EXEC dbo.LongTermMemory__Archive - All Comments

Clearing your ad-hoc SQL plans while keeping your SP plans intact

Maciej Pilecki - SQL Server lessons from the field — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:56:25 GMT

The problem of the procedure cache being inflated with ad-hoc SQL plans that are almost never reused

re: This blog will move

WesleyB — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:52:21 GMT

Peter,

Thank you for the kind words.

You will sure see me @UG evenings and who knows as a speaker in the near future ;-)

Kind regards

Wesley

re: This blog will move

Peter — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:59:23 GMT

Hi Wesley, the UG-coremembers and also in my own name, I want to thank you for all the years you contributed to the Sql Server community, especially with your succesfull blog! <Applause>

We wish you al the best in your new job. With your energy, your technical, professional and personal skills, I am convinced that you have all the chances to succeed in your new challenges!

Looking forward to welcome you on a next UG-evening, as a visitor or as a speaker.

Best regards,

Peter De Seranno

re: This blog will move

WesleyB — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:39:38 GMT

Thank you very much. I will definitely not forget the community nor will Microsoft. The community is very important to us!

re: This blog will move

EvilBart — Mon, 19 May 2008 12:40:06 GMT

Wishing you lots of success in your new role! don't forget the community :-)

//Bart

SQL Server 2008 Performance

SQL Server 2008 Performance — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:48:26 GMT

PingBack from http://www.windows-vista.luiscorreia.com/sql-server-2008-performance/

SQL Server 2008 Performance

EXEC dbo.LongTermMemory__Archive — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:43:24 GMT

SQL Server 2008 has not yet been released but nevertheless there are already some test results from the

microsoft » Blog Archive » Self-Service Hotfixes

microsoft » Blog Archive » Self-Service Hotfixes — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:39:57 GMT

PingBack from http://microsoft-site2008yr.freehostia.com/?p=6692

Self-Service Hotfixes

EXEC dbo.LongTermMemory__Archive — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:46:04 GMT

Those of you who read my blog regularly may have noticed the previous post and maybe more important the

re: SQL Server 2005 SP2 Cumulative Hotfix Packages and SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 3

WesleyB — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:03:54 GMT

Scott,

I consider the fact that cumulative fixes are released so often a good thing. When you have to install a fix you might as well take the other hotfixes with it since you have to go through your whole approval process anyway and this would lower the risk of running into other issues. But I do agree that the procedure to obtain a CU is a bit "heavy" at the moment, especially considering you have to request the hotfix via support but this is nothing more than a formality. Because CU's are less thoroughly tested I do understand that releasing them for public download would greatly increase the number of people installing them and thus Microsoft would be taking more risk.

The problem with Microsoft not treating CU's the same way as SP's is that people are also less eager to use them and/or setting their baseline to a specific CU whereas setting the baseline to a specific SP seems natural for most people. One of my customers had a CU installed (latest build when the server was installed) and needed a fix that was included in CU3 (it was not blocking but it was annoying), it took us months to convince them to upgrade their server and they have decided to install CU6 now since it was the latest build available at that time. I am sure they will install SP3 when it comes out but I doubt that they will install CU8 when it comes out even if this might prevent them from having certain issues in the future (this is also what they state in the CU KB articles "Apply it only to systems that are experiencing these specific problems."). I myself am also curious why they have waited for the massive amount of requests from the community before considering the release of service pack 3. My assumption is that the pending release of SQL Server 2008 has been interfering with the schedule (whether or not this is a good reason is beyond this discussion).

Am I satisfied with the ISM? My answer is "yes" Should they have released Service Pack 3 sooner? My answer would be "yes" too. I do not see why the release of frequent hotfixes should interfere with the release of service packs.

Maybe the guys from the SQL Server Release Team could clarify the reasons behind all these decisions. And maybe you should post your comment as a blog post Scott :-)

All this is obviously my personal opinion and is in no way an official statement from my (future) employer.

