I'm moving our production DB from a stand alone install to an active/passive
cluster. Current system is running Windows 2008 and SQL 2008 SP1, the
cluster will run Windows 2008 R2. The machine that is actively running the
database now will become the second node in the cluster when it's all said
and done. I think have two options and am looking for any advice or other
ideas.

Option 1: Setup a single node cluster and restore the system databases.
When ready to migrate, stop SQL on the existing server and change the LUNs
over to the new server. Attach the databases and things should be ready to
go. Then ugrade the old server and bring it in as the second node.

Option 2: Setup a single node cluster using newly provisioned LUNs that
match the current production setup. Backup system and user databases from
the current server and restore them onto the cluster. Then ugrade the old
server and bring it in as the second node.

Option 1 seems much easier, Option 2 seems safer but more work. I have a
lab where I've been testing this stuff, but curious what others think.

Hi Phavel,

According to me. I feel there may be risk in option 1 & option 2 because the
server name of the old system and new system will be different. You may have
to find out the additional entries required to be configured or migrated for
cluster and non-cluster system.

The best option may be
1. Install single node cluster
2. Migrate Logins & SQL Server jobs
3. Restore user databases.
4. Rebuild the old server and attach it to the cluster.

Regards, Balaji

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

Thanks, I've not had trouble in the lab with option 2, but you make a good
point about possible inconsistencies. Do any of the Microsoft folks know if
there is a technet or msdn article on the proper procedure for doing this
type of migration? Thanks.


"Balaji" wrote:

Hi Phavel,

I am not sure about that. But from my experience the approach which I
suggested helps you to reduce the risk of failure.

Regards, Balaji

I am not sure about that. But is always
"phavel" <phavel (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote