SQL Server Code Name “Denali” – Supported OSes and Upgrade Paths

We are looking for feedback on three items for SQL Server Code Name “Denali”. First, are the supported OSes. Second, are the supported upgrade paths. Third, is the way the installer handles unsupported OSes and upgrade paths. Specifically we want to know if these will slow down your adoption of SQL Server Code Name “Denali”.

1) The current support matrix for OSes is as follows:

• Windows Vista SP2 or later
• Windows Server 2008 SP2 or later
• Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 or later
• Windows 7 SP1 or later

2) Denali will support upgrading from these SQL Server versions:

• SQL Server 2005 SP4 or later
• SQL Server 2008 SP2 or later
• SQL Server 2008 R2 SP1 or later

3) The installer is going to block installation on unsupported OSes and it will block unsupported upgrade paths.

If the current support matrix for OSes, the current support matrix for upgrade, or the installation blocks will delay your adoption of of SQL Server called “Denali”, please provide this feedback to us! You can provide us this feedback by adding a comment below or submitting the feedback through the SQL Server Connect.

Comments

• Anonymous
  June 10, 2011
  Sadly, I still see a lot of instances out there running SQL 2000. Yes - I know it's unsupported at this point, but the number of server running it out there is huge. I'm not advocating an upgrade path from 2000 though.

• Anonymous
  June 10, 2011
  I think those requirements are reasonable. I would rather SQL team spend more time on other things that supporting old operating systems and upgrading really old (un)patched SQL installs. I have had about 50% success rate with in-place upgrades, so I gave up on them and do backup/restore or logshipping to new servers running latest OS and SQL edition.

• Anonymous
  June 10, 2011
  For the operating systems, I don't have a problem with it at all. For the SQL Server versions, I don't think it will be wise to block an upgrade from SQL 2005 SP3 or 2008 SP1 or 2008 R2 RTM. These are the versions (I'll refer to them below as "currentish versions") that a lot of people are still running, as a service pack upgrade in a lot of cases requires as much planning and lead time as a major version upgrade. Are there technical reasons that make "currentish versions"-1 harder to upgrade? Or is just that you only want to /support/ the upgrade from "currentish versions"?

• Anonymous
  June 10, 2011
  For my full take, see sqlha.com/.../sql-server-denali-upgrading-supported-platforms-and-you. I think the OS list is potentially problematic depending on certain feature usage of Denali based on what we know right now.

• Anonymous
  June 10, 2011
  Looks good and please, for the love of all that is good and right, don't add XP support. Companies need to have substantial reasons to rip that XP band-aid off. Anything to help put the legacy stuff to rest, the better IMO

• Anonymous
  June 10, 2011
  Agree with all of this

• Anonymous
  June 11, 2011
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 11, 2011
  I'd be overjoyed if there was no 64-bit support, no XP support.

• Anonymous
  June 11, 2011
  Sadly, that Windows XP is not supported. I know many developers use SQL Server Express + SSMS on their Windows XP corporate workstations. And they do not plan to move to Windows 7 soon. I do understand, that life is going on, but still ... I wish it would support XP.

• Anonymous
  June 11, 2011
  I think that limiting the upgrade options are fine. My big concern is the lack of support for XP and how this may impact the uptake of Denali. Desktops are usually the first places to get new versions just because people can deploy them locally and play around with them, building a business case to get a server level install. I recently left a company with > 10k desktops, all of which were running XP and there was no plan in sight to move to Windows 7. This is not an uncommon scenario. I would hate to see slow movement on Denali because of this (although at this point I can't see how there could be any option to run on XP).

• Anonymous
  June 12, 2011
  It sounds great. But, Microsoft is famous for backward compatibility. If they have these restriction in the upcoming SQL Server version that leads to delay in using SQL Server code name Denali for some organization. I would ask Microsoft to give some alternative to support the upgrade from all available older version to Denali. Operating system, I can see may companies still using Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. So, I many expect SQL Server Denali to support some basic features in these operating system.

