That reaction is understandable. SQL Server 2025 introduces several relevant changes across the database engine, development experience, analytics, security, AI-related functionality, edition limits, tooling, and platform integration. For teams that are already planning a SQL Server 2025 upgrade, those changes deserve attention.

But in real production environments, “What’s new?” is rarely the best first question.

The more important question is usually what role this version should play in the environment. Is SQL Server 2025 the right target version for the next upgrade? Is it a possible step in a longer modernization path? Or is it currently more relevant as something to evaluate, test, and understand before it becomes part of a production roadmap?

That distinction matters because SQL Server upgrades are not only technical version changes. They touch licensing, operating system support, high availability design, monitoring, backup and restore procedures, deployment processes, application compatibility, and the operational knowledge inside the team. In older environments, they often also expose unclear ownership and undocumented dependencies.

A new version still needs operational context

After the discussion around SQL Server 2016 end of support, it is tempting to treat SQL Server 2025 as the obvious next destination. In some environments, that may be exactly right. If the operating system, application stack, drivers, high availability architecture, maintenance processes, and internal testing capabilities are ready for it, moving directly to SQL Server 2025 can be a sensible and forward-looking decision.

In other environments, the answer is less obvious.

I often see SQL Server systems where the technical version is only one part of the problem. The instance may still run reliably, but the surrounding platform is old. Documentation is incomplete. Maintenance jobs have grown over time. Linked servers, replication, SQL Agent jobs, third-party backup tools, legacy drivers, or old reporting workloads are part of the landscape, but nobody is completely sure which dependencies are still business-critical.

In such a situation, the newest SQL Server version is not automatically the wrong choice, but it is also not automatically the safest choice. Without that operational context, a version decision can quickly become a risk decision that only looks like modernization from the outside.

The feature list helps, but it should not drive the decision

Microsoft documents several relevant changes for SQL Server 2025, including increased limits in Standard and Express Edition, the discontinuation of Web Edition, changes around developer editions, and improvements across areas such as the database engine, security, Query Store, analytics, AI-related functionality, tools, and Microsoft Fabric integration.

Those points are important, but they should not be read in isolation.

For a development team, new language, vector, analytics, or AI-related capabilities may be the most visible part of the release. For an operations team, different questions are often more relevant. Is the upgrade path supported from the current version and edition? Are all required components still available? Does the environment depend on features with behavioral changes or known limitations? Are the monitoring and backup processes prepared? Does the team understand how the new version behaves under the existing workload?

That is why the first assessment should not start with excitement around individual features. It should start with the current estate.

Where SQL Server 2025 upgrade decisions often go wrong

One assumption I would be careful with is that a supported upgrade path automatically means a low-risk upgrade. A supported SQL Server 2025 upgrade path is useful information, but it does not make the upgrade low-risk by itself. It does not answer whether a specific application, workload, maintenance process, driver combination, or high availability setup will behave as expected after the upgrade.

Another problematic assumption is that the newest version is always the best target for every overdue environment. For a clean, well-understood SQL Server 2019 or SQL Server 2022 estate, SQL Server 2025 may be a reasonable next step after proper validation. For a business-critical SQL Server 2016 environment with limited documentation, old operating systems, legacy dependencies, and unclear ownership, the technical target version is only one part of a much larger remediation plan.

In one environment, linked servers may be a minor technical detail. In another, they are part of a critical reporting chain that has not been touched for years. A compatibility level change may be simple in a clean in-house application, but much harder when vendor applications, old drivers, reporting jobs, and undocumented operational dependencies are involved.

The question is not whether SQL Server 2025 is a good release. The question is whether the environment is ready for the kind of change that the upgrade represents.

What to check before a SQL Server 2025 upgrade

A professional SQL Server 2025 upgrade decision starts with inventory. That sounds basic, but in many environments it is the missing foundation. You need to know which SQL Server versions and editions are running, which databases are still active, which applications connect to them, which jobs depend on them, and which linked servers, replication components, SSIS packages, maintenance routines, certificates, credentials, logins, endpoints, and high availability or disaster recovery configurations are actually in use.

After that, the assessment should move from inventory to behavior. Which databases are performance-sensitive? Which workloads depend on specific query plan behavior? Where does SQL Server performance diagnosis already show risks that should be understood before the upgrade? Which systems are sensitive to login performance, backup duration, failover timing, or reporting windows? Where are older compatibility levels used deliberately, and where are they simply historical leftovers? Which vendor applications have explicit support statements for SQL Server 2025?

