SQL Server Reviews

We use the solution for nearly all of the services we provide that utilize Windows Server. We use it to provide continuous service and in respects of our mail server. 

We have found the feature that allows us to publish web applications to be valuable. 

We have 20 servers and we use disparate ones for different applications, such as Kaspersky Anti-Virus Server and Windows SharePoint in respects of the surveillance system. 

The solution should be more secure and stable and have better performance, particularly as concerns the endpoint operating systems. I would like to have a better operating system that links the CPU and the RAM efficiently.

For the majority of our servers we have not used other operating systems, although there are certain features or requirements that necessitated their use, such as Red Hat. This was rare. Mostly, we used Windows OS. 

As for the performance issue, we have recently encountered situations in which everything would fail in spite of the CPU and memory being 100 percent operable. 

We have been using SQL Server for 12 or 13 years.

As we have faced problems with the solution in both the past and present, I feel it could be more stable. 

The solution seems scalable to me. 

We have not had experience with technical support and have handled this independently whenever we encountered problems. 

When it comes to the installation of the operating system, we have found it to be easy and user-friendly. 

Our greatest praise for the solution we reserve for its ease of installation and usage. These provide definite advantages. Perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that we have always made use of the solution for nearly every relevant company in South Africa.

While I cannot recall exactly how long the installation lasted, I did recently install endpoint Windows 10 Operating System and this took an hour and a half. 

We were able to handle the installation on our own, as we are well versed in this process when it comes to Windows OS.

On an individual basis, we solely make use of Windows OS. There are between 300 and 400 people in our organization who do so. 

Generally speaking, we do not make use of a technical team for deployment and maintenance purposes and do so internally. There are a maximum of seven or eight people in our organization who are responsible for this. We are talking about technical people who are responsible for the direct installation and configuration of Windows OS and they do not include managers. 

I believe the licensing to be on an annual basis. In 2019 we purchased a three year license. 

We did not evaluate other other options before going with the solution. 

I rate SQL Server as a seven out of ten. 

Microsoft SQL Server is a database application, meaning it acts as the backend system for help with the backend data repository system. It concerns itself with every activity that happens at the front end of the database in Microsoft SQL Server. ERP Microsoft solutions is one reason that the SQL server has compatibility. The management of Microsoft SQL Server is actually quite easy. It has a GUI interface and enables a person to do whatever is required at the command line level. It functions as a repository for storing one's data in the relational database. 

The Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition have certain limitations. While the latter is clearly more expensive than the former, it would be nice to see some of the features in the Enterprise Edition be moved to the Standard Edition. This will encourage many more people to use that solution.

If we were discussing the 2000 edition in respect of the SQL Server, I would probably cite security and performance as issues. However, nowadays, when it comes to an application connected to their databases, there is no real difference between MS SQL Server and Oracle. As a consequence, it would be nice to see the application be made more cost-effective. I am aware of much database self-management in respect of Oracle. I know that the last time a colleague of mine used this solution in California, he informed me that the application itself was managing the database.

At present, the solution uses the older connection and the schema is designed in such a way that it can actually provide a very low level of virtualization. Since the security is also hierarchical within the system, they've really done a very good job. 

This said, I would like to see the database become fully automated.

I have been using SQL server for a couple of years, since day one. 

The solution is stable and it has remained so over the years. I've worked in different organizations, such as the banks here in Lagos. Straight off the bat, I've been using Microsoft SQL Server 2000. We currently use Microsoft SQL Server for our ERP needs. How one designs his tables is important. As the team leader, it is my job to ensure that the functioning is as it should be. The application is pretty straightforward. 

Since we can automate most of our tasks, it means that the management is very easy. We can have jobs for our backups. The solution grants us the ability to perform database housekeeping tasks.

The solution is very scalable.

It's been fun dealing with technical support. Generally speaking, they have shown a willingness to handle issues we may have. 

The solution demonstrates performance and this is going well for the moment. 

In consideration of its performance, I rate SQL server as a nine out of ten. 

On-premises

We use SQL Server with Sage products.

It is used by our finance team and also human resources.

the database management tool is very easy to use and largely meets expectations

As SQL Server could not support the number of connections we desired, we were forced to go with Oracle. This is an area that needs to be improved.

for 04 Years now 

The solution could be more stable

The performance in terms of simultaneous connection must be reviewed.

We do not pay for technical support.

No

The initial setup is time-efficient and can be done independently.

There is no need for developers or managers to deploy and maintain the solution. One or two systems' administrators are sufficient for its deployment.

The deployment is on-premises. We installed the solution on a server and this on the Windows server. The user is provided an application for connecting to it.

great

The licensing involves a one-time fee.

We evaluated Oracle as an alternative.

For my part, SQL Server is aimed at small and medium-sized businesses, I would give it an eight out of ten.

I would not recommend it for a large company that has to support more than 40 simultaneous bi-directional connections to the database

On-premises

It is used for everything under the sun. We're currently using it for a health pass for a medic aid information management system. It is also used by companies in banking and retail.

We are using SQL Server 2014 on Windows Server 2012 platform, and we also have SQL Server 2016 on Windows Server 2016 platform. I have primarily worked on the hardware, but I am now also working in the Amazon AWS cloud.

The entire solution that we're deploying is built on Microsoft SQL Server as a database engine. Our solution is completely engineered for that, and if we attempt to deploy it in any other database engine, it is going to be a huge nightmare.

Microsoft SQL Server is one of the better database administration software packages out there. It runs primarily on Windows Server platforms, but it can also run on Linux platforms.