• Anonymous
  June 12, 2011
  MSFT needs to cut that umbilical cord and I think the listed upgrade paths are reasonable. Vendors are quite liberal with their upgrades and if DBAs have MSFT behind them to enforce those upgrade requirements maybe we won't have that many SQL 2000s lingering about. I must agree that SQL upgrade path is a bit strict but I personally can live with that. We're currently maintaining four versions of SQL and because of SQL 2000 we need to have our maintenance jobs adhere to less than best practice procedures.

• Anonymous
  June 12, 2011
  My company still using windows xp and their is no plan to change that.Win xp is the best operating system ms have.

• Anonymous
  June 12, 2011
  I am not in favor of support for XP or Server 2003.  Its time IT shops moved on.

• Anonymous
  June 12, 2011
  Definitely should support XP. Windows XP is a great small footprint OS (can be made into) and it definitely makes testing easier on Virtual Machines.

• Anonymous
  June 12, 2011
  Support for Windows XP is really important for future versions of SQL Server because of the fact that there are many many many native applications (to quote shipping apps from Fedex or UPS) that make good use of SQL Server Express that hosts a small to medium replicated databases combined with .NET/non-.NET applications to accomplish order fulfilments/other critical business processes. On the other hand I believe OS support matrix should look same for .NET framework (the minimum version which is utilized by SQL Server "Denali") and the SQL Server version itself.

• Anonymous
  June 12, 2011
  +1 for no-XP OS support. It's time to move on...(typing on a XP Core i7 laptop here). Although I dislike the SP1/SP2 requirement on Win7/2008/2008R2 -1 for SQL Upgrade though. I second others in that we should allow upgrade from SQL 2005 SP2+, and ANY SQL 2008/2008R2 version

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  Does the "current support matrix for OSes" mean no support for the install of the tools like ssms and bids aswell for OS's like xp?  If so then my company would definately have a problem with it.  We have started the migration toward win7 but it will be years before it is complete.

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  I use XP. I vote for having Denali work on XP.

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  I posted my comments here. In short: good riddance to XP. You are really in a situation where you have 10,000 XP desktops that you won't budge on, and you are moving to Denali immediately? Of those, how many need to run SQL Server or Management Studio, honestly (and can't upgrade to Windows 7 individually)? And of those, how many aren't allowed (or can't figure out how) to install a virtual machine? If any, can't they use RDP / PowerShell in the meantime to manage all of those Denali instances you're going to have in production on the day it is released? Lots of workarounds to beat the excuse of clinging to a 10-year old operating system. For Santosh who talks about shipped applications from ISVs. Why on earth would you need to upgrade such an app from its current Express version to Denali?

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  Forgot the URL: sqlblog.com/.../sql-server-v-next-denali-os-compatibility-upgrade-support.aspx

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  I agree almost 100% with Aaron. I would love to see upgrade paths from especially all SQL 2008 and 2008 R2 SP levels though. So much harder to do??

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  Dan, If you have to restrict at a service pack level for SQL 2005 then SP3 is still under support (Tomorrows patch mentions SP3) as is SQL2008 SP1 and SQL2008R2 SP1 doesn't exist yet. Restricting the upgrades to service pack levels could mean a double upgrade effort is needed if the upgrade is in place. Chris

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  Good list and I support it. No reason to go backwards anymore. Those companies that still run XP on every desktop and mandate it, or have SQL2K, aren't going to run to Denali. If they think they need it, they'll make exceptions for the people that need it. Any IT professional that wants to work on Denali, but has XP at work. Either invest in a machine that you can run it on at home or learn to set up a VM, but there is no reason for MS to invest time or testing efforts into supporting XP at this point.

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  I think the Express Editions should support WinXP. For all other versions I'm fine with the list above.

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  No XP support. No 2k support.

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011
  I have no concerns with the SQL Server version upgrade paths that are suggested, although a number of the systems I'm responsible for are still on 2000!! :-( However, a large number of our servers are Windows Server 2003 R2 and there are no plans at all to upgrade/change these to Server 2008 so from a personal perspective, the proposed support matric for OSes would cause me a problem. Thanks.

