Re: Differences in clustered system db's vs standalone system db's

Hi Geoff,

Yes, we definately plan on running some tests. I was hoping to get
verification on whether or not the system databases are different before we
tried it. If there are differences, that would end this option and I
wouldn't need to run thru the test.

One follow up question on your comment: "The network name presented to the
outside world IS the Virtual SQL Instance name. Again, copying the system
databases, even if successful, won't fix your problem."

I plan on giving the Virtual SQL Instance name the same name as my current
Stand alone SQL Server. That way the name of the SQL Server will not change.

Let's say my standalone server is called "Server1". If I shut down sql on
that server, and then rename that server to "Server2". Then I install SQL on
my new cluster, and give the Virtual SQL Server the name "Server1". Won't
that handle the name issues? Or am I missing something?

Thanks.

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> I am not 100% sure, but my gut tells me that the system database are
> different.
>
> The network name presented to the outside world IS the Virtual SQL Instance
> name. Again, copying the system databases, even if successful, won't fix
> your problem.
>
> You may want to build a test cluster using cheap recycled SCSI hardware or
> evena Virtual host (VMWare or Microsoft Virtual Server) as a training
> exercise. You can then break it as much as necessary without affecting your
> production systems. There is nothing like hands-on experience when you are
> planning a major server migration.
>
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "KellyVV" <KellyVV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:E5B85548-C635-4161-8BE2-BADD5070E720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Thank you for your comments and advice. I don't think the network name
> > presented by the cluster should not be an issue, as long as the name of
> > the
> > virtual SQL Server instance is the same as before. The application users
> > rely on the SQL Server name, not the cluster or server name.
> >
> > My main question is, are there any differences in the system databases on
> > standalone servers vs. system databases of clustered virtual sql servers?
> >
> > I am having trouble finding the answer to that question. If someone can
> > verify that for me I would very much appreciate it. :)
> >
> > Thank you!
> > Kelly
> >
> >
> >
> > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> >
> >> I wouldn't try and copy the system databases from one server to another,
> >> much less from a non-clustered instance to a clustered instance. You are
> >> likely much better off aliasing the old name to the new name using a DNS
> >> record or a client-side alias. Even if you do manage to copy the system
> >> databases, the network name presented to the outside world by the Cluster
> >> won't change so you will not solve your initial problem.
> >>
> >> Geoff N.Hiten
> >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "KellyVV" <KellyVV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:6BC09EC5-ACC9-4493-8E89-43684AC9A82E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > Hello,
> >> > We have a standalone Enterprise edition sql 2000 server that we want to
> >> > migrate to a cluster and make it a virtual sql server, for high
> >> > availability
> >> > reasons.
> >> >
> >> > We do not want to change the name of the SQL Server, as hundreds of
> >> > databases are on this server, and hundreds of applications refer to
> >> > this
> >> > SQL
> >> > Server name. Because of these requirements, we cannot use the steps in
> >> > BOL
> >> > to upgrade our standalone to a cluster (that includes changing the sql
> >> > server
> >> > name)
> >> >
> >> > We are moving to two new servers (the current server will be retired)
> >> >
> >> > Does anyone know the following two questions....
> >> > Is it possible to take the system databases from a standalone version
> >> > of
> >> > SQL
> >> > Server, and restore them to a clustered SQL Server?
> >> >
> >> > Are there differences in the system databases on a stand alone SQL
> >> > Server
> >> > vs. a clustered virtual SQL Server?
> >> >
> >> > Here is a high level idea of what we would like to do:
> >> > - Stop SQL on the standalone server
> >> > - Rename the standalone server
> >> > - Install sql on the cluster, and give the virtual sql server the
> >> > orignal
> >> > name of my standalone server
> >> > - shutdown sql on the cluster
> >> > - copy the data and log files for all system and user databases to the
> >> > cluster from the standalone server
> >> > - start up sql on the cluster
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your help and time!
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Differences in clustered system dbs vs standalone system dbs
    ... Again, copying the system databases, even if successful, won't fix ... planning a major server migration. ... > virtual SQL Server instance is the same as before. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • RE: Moving SQL Server 2000 to a new machine
    ... In addition to all the CYA advise, you CAN move the system databases. ... Once you've got the new server at SQL2K, SP2, and the physical paths to ... > Recently I was tasked to move our entire SQL Server 2000 to a new server. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)
  • Re: What those data files use for?
    ... Columnist, SQL Server Professional ... Now I need move all the system databases to SAN drive, ... > Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)
  • Re: Differences in clustered system dbs vs standalone system dbs
    ... current install and the Virutual SQL Server will be a default instance. ... >> outside world IS the Virtual SQL Instance name. ... Again, copying the system databases, even if successful, won't fix ... >>> You may want to build a test cluster using cheap recycled SCSI hardware ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • RE: MSSQL Server Recovery
    ... Assuming you have all database files (including system databases - master, ... Install SQL Server to the same location on the second server (as your ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.server)