Only then can the feature discussion add real value.

When SQL Server 2025 introduces a capability that solves a real problem in the environment, that should be part of the argument. Increased Standard Edition limits may be relevant in a cost-sensitive environment. Resource Governor availability in Standard Edition can also change the operational possibilities for workload isolation. But those points should support a decision; they should not replace the decision process.

Known issues belong in the planning phase

Every major version has areas that require attention. SQL Server 2025 is no exception. Microsoft lists known issues and limitations for SQL Server 2025 that can affect installation, in-place upgrades, platform compatibility, linked server behavior, backup compression configuration, audit behavior, Data Quality Services upgrades, Full-Text Search, Linux-specific scenarios, and other operational details.

That does not mean SQL Server 2025 should be avoided. It means it should be evaluated properly.

In a production environment, known issues should be part of the upgrade checklist, not something discovered during a maintenance window. Heavy use of linked servers deserves attention. Audit events written to the Windows Security log need to be checked. Data Quality Services installations should be reviewed before the upgrade. Linux environments require a closer look at platform-specific limitations. High authentication load also makes changes around password hashing behavior relevant.

A careful upgrade project does not treat those points as reasons for panic. It treats them as input for testing, risk classification, and migration design.

A practical approach to the SQL Server 2025 upgrade decision

For most organizations, I would not start with the question of whether SQL Server 2025 should be adopted immediately. I would start with three simpler questions.

The first question is what problem the upgrade is supposed to solve. An end-of-support situation leads to a different decision than a performance problem, a vendor support requirement, a consolidation project, a licensing discussion, or a broader cloud and modernization strategy. That same principle also applies when the discussion starts with upgrade, migration, Azure, or ESU instead of the actual business and operational problem.

The second question is the current operational condition of the SQL Server estate. A well-documented, monitored, and tested environment can move differently than an environment where nobody fully understands the dependencies.

From there, testing needs to provide evidence, not only confidence. A quick installation test is not enough; meaningful validation should include restored production copies where possible, representative workloads, compatibility level checks, Query Store analysis, application tests, backup and restore validation, high availability or disaster recovery testing, monitoring verification, and a rollback strategy that is actually usable.

In some cases, SQL Server 2025 will be the right target version. In other cases, SQL Server 2022 may still be the more conservative short-term step, especially when the real priority is to leave an unsupported or poorly documented platform with controlled risk. And in some environments, the first project should not be the SQL Server upgrade at all, but the cleanup of inventory, ownership, maintenance, monitoring, and dependency documentation.

That is not hesitation; it is a controlled way to balance risk, effort, and business value.

Conclusion: decide before you upgrade

SQL Server 2025 is an important release, and its new capabilities deserve attention. But production systems should not move to a new version because a feature list looks attractive. Teams should upgrade them when the target version fits the application landscape, support requirements, operational reality, and business timeline.

The wrong first question is “What’s new?”

A better first question is: “What decision are we actually trying to make?”

A SQL Server 2025 upgrade should be based on operational readiness, not only on the feature list. Once that is clear, SQL Server 2025 can be evaluated properly: as the next target version, as a possible step in a longer modernization path, or as a release that should first be tested and understood before it becomes part of the production roadmap. That is where the difference lies between a technical version change and a reliable upgrade decision.

The post SQL Server 2025: Why “What’s New?” Is the Wrong First Question appeared first on CraftedSQL.

The official Microsoft lifecycle documentation makes the lifecycle status clear. But in practice, SQL Server 2016 support is no longer just a lifecycle topic. For many teams, it has become a decision that affects operations, risk, ownership, and business continuity.

Upgrade, migration, Azure, and Extended Security Updates can all be valid paths. The problem is not that these options are wrong. The problem is that they are often discussed before the environment has been understood well enough to choose between them responsibly.

The real issue is therefore often not a lack of options, but a lack of clarity. Before deciding what to do next, you need to understand what you are actually dealing with. That sounds obvious, but in practice this is exactly where many teams start to lose control of the discussion.

The common mistake in SQL Server 2016 support discussions

In theory, end of support looks simple. A version reaches the end of its lifecycle, and the organization chooses the next platform strategy. In reality, the technical decision is usually constrained by factors that are only partly visible at the beginning.

