SQL 2k to SQL 2K5 in Active Passive Cluster

#41

You are definitely on the right track.

I usually detach the database files, take a SAN snapshot so I can revert,
and then move the LUNS into the SQL 2005 group (remember to set the
dependencies). Reattach, update statistics, and run. If it all goes
pear-shaped, stop SQl 2005, move the LUNS back, revert the snapshot,
reattach to SQL 2000 and try again later.

And I think you will notice that the binaries are local to each machine, it
is only the SQL data and transaction log files that are on clustered
resources.
As for uninstalling, why bother? Disable the services and let the system
be. The footprint of a few hundred MB on the system disks is trivial.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

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

Quote:

Great, so do you mean

1) Install SQL 2k5 cluster instance
2) Test everything with instance name
3) if everything goes fine map the DNS of default 2K cluster to new 2K5
cluster
4) Uninstall 2K cluster

if above is the case then it looks better plan ,but how i will manage the
LUNs which are already part of current SQL 2K(binaries on H$ shared drive)
what are the precautions and action point i need to take for LUNs and
while
un-installing the sql2k cluster?

Thanks much..

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

I do not think this will work.

The SQL 2005 installer treats the clustered instance singly for update
purposes. The installer will exit if any cluster resource is offline, so
you cannot "reserve" one node to failback. Also, once a database file is
upgraded to SQL 2005, it cannot be attached to a SQL 2000 instance.

I would recommend a side-by-side installation of a named instance of SQl
2005. You can then do a data-in-place migration after you have tested
everything. A DNS SRV record can point the old virtual server name to
the
new named instance so you do not have to try and rename a clustered
instance.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP

"sacgar" <sacgar (AT) discussions (DOT) microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:02F601FA-749E-4AE7-8011-D1CF8AC133E4 (AT) microsoft (DOT) com...

We are going for SQL 2K Upgrade to SQL 2k5 Upgrade for Active-Passive
Clusters (windows 2K3)and thinking for below plan , can anybody confirm
if
we
are ignoring or missing big issues with below plan or it sounds good?

o Put SQL 2005 on one server
o Leave SQL 2000 on the other
o Virtual name of the cluster will remain pointed at the SQL 2000
server
o New Build will be tested on the SQL 2005 server
o If the new software fails, we still have everything working on the
SQL
2000 server
o When the SQL 2005 server is ready with Build and tested , the SQL
2000
server is turned off and virtual name of the cluster is pointed at the
SQL
2005 server.
• Also if there is no issue you see , what is the process to point to
point
the virtual name from SQL 2K to SQL 2K5

Thanks

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SQL 2k to SQL 2K5 in Active Passive Cluster

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

Re: SQL 2k to SQL 2K5 in Active Passive Cluster - 02-07-2008 , 03:15 PM