SQL Server Reviews

Usually I install an SQL Server as part of something bigger from Microsoft (NAV, CRM, SharePoint, SCCM, SCOM, BizTalk, etc.) or some custom built solution that was designed around this DMBS. 

I also teach in a university. My students admit that SQL Server is quite easy to install and work with if you are a total beginner (compared with others). 

I am not sure, as we have been working with it from the start. Comparing with other database management systems that I tried in other companies, SQL Server is quite easy to install, configure, and maintain. It is also quite reliable in cluster configurations and has helped me to reduce downtime and improve SLAs. If backups and alerts are configured properly, I can also rely on my restoration plan saving my butt more than once. 

Always On is my favorite feature. I do like availability groups and cannot imagine how I lived with them before. 

Microsoft tries to release new features with every version, but I cannot say that they are killer features. Usually these are just "nice to have" stuff. However, SQL Server works and it works just fine. It is really reliable if you don't shoot your own leg. All the basic functionality is 100% bulletproof. 

I like it the way it is, though I would appreciate a dark theme for SQL Server Management Studio and ability to add databases with TDE enabled into availability groups.

I am aware of Connect and Trello pages, and there are a lot of good ideas from other people, most of them are useful only in some very rare scenarios. There are interesting suggestions present, and Microsoft should pay more attention. 

Over the years, there was one service pack and two cumulative updates that were recalled as problematic ones, but otherwise it is very stable system.

Unfortunately, SQL Server cannot be scaled out so easily as some NoSQL solutions. There are some options that may allow it to work with quite enormous workloads. For example, try to google how Stack Overflow is built (yes, it works with SQL Server). They have quite an interesting architecture. 

It depends. The shear number of support specialists is huge. You can get a freshman or a seasoned veteran. Usually, it is tolerable but it might take a while to solve a problem. In my experience, 50% of all problems can be resolved by installation of the latest patch. In 25% of times, it is your own stupidity. The 25% that left are real bugs, exotic configurations, and rocket science-level problems with a real high-load and very specific code and environments. 

It depends how many features you want to implement. Basic stuff is very easy to install, but if you want to implement all the features or deploy a high-load or a clustered environment, it might be tricky. That is why you need a good architect and skilled DBA for something really complicated. 

I have seen everything. It always depends on people skills. To get full performance from the SQL Server you need a well prepared environment and hard team work. 

This is a downside of enterprise Microsoft products. Currently, almost all of my machines are in Azure and I think it is the best way of licensing now (VM+software).

Though I do like the SQL Server, I must say it is very hard to find a good DBA nowadays and having a DBMS without a DBA is like having a car without a driver and skills to drive it yourself. Before choosing or switching to this DMBS, check what kind of workforce is available in your area. 

You may consider Azure SQL Database as a simple alternative, but I would advise it only for small workloads though.

The primary use of SQL Server is to store and retrieve data.  If you go into the extra features that come with your license, you can also do reporting, analytics and ETL.

Everything is valuable. It is a relational database system which is critical for storing reporting data or any data that is highly relate-able. Plus your data is one of the most important assets in your company.  Might as well have a good system to protect it.

In a manufacturing system, storing test data in an Excel file has limitations in how much data can be stored at one time and how many people can manipulate the data at one time. Storing it in SQL Server allows you to store as much data as you have disk space for. It can be viewed and modified by multiple people at one time.

Setting up some of the more complex systems could be simpler. Things like service broker can be tricky to set up for the inexperienced.

Stability seems very good. I have not seen any issues with this.

I have not run into scalability issues. It feels very scalable.

I have not needed to contact technical support for this product

I did not use a previous solution. I have heard of other companies using Microsoft Access or Excel for similar problems. However, after hearing the headaches they have, I would not recommend those for large scale projects.

The initial setup was straightforward, but configuration post-install can be complex. Complexity comes from attempting to optimize it and implementing some of the new features that come in new versions.

We implemented it entirely in-house.  

Pricing and licensing is based on a per core and/or per-processor license. Try to keep these low, but keep it above four. (Four is the minimum number of cores.) If you are working mostly with OLTP, make sure your single thread CPU speeds are high.

We did not evaluate other options. The other options lacked support, lacked performance, or were too expensive.

If you don't have a DBA on site, hiring a consultant is recommended to help get things setup and configured. This will reduce headaches down the line.

Apart from the standard SQL database-related features, the 2012 version enables the AlwaysOn functionality which enables two or more SQL Servers that can be clustered, with heartbeat across geographic locations along with high availability failover and 99.9999% uptime.

We have deployed three instances of the SQL Server, i.e., two at the primary datacenter and one at the disaster recovery facility. The AlwaysOn feature has ensured 100% database availability, even when one of the servers is down without any performance issues for the end user.

The Always ON (High Availability) functionality is support only with the MS SQL enterprise edition. It would be beneficial to many if this feature were also made available in the Standard Edition.

I am using the SQL Server for more than 10 years and the 2012 version, I have been using since the last five years.

There were no stability issues. If the initial configuration is done correctly, there are no issues. If the other servers are connected at remote locations, then the connectivity performance plays a vital role and it should be 10-15 ms for best results.

There were no scalability issues.

We have received excellent support from Microsoft and the local partners.

In the earlier versions, we used log shipping to the other servers for the failover and replication requirements. With this version, all the servers are Active/Active and there is no issue related to the availability or failover.

