Maybe I'm missing the boat, but that's why I'd want to stay
away from federated databases.

anyone use a 3rd party product to load balance SQL Server?

I'm working on a project needing a high-end large mission critical database
solution. The data is in 1 database. So SQL 2000 doesn't support load
balancing, and neither will 2005. That sucks. Oracle supposedly does load
balancing and I can't understand why even SQL Server 2005 won't do it. So
either I go with an 8+ CPU SQL Server or consider a 3rd party load balancer
that will somehow (?) make it work so that multiple SQL brains can balance
the load of 1 single database that is presumably shared on 1 set of disks.
I'm finding very little information on load balancing SQL Server when
searching the net. Is there a product like Legato, for example, (I haven't
tried it) that will somehow give me load balancing with SQL Server?HK wrote:
> I'm working on a project needing a high-end large mission critical
> database solution. The data is in 1 database. So SQL 2000 doesn't
> support load balancing, and neither will 2005. That sucks. Oracle
> supposedly does load balancing and I can't understand why even SQL
> Server 2005 won't do it. So either I go with an 8+ CPU SQL Server or
> consider a 3rd party load balancer that will somehow (?) make it work
> so that multiple SQL brains can balance the load of 1 single database
> that is presumably shared on 1 set of disks.
> I'm finding very little information on load balancing SQL Server when
> searching the net. Is there a product like Legato, for example, (I
> haven't tried it) that will somehow give me load balancing with SQL
> Server?
You may want to take a look at Federated Database Servers on SQL Server
2000/2005 if that architecture will work for you.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||"David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
news:uzLN8u5wFHA.3180@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> HK wrote:
> You may want to take a look at Federated Database Servers on SQL Server
> 2000/2005 if that architecture will work for you.
> --
> David Gugick
> Quest Software
> www.imceda.com
> www.quest.com
>
Creating the partitioned views sounds very challenging for an already-in-use
DB that needs to be cut over in the middle of the night. Plus ongoing
maintenance. Maybe I'm missing the boat, but that's why I'd want to stay
away from federated databases.