• application dependencies
• vendor support boundaries
• undocumented integrations
• operational limitations
• missing test capacity
• unclear rollback options
• business-critical workloads with little downtime tolerance

That is why “Should we upgrade or migrate?” is often too early as a first question. It assumes that the main decision is already understood, although the real work may still be to identify the system landscape, the dependencies around it, and the operational risk of changing it.

Before choosing a direction, the more useful questions are simpler and more uncomfortable: What is running today? How critical is it? What depends on it? What breaks if we change it? What is the risk of doing nothing for now? And what is the risk of changing too fast?

Without that baseline, teams can easily confuse activity with progress. A project may look active because meetings are scheduled, options are discussed, and target platforms are named. But if the starting point is unclear, the decision is still built on assumptions.

Why SQL Server 2016 support decisions expose existing operational problems

End of support does not usually create chaos by itself. More often, it exposes operational weaknesses that have existed for years but were easy to ignore while the system continued to run.

Older SQL Server estates often come with familiar patterns. The system is important, but poorly documented. The application owner is unclear or external. The infrastructure has changed over time. The database platform has been stable enough that nobody wanted to touch it. And because it still worked, strategic decisions were postponed.

That means the current challenge is often bigger than version currency. It is an operational visibility problem. Once that becomes visible, organizations often realize that the question is not only whether SQL Server 2016 should remain in place. The real question is whether they understand the environment well enough to make any change with confidence.

This is where I usually separate technical possibility from operational readiness. A newer SQL Server version, a side-by-side migration, or an Azure target may all be technically possible on paper. But that does not automatically mean the organization can test the application properly, validate the real workload, monitor the new state, and recover cleanly if something behaves differently after the change.

The four paths in SQL Server 2016 support decisions

Once the baseline is clear, the four common paths can be discussed more honestly. None of them is good or bad in isolation. Each option only makes sense in relation to the current environment, the dependencies around it, and the organization’s ability to execute the change safely.

1. Upgrade

Microsoft upgrade guidance shows that an in-place or side-by-side upgrade can be the right answer when the application is supported, the dependencies are understood, and testing is realistic.

But “just upgrade it” is usually a dangerous simplification. Upgrades fail less often because someone forgot how to run setup and more often because important assumptions were never verified. Compatibility expectations, downtime windows, integration behavior, rollback options, and workload patterns matter more than the upgrade wizard itself.

An upgrade is not only a technical procedure. It is an operational change with business consequences, especially when the SQL Server instance supports applications that have grown over many years and are no longer fully understood by one team.

2. Migration

Migration is often the better option when the environment needs broader restructuring anyway, for example when infrastructure, operating system, storage design, or the surrounding architecture also need to change.

But migration adds its own complexity. It can reduce technical debt, yet increase project scope. Teams often underestimate how much coordination is required once a database move becomes part of a larger transformation involving applications, integrations, reporting, jobs, monitoring, and operational handover.

Migration is not automatically cleaner than an upgrade. It simply changes the risk profile and often moves part of the complexity into planning, coordination, validation, and cutover control.

3. Azure

Azure can be a sensible path, especially when the end-of-support discussion is part of a broader change in hosting, operations, resilience, or cost management. In that case, the database decision can fit into a wider shift in operating model, infrastructure responsibility, scalability, availability, and cost control.

But Azure should not become a reflex answer to operational pressure. Moving an unclear environment into Azure does not remove uncertainty. It often preserves the same uncertainty in a new place, while adding changes in platform behavior, service model, cost structure, monitoring, high availability design, and responsibility boundaries.

Cloud can be the right direction, but it should be chosen deliberately. It should not be used as a shortcut around the harder internal work of understanding the current environment and deciding what the organization is actually able to operate.

4. Extended Security Updates

Microsoft Extended Security Updates documentation explains the ESU option for SQL Server. In some cases, ESU is a rational temporary measure. It can create time for proper assessment, realistic planning, dependency clarification, and safer execution.

The mistake is not using ESU. The mistake is using ESU as a substitute for a plan. If ESU is chosen, it should be tied to a clear purpose: risk containment, timeline stabilization, dependency resolution, or preparation for a defined next step.

Otherwise, ESU only delays the same problem: it may reduce immediate security pressure, but it does not answer the operational questions that made the decision difficult in the first place.