SQL Server 2005 SP2 Cumulative Hotfix Packages and SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 3

Scratch The Surface — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:58:49 GMT

WesleyB posted a blogpost on his blog (s) on the Cumulative Updates for SQL2005 and the possible release

re: SQL Server 2005 SP2 Cumulative Hotfix Packages and SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 3

Scott R. — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:02:41 GMT

Wesley,

Thanks for your comments regarding the SQL Server software maintenance process and recent events.

I understand the stated improvements in the "new" schedule-based cumulative updates (CUs) versus the prior priority-based approach. I have not seen anything documented that changed the prior approach of service packs as a roll-up of CUs, yet this practice appears to have also changed to a less-frequent schedule (as in: hasn’t happened since SP2 – 02/17/2007 – a long time).

A review of the SQL 2005 SP delivery schedule to date:

- SQL Server 2005 RTM – 01/14/2006 (11/30/2005 product launch – my recollection)

- SQL Server 2005 SP1 – 04/18/2006 (about 3 months after RTM or 4.5 months after launch)

- SQL Server 2005 SP2 – 02/19/2006 (about 10 months after SP1)

- SQL Server 2005 SP3 – soon (about 14 months after SP2 and counting)

Refer to the Microsoft Support Lifecycle site for this information:

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2855

The concerns that I and others have voiced regarding the changed processes are:

- CUs on a schedule are good, but a CU is still not as well tested as an SP, and come with the caveat of “don’t apply this CU unless you are affected by one of the problems addressed by the CU”. In other words: not a long-term substitute for an SP. More of a substitute for individual hot fixes (a good thing).

- CUs issued since SP2 CU1 require permission from Microsoft before they can be downloaded – unlike the hands-off “no permission required” approach of prior CUs – more hurdles to jump over and potential barriers to timely and successful software maintenance processes

- Customers shouldn’t have to “request” a service pack – as in a popularity contest. If CUs are on a schedule, then SPs should also be on a published schedule (time-based or threshold-based) that customers can plan around.

I’m not trying to re-hash what Hugo brought forward a few months back via a Connect request, but I believe that:

- SP3 is the short-term fix to a larger issue

AND

- Further process changes that better define a schedule or other publication criteria for SPs is also needed as a long-term process fix for delivering software maintenance that has passed more comprehensive first-line vendor tests (the “certainty” you spoke of in your post), is suited for a broader audience, and should not require “special permission” for downloading by customers (this vendor SP testing does not absolve the customer from any appropriate testing processes and efforts prior to deployment – just a better level of assurance that more shake-out has been done by the vendor prior to starting customer SP testing)

I welcome the upcoming release of SP3, and am hopeful that Microsoft will address and resolve this process issue without customers having to “request” SP4 in the future. While I have heard of the upcoming SP3, CU7, and CU8 publications milestone events, I have not yet heard of other process changes (like I mentioned) either being considered or implemented. Perhaps others know of efforts in the works or already in place?

Could you share your satisfaction with the current software maintenance process and schedules (as they apply to your SQL Server instances), and your impressions of the current process – what parts work and what parts should be changed or improved?

I look forward to feedback from yourself and others.

Scott R.

re: SQL Server Area

evbelgium — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:37:49 GMT

Hi Wes,

Thanks for your Welcome. I'll try to do my best to add some new posts every now and then.

Enjoy it!

http://sqlug.be/blogs/wesleyb/archive/2007/11/19/sql-server-2008-ctp5.aspx

http://sqlug.be/blogs/wesleyb/archive/2007/11/19/sql-server-2008-ctp5.aspx — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:54:39 GMT

PingBack from http://frankthefrank.info/entry.php?id=kwws%3d22vtoxj1eh2eorjv2zhvoh%7ce2dufklyh2533%3a24424%3c2vto0vhuyhu0533%3b0fws81dvs%7b

SQL Server Shorts

SELECT IsUseless(blabber) from sys.innarwebs CROSS APPLY jmass(blog) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:08:48 GMT

Dan Jones provides some interesting insight into the development process of SQL Server 2008. SQL Customer Advisory Team releases a partition management utility on CodePlex. The storage engine team con ...