The basic installation is simple, whereas rest of the clustering requires an expert skill level for the configuration and deployment.

When comparing the Standard Edition to the Enterprise, it is expensive but the performance and features meet with the ROI and TCO. Thus, overall, it minimizes the redundant servers, multiple backup copies, the risk of non-availability of the latest copy at the disaster recovery.

The latest 2016 version has many more new features and functionalities, if you have the Enterprise Level Agreement and subscription model, you can upgrade to the latest version.

The Always ON (High Availability) functionality is support only with the MS SQL enterprise edition. It will be beneficial to many, if this feature is available in Standard Edition.

We use this solution to store our data and for running queries, simple select queries that enable me to create the views I need and report from those views. I'm an ESM specialist and we are customers of SQL Server. 

I like the stability of the solution, the fact that you have two, three, four nodes replicating at any given time at different locations, and they're all synchronized; if one is lost it automatically moves to another. The other advantage here is that when it comes to application maintenance, you switch onto another node while you maintain another server and there's no downtime. 

The solution could have additional security. 

The solution is easily scalable because of its flexibility.

I don't do the installation, but it appears straightforward according to those who carried out the implementation. These days deployment takes about an hour. We have 1,200 or so users. With the onboarding of more customers, we'll be increasing our use of SQL Server. For now, we have one person dealing with maintenance. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We use SQL Server for developing systems.

The most valuable feature of SQL Server is the performance.

I have been using SQL Server for years.

We have approximately three people who are using this solution.

The technical support from Microsoft has been good.

The initial setup of SQL Server is straightforward.

We have two administrators that did the implementation of the solution.

The price of SQL Server could be reduced, the license is expensive. We have an annual subscription.

I would recommend SQL Server to others.

I rate SQL Server a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a backend server.

There are a few applications of the Oracle product for our data sitting on the SQL Server as well. 

It's useful as a backend server.

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

The stability of the product needs to be improved. It's really not stable enough.

In Microsoft, the Active-Active options are not available. There are a lot of requirements that are coming right from the customer, which may not be provided by Microsoft. There are a few use cases where we do need the Active-Active options instead of Active-Passive, yet those kinds of options are not available for Microsoft.

We've been working with the solution for going on five years.

We've struggled with the stability of the product. We'd like for it to be more stable and reliable. 

The scalability is very good. If a company needs to expand, it can do so.

We are a customer and an end-user.

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. While the scalability is there, the solution is lacking a few aspects that customers really need.

We use this solution to manage our database and store information. I use another platform for more specific needs.

Within our organization, there are roughly 10-12 employees using this solution. 

SQL Server consumes a lot of resources. You need to keep an eye on the number of resources involved. It expands and uses all of the memory available on the server. For this reason, I install it on separate machines.

Also, the ability to connect with other environments needs to be improved. 

I have been using SQL Server for nearly 10 years.

Scalability-wise, it's okay.

I haven't really experienced any issues that required the assistance of technical support. 

I also use MySQL — the open-source version. I started using SQL Server because we required some special functionality for a specific project. 

The initial setup was not complicated. You can do it without any external support. 

I installed the entire solution myself within 20-50 minutes.

The price could always be lower. 

I evaluated Oracle, but I didn't like it — I prefer Microsoft. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. 

Mainly, I do infrastructure support. We do fine-tuning, information, configuration, higher-level availability, and replication. Also, single and clustering solutions - both kinds.

We do on-premises and cloud deployments. This is because some customers use Microsoft Azure, mainly in the financial sector, such as the Sri Lanka Government, who has many databases that cannot go on the cloud. The financial sector also works with on-prem databases.

I am mainly using the SQL Server from 2019. That's the latest version since last January while our customers are mainly using the 2016 and 2017 versions. This is because we are not providing the latest version. We are testing some bugs now. In terms of functionality, I think the 2017 version is better. I have not fully tested the 2019, so I cannot give a recommendation for it.

Its availability for a secured server is one of its most valuable features. Also its replication features are valuable- we can manage eight replicas. Their clustering and availability groups are also valuable.

They do not offer the SQL Server Management tool via the installation. It is a separate tool I use when I'm trying to configure the mirroring with SQL Server Mirroring. This is not supported and I'm getting some errors on the database mirroring. So sometimes I use the 2014 management console and the 2017 server for that. If the customer does not agree to that, I use a query for the database mirroring connections.

Additionally, I think some kind of machine learning related feature should be included. This is because technology is moving fast and all of the customers are getting it easier. So developers are making machine learning products. That's why they should include some kind of a machine learning feature here, too.

Which initial setup are you referring too? It has multiple solutions and installations, some of which are very simple. Clustering is very difficult to setup.

Setup time depends on the customer's environment, including database size, the number of databases, and the amount of data. Last week I did a PLC with two databases and one availability crew. It took two days because one day I did clustering. It can be done in one day but the customer provides another day for that.

Also, because the customers haven't kept some downtime, we request some kind of downtime for the primary server. So sometimes we plan downtime when we need some days for the complete environment.

I'm working with Microsoft solutions in Sri Lanka. We have a technical team for the DB side only - Microsoft SQL Servers, Azure platform, SQL servers. All of those have a security device. And as I mentioned, installation is per requirement. There is no need for a couple of engineers for that.

In terms of maintenance after the deployment, it also varies depending on the number of databases.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Microsoft MDS an eight. I'd give it an 8 and not a 10 because it lacks some features, such as machine learning.