What to assess before making SQL Server 2016 support decisions

Before recommending upgrade, migration, Azure, or ESU, I would want clarity in at least a few core areas. This is especially important when SQL Server 2016 support decisions are being made under time pressure, because pressure tends to make weak assumptions look like accepted facts.

Business criticality

How important is the system really, not in theory but in operational terms? The relevant question is what happens if the system fails, performs poorly, or becomes unavailable longer than expected. A database that looks small from a technical perspective can still support a process that is critical to the business.

Application ownership and supportability

Application ownership often determines which technical options are realistic. Who owns the application? Is the vendor still active? Is the current application version supported on newer SQL Server releases? This is often where a theoretically simple upgrade path becomes much narrower in practice.

Dependency visibility

Dependency visibility is another area where many environments are weaker than expected. It is not enough to look only at the database server. SQL Agent jobs, integrations, reporting layers, ETL processes, linked systems, connection strings, monitoring, backup processes, and downstream consumers can all influence the risk of a change.

Teams regularly underestimate this point because many dependencies sit outside the SQL Server instance itself. They only become visible when something stops working after the change.

Downtime and rollback realism

Downtime and rollback need to be discussed in practical terms, not only as a project assumption. What outage window is actually acceptable? What happens if validation fails after the change? Can the application return to the previous state without data loss, inconsistent interfaces, or manual cleanup?

A rollback plan that only exists as a line on a project slide is not enough. In productive environments, rollback has to match the real dependencies and the real business process.

Internal execution capability

Even a technically correct path can be the wrong near-term decision if the organization is not ready to execute it safely. Somebody has to test, validate, support, monitor, communicate, and sign off the change. If those roles are unclear, the technical option may be less important than the execution risk around it.

A practical framework for SQL Server 2016 support decisions

A useful decision framework is rarely built around product preference alone. It is built around current risk, change risk, and execution capability.

With that view, the discussion becomes more realistic. A team with low visibility and limited execution capacity may need temporary containment before any major move. A team with strong visibility, clear ownership, realistic testing, and application support may be ready for an upgrade. A team already changing its infrastructure and operating model may benefit from Azure, but only if the database decision fits the larger direction.

The point is not that one answer is universally better than the others. The right path depends less on the label of the option and more on the actual condition of the environment, the dependencies around it, and the organization’s ability to execute the change safely.

Final thought on SQL Server 2016 support

SQL Server 2016 end of support is a real operational issue. Ignoring it is not a responsible strategy, especially when business-critical systems, security expectations, vendor requirements, or audit pressure are involved.

However, the worst response is not always inaction. In many environments, the bigger risk is premature certainty: forcing the conversation too early into “upgrade versus migration versus Azure” before the organization has understood the starting point.

If that step is skipped, the decision may still look active and modern from the outside. But it is not necessarily based on a reliable understanding of the operational risk.

A sound SQL Server 2016 support decision starts with a realistic assessment of the environment, the dependencies, the current risk, and the organization’s ability to execute change safely. Only then does it make sense to decide whether upgrade, migration, Azure, or ESU is the right next step.

For a more structured starting point, you can also review this earlier breakdown of SQL Server 2016 end of support scenarios.

The post SQL Server 2016 End of Support: Upgrade, Migration, Azure or ESU is the wrong first question appeared first on CraftedSQL.

This becomes especially relevant for SQL Server 2016. On July 14, 2026, extended support for SQL Server 2016 comes to an end. From July 15, 2026, organizations that still need more time can move into Extended Security Updates (ESU) Year 1. See the Microsoft Lifecycle Policy for SQL Server 2016.

On paper, that looks like a normal lifecycle milestone. In practice, it is often the moment when older operational decisions become visible again: incomplete inventories, unclear application dependencies, missing vendor statements, undocumented exceptions, and environments that have been running for years but are no longer easy to change.

That is why I do not see SQL Server 2016 end of support as just an upgrade topic. In many environments, it is also a question of whether the organization has enough visibility, ownership, and time left to make a controlled decision instead of reacting under pressure.

What SQL Server 2016 end of support actually means

As long as a product remains in extended support, Microsoft continues to provide security updates. Once that period ends, those regular security updates stop unless the organization moves to an ESU path. Microsoft’s general lifecycle guidance also makes clear that after support ends, customers should no longer expect the regular support model they had before.

