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



The ability to move the system and user databases between a standalone
Enterprise instance and clustered Enterprise server instance as you are
proposing is perfectly possible.
I have not noticed any difference between clustered and non-clustered system
databases, I however have not conducted any comprehensive comparison.

The issues you will more likely encounter here are the same issues as
migrating system databases between standalone instances of SQL.
Have a look at 224071. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071.
You may want to evaluate the possibility of migrating your user databases
and specific system information (Logins etc) as an alternative to ensure
your new setup clean.

Your assumptions about the SQL instance names are correct, if I understand
you correctly, are correct: You have a default standalone instance on
ServerX (which will be removed from the network) which you wish to replace
with a ServerX virtual server default instance. The only consideration here
would be that there can not be another preexisting default instance of SQL
installed on the cluster.

Regards

Gary Hope
iSolve Business Solutions
South Africa


"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: N+1 Configuration
    ... Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP) ... But looking in the cluster admin tool, ... mounting all other drives under that drive ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Clustering Question
    ... I have worked with Windows 2003 Small Business Server, Exchange Server 2003 and 2000 SQL server but not in a clustered environment. ... Do you want to cluster SQL? ... > you cannot install Cluster on a Small Business Edition, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Clustering Question
    ... The SQL Cluster would need to be ... SQL will need to Enterprise as well. ... So if I understand you correctly one computer will need Windows Server ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.clustering)
  • Re: Issues creating a new failover cluster on the same server
    ... G:\Microsoft SQL Server\MSSQL.1 ... CHNSQL04 Cluster Group ... Drives: H and F ... Group, the MS DTC Group, and each of the SQL Server Instance Groups running ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Connecting to cluster instance from .NET
    ... I have tried using the SQL 2000 CD and i have ... Virtual IP addresses for the cluster resource groups. ... SQL Server will listen on only those IP addresses ... This is odd because the 172.16 network is a Class B ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)