<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SQL Upgrades are a one way street.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/sql-upgrades-are-a-one-way-street/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/sql-upgrades-are-a-one-way-street/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: mrdenny</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/sql-upgrades-are-a-one-way-street/#comment-310</link>
		<dc:creator>mrdenny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:55:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/?p=713#comment-310</guid>
		<description>I was attempting to (and apparently poorly) show that there were a lot of changes from 8-9, but there were even more from 6.5-7.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was attempting to (and apparently poorly) show that there were a lot of changes from 8-9, but there were even more from 6.5-7.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wqwetto</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/sql-upgrades-are-a-one-way-street/#comment-309</link>
		<dc:creator>Wqwetto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/?p=713#comment-309</guid>
		<description>&#62;&#62; nothing like the changes from SQL 6.5 to SQL  &#60;&#60;
What are you talking about? The changes were *dramatic*!

In 6.5 dbs were assigned not to files but to devices which were taking up whole disk partitions (mostly). MSSQL7 persistence storage was a total rewrite of the sybase cruft.

cheers,
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt; nothing like the changes from SQL 6.5 to SQL  &lt;&lt;<br />
What are you talking about? The changes were *dramatic*!</p>
<p>In 6.5 dbs were assigned not to files but to devices which were taking up whole disk partitions (mostly). MSSQL7 persistence storage was a total rewrite of the sybase cruft.</p>
<p>cheers,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PhilFactor</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/sql-upgrades-are-a-one-way-street/#comment-307</link>
		<dc:creator>PhilFactor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/?p=713#comment-307</guid>
		<description>This is true,  there are several ways of doing a 'downgrade' with a third-party tool. ISQL Toolbelt is the one I'm most familiar with. One can use either SQL Compare/Data compare, or SQL Packager will do it, or you can script something to do it with the SDK. It is unusual to want to downgrade, and it is a very slow business on a large database, but it always makes the upgrade a more relaxing experience if you know you can either do a bareboned downdrade or resore an old backup and use Data Compare to update the backup from the 'upgraded' system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is true,  there are several ways of doing a &#8216;downgrade&#8217; with a third-party tool. ISQL Toolbelt is the one I&#8217;m most familiar with. One can use either SQL Compare/Data compare, or SQL Packager will do it, or you can script something to do it with the SDK. It is unusual to want to downgrade, and it is a very slow business on a large database, but it always makes the upgrade a more relaxing experience if you know you can either do a bareboned downdrade or resore an old backup and use Data Compare to update the backup from the &#8216;upgraded&#8217; system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- dynamic -->