That does not mean a SQL Server 2016 instance will suddenly stop working on July 15, 2026. The databases will still start, applications may still connect, jobs may still run, and day-to-day operations may look unchanged at first. But from that point onward, the environment has to be assessed differently.

Security exposure changes. Audit and compliance discussions become more difficult. Vendor and support boundaries matter more. If there is still no clear strategy by then, the pressure to decide usually increases very quickly, and that pressure rarely improves the quality of technical decisions.

The important question is therefore not only when support ends. The more useful question is whether the organization actually knows what it is running, how critical those systems are, and which options are still realistic for each environment.

Why doing nothing is a risk

Many legacy environments have been running “just fine” for years. That can create a dangerous kind of comfort, because a system can be stable in daily operations and still be poorly documented, difficult to change, tied to unsupported application stacks, or understood by only a small number of people.

“It still works” is not automatically wrong as an observation. It becomes problematic when it replaces a real assessment of risk, dependencies, supportability, and change readiness.

In real-world environments, this becomes visible very quickly. Instances are only partially inventoried. Vendor certification for newer SQL Server versions is unclear or missing. What looks like a simple upgrade can sit on top of old interfaces, fragile SQL Agent jobs, linked servers, SSIS packages, special-case integrations, third-party tools, or application components nobody wants to retest under time pressure.

In those situations, the database engine is often not the hardest part of the discussion. The harder part is the accumulated operational context around it: unclear ownership, slow approval paths, inherited assumptions, missing documentation, and decisions that were postponed because the system did not create enough pain in daily operations.

A similar pattern also appears in acute performance incidents. Teams often react to visible symptoms before they understand the underlying cause. I described that pattern in more detail in SQL Server suddenly slow? The 5 most common causes. Lifecycle decisions have a similar risk: if the starting point is unclear, the chosen solution may be technically possible but still wrong for the environment.

That is why the main risk is not only about future security updates. It is also the loss of room for careful decisions. In practice, the better sequence is usually to understand inventory and dependencies first, and only then discuss whether upgrade, migration, Azure, or ESU is the right path.

Four areas to review before SQL Server 2016 end of support

Before talking about upgrade, migration, Azure, or ESU, companies need an honest inventory. In my view, there are at least four areas that should be reviewed properly, because they usually determine whether the next step is realistic or only looks good in a planning document.

1. Which SQL Server 2016 instances are still running?

This sounds basic, but in larger or historically grown estates this is often where the first surprises appear. A server list alone is not enough, especially if it does not include edition, build level, role, business criticality, connected applications, hosting model, backup and monitoring coverage, and current ownership.

What matters is not just whether an instance exists. What matters is whether the available information is good enough to support a decision. A rough technical inventory may help with discovery, but it is not the same thing as a decision-ready view of the environment.

2. What business and technical dependencies exist?

This is where many decisions become more complicated than expected. In practice, the database version is often only one part of the problem. The harder constraints usually sit around it: legacy applications with limited vendor support, operating system dependencies, middleware constraints, old integrations, fragile jobs, linked servers, SSIS packages, reporting components, or third-party tools that nobody wants to retest under time pressure.

This part is underestimated in many organizations. The biggest problem is often not technical feasibility in isolation, but the accumulated dependency footprint around the system. An upgrade may be possible from a SQL Server perspective and still be difficult because the surrounding application and operational model has not been prepared for change.

3. Which SQL Server 2016 end of support option is realistic?

Microsoft outlines the general SQL Server end of support options in its documentation. That overview is useful, but it does not answer the operational question for a specific environment.

The real question is not only: “What options exist?” The more important question is: “Which option is realistic for this system, with acceptable risk, acceptable effort, and within the available time window?”

That difference matters. Upgrade, migration, Azure, and ESU are not interchangeable labels. Each option has consequences for testing, downtime, fallback, licensing, application support, operations, monitoring, security, and long-term maintainability. This is where wishful thinking and planning discipline usually start to separate.

4. Is ESU a valid SQL Server 2016 end of support strategy?

ESU can be a valid option, but only if it is used consciously as a temporary bridge. Microsoft describes the ESU program as a last-resort option and a short-term way to stay protected while moving toward a newer supported platform. Microsoft offers it for up to three years after the end of extended support.

