4 out of 5 (9 Ratings)
Feb 18, 2017
It couldn't have gone better
Jan 24, 2017
We looked at either replacing our older Sybase servers with Microsoft SQLServer, or upgrading to the latest version, 16. Despite the similarities between the two solutions, it was determined that the cost of porting applications to SQLServer would be substantially higher than upgrading. The upgrade from 12.5 to 16 went very smoothly; other than minor changes (mostly to batch user account priviledes, which unnecessarilly had schema modification priviledges, where were no changes to existing code or applications.
Dec 9, 2016
Almost no issues cutting from from SQL DB to HANA DB during cutover or since. The performance gains have been up to 1000x faster reporting performance on standard SAP t-codes that have been optimized for HANA.
Dec 5, 2016
While there were occasional support issues, these were expected and did not exceed reasonable resolution time. This was a significant project and overall all went extremely well.
Dec 2, 2016
New technology with very little people who know HANA
Jul 28, 2016
Our organization has had relatively minor issues with ASE. We maintain over 30 databases at around 5TB each and have had excellent performance with virtually no downtime.
Mar 16, 2016
We installed it early on. The cost was over 3 million per half terabyte at the time. We have been using it for 2 years now and it still has a way to go and in our minds has not met the marketing promises that were claimed. However we have been happy with the ability to offload laborsome SAP ERP transactions and accelerate them.
Nov 8, 2015
Quick implementation and better performance in use.
Oct 4, 2015
Expensive, very pushy and create an envirnment that you have no choice but move to HANA. SAP HANA is not required for most organizations at this point.