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2011

• Dan I recommend adding Windows 2003 SP2 for the simple reason that most of the shops (in my finite experience) out there have not made the jump to 2008 svr. Second, in an economic downturn this deep companies are very likely NOT to make the jump soon. This will crimp your sales of SQL Server. Second, it is silly to create a cranky upgrade path. Why would the upgrade process whine about 2008 sp1 or 2008R2 RTM? Embrace upgrading 2008 RTM and 2008R2 RTM.

• Anonymous
  June 15, 2011
  Its time to move on. Spend more time fine-tuning Denali for Vista+, but if its a business decision, then make it a good one but include the costs for supporting XP. I work in an organization with 10.000+ PCs (and XP's) and while I won't be able to use Denali anytime soon, I am advocating for the innovation and progress. As for the Server 2003 - this one should be definitely supported, way too many solutions won't be migrated for years from this OS.

• Anonymous
  June 15, 2011
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 16, 2011
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  June 16, 2011
  I would like to see support for Windows 2003.  We have a ton of those running SQL 2005 and even some SQL 2008.

• Anonymous
  June 16, 2011
  I would  love to see the MS-SQL Server run on Unix,Linux. In the finance segment most of our Oracle Server run's on Unix for a long time. The DBA's don't like to switch to Windows Server for running the SQL Database ;)  

• Anonymous
  June 16, 2011
  I can see if a company still has XP and Windows 2003 for 2005 or even hosting 2008. Why would you expect Denali to run on old hardware? Seriously if your going to use Denali why not just use a newer OS. That doesn't mean a connection from an old server to a new server won't connect. It's just that Denali won't install on older OSes. Maybe I'm missing something.

• Anonymous
  June 20, 2011
  64-bit only -> Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 and above. Its time to not support the products and give them a reason to upgrade (more money to you and easier lives for developers such as my self).

• Anonymous
  June 21, 2011
  I think at least workstation tools and SQL Express should support Windows XP, because there are still a large amount of such OS'es in corporate segment. Vista was awful and only small amount of companies moved. A lot of still using XP. You know how hard sometimes is to migrate all software (especially third party) to Windows 7. MED-V is good variant, but we should upgrade at least RAM for it. I know it is time to move, but it would be impossible to explain BOSS that if we want SQL Denali we should move to Windows 7 too.

• Anonymous
  July 03, 2011
  A lot of my customers are still running SQL 2000 on Windows 2003, so I believe we should add this to the supportability.

• Anonymous
  July 08, 2011
  Make it 64-bit only too. Exchange already is.

• Anonymous
  July 08, 2011
  I'm going to disagree with the crowd, I think support for XP should be put in place. I'm on Windows 7 at home, but work is still on XP slowly moving to 7. Please support Windows XP. I use virtual machines for demonstrations and I like the smaller footprint that XP provides.

• Anonymous
  July 19, 2011
  I don't see why we should expect new software to run on an outdated OS that can't be properly secured from all the new exploits. To run NEW software it should require the respective OS be the same that it was created for and nothing else. If Microsoft wants to drop support for something that is using old technology so that a new product can use new technology then so be it. Everyone on XP should not expect that all new software being produced run on thier OS this is the life of software it will never be supported on all OS'es/Versions in the wild. Get over it and move on with the rest of the world!

• Anonymous
  August 09, 2011
  Upgrade blocked from Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 (SP1) - 10.50.2769.0 (X64)   Jun 24 2011 13:09:43   Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation  Developer Edition (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.1 <X64> (Build 7601: Service Pack 1) Was this planned?

• Anonymous
  August 12, 2011
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  August 16, 2011
  I'm fine with the server restrictions, it's the client tools that will prevent adoption in my group. We're currently still on XP and with 70,000+ desktops to upgrade Windows 7 is a long ways off. So currently I can't even get the CTP installed to play with.

• Anonymous
  August 29, 2011
  We won't be able to implement Denali LocalDB because of the XP limitation. We have no control over the computer that our agents use and the majority of them still use XP. If you want to force people to use Windows 7 so you can sell more product, give people a compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7, don't force it on them. People develop a bad impression of your company.

• Anonymous
  August 29, 2011
  And by the way, corporations will probably hang on to SQL 2000, 2005 and 2008 even longer now that XP is not supported.