What ESU typically does not solve is just as important. It does not fix poor visibility, weak documentation, outdated architecture, unclear ownership, legacy application constraints, or a lack of testing and migration readiness.

ESU can buy time, but it does not automatically improve documentation, ownership, testing, or migration readiness. Used well, it can support a controlled transition. Used poorly, it can simply postpone the same unresolved decisions into the next budget cycle. For additional details, see the Microsoft Extended Security Updates FAQ.

Upgrade, migration, Azure, or ESU: a more realistic view

One of the most common mistakes is to assume there is one obvious default answer. In reality, the right path depends on the application landscape, infrastructure condition, support requirements, risk tolerance, available time, and the operating model the company wants to support after the transition.

When an upgrade can make sense

An upgrade is often the right choice when the application is supported on a newer SQL Server version, the current platform is still broadly viable, and testing, downtime planning, and fallback are realistic. In many cases, this is the most pragmatic route, especially when the main issue is the SQL Server version itself and not the surrounding architecture. Still, a pragmatic path is not an automatic one; it needs proper preparation, especially where compatibility, maintenance windows, rollback options, application testing, and operational handover matter.

When migration is the better option

A migration can be the stronger decision when the current environment needs more than a version change. That may be the case when infrastructure is already due for replacement, when the existing setup no longer matches availability or security requirements, or when operational processes have moved beyond what the current platform should continue to carry.

This matters because the technically possible route is not always the operationally sensible one. Sometimes the end of support date is not only a deadline, but also a useful point to stop investing effort into a platform layout that should have been replaced anyway.

When Azure is worth serious consideration

Microsoft’s end-of-support guidance explicitly points to Azure-related paths such as Azure SQL Managed Instance, SQL Server on Azure Virtual Machines, and Azure VMware Solution, depending on whether the goal is modernization, near-term relocation, or a more gradual transition.

But Azure is not a shortcut by itself. Questions around application behavior, latency, responsibilities, operations, cost, and migration sequencing still remain. Azure makes sense when it fits how the company wants to operate, monitor, secure, and support the environment afterwards. It is a poor choice when it is selected only as a reflex to an end-of-support deadline.

When ESU is defensible

ESU is defensible when there is a clear target strategy, when the environment cannot be changed cleanly in the short term, and when the transition period is intentionally limited. It can be a reasonable bridge for systems that need more time because of vendor constraints, testing effort, application dependencies, or sequencing with other infrastructure work.

ESU becomes problematic when it mainly covers up delay, uncertainty, or organizational indecision. If there is no defined next step, no ownership, and no realistic timeline, ESU does not solve the core problem. It only makes the unresolved situation look temporarily controlled.

What companies should do before SQL Server 2016 end of support

Organizations still running SQL Server 2016 do not need panic, but they do need structure. A useful first step is not to jump straight into a preferred technology path. It is to build a reliable inventory and ask a small set of hard questions:

1. Which instances are affected?
2. Which applications and business processes depend on them?
3. Which vendor, platform, and operational constraints exist?
4. Which path is realistic per system: upgrade, migration, Azure, or ESU?
5. Where is immediate action required, and where is a managed transition acceptable?

Only once those questions are answered does this become a manageable program instead of a late-stage lifecycle reaction. Without that clarity, organizations often spend too much time discussing the preferred solution and too little time understanding the actual starting point.

Where inventory, dependencies, and realistic next steps are still unclear, structured SQL Server consulting services can help create a practical view of the environment and define the next steps system by system.

Final thought

SQL Server 2016 end of support is not something that can be handled well with a generic “we will just upgrade it” response. The date is clear, but the harder part is what sits behind it: incomplete inventory, unclear dependencies, missing vendor certification, legacy applications, and decisions that were deferred for too long.

Good decisions in these environments rarely depend on the version number alone. They depend on the quality of the inventory, the understanding of dependencies, the ability to prioritize correctly, and an operational logic that looks for the most sustainable path, not just the fastest one.

If SQL Server 2016 is still in use today, the priority is not to decide too quickly between upgrade, migration, Azure, or ESU. The priority is to understand the starting point well enough that the chosen path is realistic, supportable, and defensible in the specific environment.

If you are currently reviewing SQL Server 2016 environments and want an independent second opinion on inventory, dependencies, or realistic next-step options, get in touch.

The post SQL Server 2016 End of Support: What Companies Should Review Now appeared first on CraftedSQL.