Comments on: It’s a Fact: Opinions Are Not Facts https://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/ Thomas LaRock is an author, speaker, data expert, and SQLRockstar. He helps people connect, learn, and share. Along the way he solves data problems, too. Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:22:21 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2 By: Supporting Argument | hacronym https://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/#comment-13453 Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:28:44 +0000 http://thomaslarock.com/?p=10145#comment-13453 […] http://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/ […]

]]> By: David Aldridge https://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/#comment-8048 Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:18:00 +0000 http://thomaslarock.com/?p=10145#comment-8048 “I think dogs are cute” would be a fact — “Dogs are cute” is an opinion.

No?

]]> By: Adam Godfrey https://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/#comment-8033 Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:40:00 +0000 http://thomaslarock.com/?p=10145#comment-8033 “I think that makes them better than 80% of the folks using the internet today”

I always like to remind people to be careful with statistics because 95% of them are made up on the spot.

]]> By: Mala https://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/#comment-8032 Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:19:00 +0000 http://thomaslarock.com/?p=10145#comment-8032 Great post, Tom. Really like what you say on ‘reverse search’…was averse to that for a very long time. Love the line’ TOTALLY an opinion, trust me on that’..:)

]]> By: ThomasLaRock https://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/#comment-8031 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:27:00 +0000 http://thomaslarock.com/?p=10145#comment-8031 In reply to Ayman El-Ghazali.

I agree with you, I would not put the witness back until the last step.

]]> By: Ayman El-Ghazali https://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/#comment-8030 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:32:00 +0000 http://thomaslarock.com/?p=10145#comment-8030 Now for a serious question on your opinion: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb677181.aspx

The picture in the middle of the page has an interesting flow for upgrading to SQL 2012 in an environment with Mirroring. With regards to upgrading a server that has Automatic Failover, I feel that after all upgrades are done, the Witness should be added back to establish a automatic failover. Why would you add the witness server back before you upgrade the “new” mirror server.

Let’s say Server1 is Principal, Server2 is Mirror, Server3 is witness.
Seems like the flow should be:

1. Remove Witness (Server3)
2. Upgrade Mirror (Server2)
3. Failover to Mirror (Server1–> Server2 Mirror now becomes principal and is running SQL 2012)
4. Upgrade the “new” Mirror to SQL 2012 (Server1)
5. Failback (Server2–>Server1)
6. Put back the Witness (Server3) to resume Auto-failover

(Upgrade Server3 while it is out of quorum)

Your thoughts? I just can’t see putting a witness back in an environment that is mixed between SQL 2012 and 2008 for fear that an auto-failover would cause problems if it were to occur.

]]> By: Ayman El-Ghazali https://thomaslarock.com/2013/02/its-a-fact-opinions-are-not-facts/#comment-8029 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:25:00 +0000 http://thomaslarock.com/?p=10145#comment-8029 How to decipher facts from “The Office” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utu5SnO9PIg

]]>