dbTalk Databases Forums  

SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster

Go Back dbTalk Databases Forums Databases microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster

microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering


Discuss SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster in the microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering forum.



Reply
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old   
Will Jackson
 
Posts: n/a

Default SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:11 AM





We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM





It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM


It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM


It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM


It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM


It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM


It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM


It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM


It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old   
Tom Moreau
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: SQL 2005 then SQL 2000 on a cluster - 03-10-2008 , 07:19 AM


It's a requirement.

--
Tom

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


"Will Jackson" <WillJackson (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote

We have an SQL Cluster active/passive, currently running SQL 2005 as a named
instance.

We want to now install SQL 2000 as the default instance. Microsoft says,

"When you use SQL Server 2000 installations and SQL Server 2005
installations on the same cluster, the SQL Server 2000 installations must be
installed before you install SQL Server 2005 instances locally or as
failover
cluster instances."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327518

Does anyone know if this is a best practice or a requirement?

Thanks!



Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »



Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


Contact Us - dbTalk Databases Forums - Archive - Top