SQL Server Reviews

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 are using SQL Server for data processing.

The most valuable features of SQL Server are the speed, great support, and it is from a known vendor.

The security features of the solution could be better.

I have used SQL Server within the past 12 months.

SQL Server is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution. We increase the number of users every year.

I have not contacted their technical support.

The process for the deployment is straightforward. It takes approximately four hours to complete.

We did the implementation of SQL Server in-house. We have eight people managing the solution. The team includes managers, technicians, and administrators.

There is a subscription that needs to be purchased to use the solution.

I would advise others this is a good Microsoft solution.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

It is for supporting our custom applications. We have a number of custom applications that we use that have SQL embedded.

I am using the version before the latest one.

Its usability is very good. Its performance is satisfactory.

Their support could be better. There should be more visibility on the progress of the ticket, and their last line of support should be more knowledgeable. Other than that, we have nothing to complain about.

I have been using this solution for seven to eight years.

Their support could be better. Sometimes, you don't have much visibility of how your service request is progressing. There should be more visibility, and the last line of support should be more knowledgeable.

It was straightforward. It took two to three hours.

We have internal staff for its implementation. We have a team of about three or four people who are well-versed with SQL Server, and we have 30 to 40 users who use this solution.

You need to pay for the license. It most probably has per-core licensing.

I would recommend this solution to others. We are satisfied with the product in general. Overall, I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

All our databases are using Microsoft SQL. It supports our application, such as HR and finance.

SQL Server could improve by being more user-friendly, it is still geared towards specialists. Additionally, the monitoring system is difficult to use, not everyone can use it well. The configuration should be able to be done through the GUI.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

SQL Server is highly stable.

SQL Server is very scalable because we use it across a couple of different types of applications, such as micro-infrastructure setup and server farm.

The solution is suitable for any environment, such as small, medium, and large enterprises. 

SQL Server support system is well-established. It's a Microsoft solution therefore you receive support very easily. It is the number one selling point of SQL Server. I have been highly satisfied with the support.

SQL Server's initial setup is simple. However, you must be a specialist to do it. That's the unfriendliness that I see about the solution. It has to be done by an engineer and not any engineer can do it, you have to be a specific Microsoft engineer.

My advice to others would be to create a standard for SQL Server to allow a high level of security. What we did is, we adopted CIS, which is the Center for Information Security, hardening standards and benchmarks to keep it secure. SQL Server out of the box comes with a lot of unnecessary services that can make you very vulnerable to any site attack.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

SQL Server is only running in China, it is not connected to our site.

We have some PCs running on Windows 7, but it is not supported.

We have no vision. We don't know when or how we have been hacked.

We require expert support with it. That is why I am looking for CRMs.

We have been using SQL Server for one year.

We use several versions such as 2008, 2012, and 2015.

SQL Server is stable.

We are not running more than 1%. Scalability needs improvement.

We have 415 users in our organization.

We have plans to increase our usage.

We have an Active Directory system, so we can install antivirus on the endpoints.

Normally, we can check with the deployment person, and our IT team will respond to the message once my team has deployed it.

I have some experience with McAfee MVISION Endpoint. We are focused on the MV1 edition. We have to blend into the EDR.

McAfee has three editions, MVISION 1, 2, and 6. We are still working with version 1.

We are also working with Endpoint Plan 1.

We have 15 servers, both Windows OS and Linux OS.

The initial setup is not complex.

We have an in-house IT team that can deploy this solution.

We have some people who have worked in IT and with endpoint software. I believe my team is capable of handling the new software, and solutions.

The licenses are purchased annually.

The license fee is very low.

I was looking into some solutions to meet our company's needs. Endpoint Protection for Business, McAfee, and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was among the solutions I researched. For endpoint security, I prefer Microsoft Defender or McAfee Endpoint Security.

Now we're comparing the cost-effectiveness, and especially the features, and giving ourselves the ability to choose the solution, truly enabling a solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

We use SQL Server for storing all our company information, such as ERP, customer applications, and our wealth management systems. All of our data is stored in SQL Servers.

SQL Server is a very mature solution.

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 20 years.

SQL Server is a stable solution.

The scalability of SQL Server is good. It can scale up to thousands of times more data than I have. 

We have approximately 250 people using this solution in my organization.

I have not used the support from SQL Server.

The initial setup is simple it takes approximately 10 minutes. You only need to run the setup and you have SQL installed.

I have installed SQL databases and SQL Servers regularly. I did the implementation of this solution.

This solution requires one administrator for implementation and maintenance.

Some of the licensing are very expensive, such as the Enterprise license. 

The Express version is free. There are a lot of licensing options.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

We use the solution on FastAutomate, our core product, to store the aggregated data from different nodes. It resides on the server that's handling the agents. We also use it for different organizations for development. Therefore, we use it for development mainly.

Overall, we've been satisfied with the capabilities of the product.

The solution is stable. It works without issue - to the point you rarely need any technical support at all.

The scalability is very good.

It's got an easy initial setup.

The remote access aspect needs to be improved in terms of security. Right now, it's a little bit hard. 

Also, they need to work on the user interface, as it's a little bit old. They need to improve it a little bit. 

The pricing could be lowered a bit.

We've used the solution for a while. 

Its stability has been good. The solution performs well and is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so. 

Techni al support is good. That said, it's hard to judge as you don't need support on SQL Server. It's working without trouble or issues. Therefore, it's rare to seek support for SQL Server. You rarely have to deal with them.

I've also used SQL Azure.

The recommendation is based on the use case. It depends on what use case the customer will need. If they don't have the capacity to manage their own Server, I would recommend Azure, as it's managed. Therefore, you don't have to worry about the management and administration.

The main difference between the two is, in some data types it is not available on SQL Azure while it's available on SQL Server or vice versa. There's a version of SQL Server with a little bit of limited functionality. That said, the difference is not huge. You can go back and forth between them if you want.

The initial setup is very easy. It's even easier than before, in fact. A company shouldn't have any problems with the implementation. 

The price could be less.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. If the price was a bit less or the remote access was better, I would rate it tighter.

In general, I've been happy with the product.