Breaking a Sql Cluster

#21

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node, make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#22

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#23

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#24

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#25

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#26

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#27

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#28

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#29

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?

#30

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Quote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau

"David" <David (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?