Primarily, the data replication and the backup areas can be improved. It should have data replication capabilities and uptime capabilities.  The native SQL Server Backups take more time than do the backup processes from LiteSpeed, and the backup compression is a little less.  

I have been using SQL Server since version 6.5, which came out about 30 years ago.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can run the database engine on the C drive, or you can run it on a large cloud array or a disk array. Currently, we just have developers and testers accessing it.

Technical support from Microsoft is very good.

If you know how to set it up, it is easy, but you have to learn that over time. For a new user, it is detailed. You need to have the right things in place at the right time before you actually install the software.

To create an instance, it takes about an hour overall. This includes deploying the basic system, applying the latest service pack, and then applying the latest cumulative update.

It was an in-house job. In terms of maintenance, the number of staff members required would depend on the implementation. It requires coordination amongst teams. It is a team effort. The database administrator creates and runs the jobs that create the backup file. You need to have somebody for copying the backup files to offline storage. You also need to have system administrators for setting up the hardware.

I would advise others to just be familiar with Windows concepts.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten. If you're familiar with Windows concepts, it just works.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

We use it for both database services and analysis services.

I believe Always On is the most valuable feature. It's also easy to use and not very tricky.

Analysis services have a lot of room for improvement. Basically, manageability on the available tools. They should have improved them already. They are not very efficient. My main headache is with the analysis service, and it would be really good if Microsoft developed some additional tools that are more user-friendly to manage the analysis. This is both from the perspective of management, users' roles, and performance analysis. My main wish for SQL Server would be that management tools for analysis services grow and mature a bit.

I have been using SQL Server for about 15 years.

It's stable. The database service is better than the analysis service, but it's quite stable. It's as stable as the support it has. If it has a good infrastructure and good machines with disks, it's quite stable.

SQL Server is vertically scalable. We have about 3,000 people using this solution.

We haven't used their technical support a lot. I would say it depends on the scope of the help you need. On a scale from one to ten, I would give technical support a seven.

I don't know the exact prices because my focus is essentially technical and not on the bills. A few years ago, they changed the billing policy for the Enterprise Edition, and it became less attractive. But I believe they are still cheaper than Oracle. SQL Server isn't cheap, but it's not expensive either. 

I would tell potential users that it's important to have a good infrastructure, but my advice is for any database, not only SQL Server. It's important to have a good infrastructure and a good network if you're planning to use Always On and clusters. I believe the most important thing is the infrastructure where the SQL Server will be based.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SQL Server an eight.

We are primarily using the solution for pulling data and analysis.

In the auto industry, are the dealer management systems for which there is kind of portals from which the dealers are maintaining information can have access to retail data, bookings, and details surrounding individual customers.

We are fetching data and using it for analytics purposes, basically.

The basic features of the solution are excellent overall.

The initial setup isn't overly complex.

The pricing is reasonable.

The solution scales well.

The solutions very fast. It reads and writes six to eight times faster than any other tool.

The solution is very different from Oracle, which is a product we also use.

Mainly the data capacity needs to be improved. The data values are limited. They are smaller or medium scale. The MySQL is working fine, however, when it comes to large data sets or large data volumes, Oracle can handle them better. The backup capacity needs to be bigger.

When it's medium or small-scale data volume, people are referring to MySQL, however, when the data volume grows the people are referring to Oracle. In my estimation, the stability is fine.

The scalability of the product is pretty good. It can scale effectively and expands better than other options.

We have around 40 users on the solution currently.

Our main usage is not for the database and we simply use basic aspects of the platform.

Technical support isn't an aspect of the solution I know too much about. I've never been in direct contact with them. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We also currently use Oracle. 

The initial setup isn't too complex or difficult. It's pretty straightforward. It's less complex of a process as compared to other solutions.

The cost isn't overly expensive. It's very reasonable. Our customers are happy with the price. It's in a good range.

We are partners with Microsoft. We use multiple deployment models, and typically those are private cloud or on-premises options.

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been mostly very satisfied with the capabilities of the product. It's fast. It's our preferred product.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

Private Cloud

We use SQL Server to import data from different source systems. Depending on requirements, you act as the resource and can schedule jobs in the Azure environment. The server can be stopped when not required so there's no cost when it's not being used. We make use of the pipeline to put the data into the SQL Azure environment and extract it to the server. I'm the associate manager.

The best feature in SQL Server is the CDC mechanism for adding data incrementally. Another good feature is the ability to store any type of data in SQL Server, it's a big advantage.

You need to be careful if you have a very large amount of data, because the platform can be degraded if you're not on top of it. Oracle handles that issue better and it's the main problem I have with SQL Server. The performance should be better.

This is a stable product. 

This product is scalable, we have between 20 and 30 users in our company. We'll continue to use this product. 

We haven't needed to contact technical support. If there is an issue we use the different SQL forums and we can easily fix issues. 

The initial setup is straightforward, you can install with basic knowledge. Installation doesn't take long at all, I did it myself. 

There are no annual licensing fees, you pay when you use the product. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10.

Public Cloud

We use this solution for data warehousing and products to the platforms developed by the company. 

We like everything. We use all of the features that SQL offers. 

We like business integration, database, and analysis.

I would like to see more integration with other platforms.

I have used this solution for more than ten years

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable product.

It's a scalable solution and we have 1,000 users in our organization.

We are stabilizing, so we are not going to increase our usage with SQL.

Technical support is okay. We don't have any issues with them.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It took a couple of hours to install, no more than that.

We completed the implementation ourselves.

We have a team of 34 admins and engineers to deploy and maintain this solution.

We purchased our license and the pricing is fine for us. 

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

On-premises