<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SQL SERVER &#8211; Upgrade Advise &#8211; From 2000 to 2005 or 2008</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/</link>
	<description>Personal Notes of Pinal Dave</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:22:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: madhivanan</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-129952</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[madhivanan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:33:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-129952</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Search for behavioral changes in google/bing]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Search for behavioral changes in google/bing</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Parth</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-129928</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Parth]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-129928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pinal, 

I am going to convert a 2000 database into 2008 in few days. Can you please advise something on this ? as we have big database with nearly 200+ tables and 200+ SPs.

Thanks in advance,
Parth]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pinal, </p>
<p>I am going to convert a 2000 database into 2008 in few days. Can you please advise something on this ? as we have big database with nearly 200+ tables and 200+ SPs.</p>
<p>Thanks in advance,<br />
Parth</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sujith</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-101994</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sujith]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-101994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Pinal,

can you please advise me to migrate sql server 2000? We need to copy the sql server, ie just changing the server, keeping sql 2000 as database server.. the reason for the change is hardware issues.. So is there any simple way for doing this? present db server containing more the 90 databases.. please advise a simple and easiest method for copying the database server..

regards,
Sujith]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Pinal,</p>
<p>can you please advise me to migrate sql server 2000? We need to copy the sql server, ie just changing the server, keeping sql 2000 as database server.. the reason for the change is hardware issues.. So is there any simple way for doing this? present db server containing more the 90 databases.. please advise a simple and easiest method for copying the database server..</p>
<p>regards,<br />
Sujith</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anil Mahadev</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-57150</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anil Mahadev]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:36:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-57150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Kevin,

The following MSDN article is a primer when considering upgrading from one DB Engine to another in SQL Server

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143393(SQL.90).aspx

Thanks]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Kevin,</p>
<p>The following MSDN article is a primer when considering upgrading from one DB Engine to another in SQL Server</p>
<p><a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143393(SQL.90).aspx" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143393(SQL.90).aspx</a></p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Chang</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-39855</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kevin Chang]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/11/24/sql-server-upgrade-advise-from-2000-to-2005-or-2008/#comment-39855</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Pinal,

We still have problems to find a stable version, we have migrated from 2000 to 2005 a year ago, but have several problems with a lot of maintenance plans bugs after upgrading to SP2. After that we have tried Cumulative Update 4, but I have already heard from CU 9! Our problem is to upgrade to a stable version after SP2, since SP2 is not acceptable with severe maintenance plans bugs in it, like integrity checks (only master!), wrong cleanup etc.
But it looks like that CU4 is acceptable for us, but for one particular application it will be CU9, and this application still works fine on SP1.
After a year of migrating to SQL 2005 we have advise of Microsoft consultants to migrate it to SQL 2008 because it will be better and more stable. I think this is to fast for our company with such a short lifecycle!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Pinal,</p>
<p>We still have problems to find a stable version, we have migrated from 2000 to 2005 a year ago, but have several problems with a lot of maintenance plans bugs after upgrading to SP2. After that we have tried Cumulative Update 4, but I have already heard from CU 9! Our problem is to upgrade to a stable version after SP2, since SP2 is not acceptable with severe maintenance plans bugs in it, like integrity checks (only master!), wrong cleanup etc.<br />
But it looks like that CU4 is acceptable for us, but for one particular application it will be CU9, and this application still works fine on SP1.<br />
After a year of migrating to SQL 2005 we have advise of Microsoft consultants to migrate it to SQL 2008 because it will be better and more stable. I think this is to fast for our company with such a short lifecycle!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

