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

Thanks again Geoff.

I wasn't clear on something - this is not a named instance of SQL. Both the
current install and the Virutual SQL Server will be a default instance. I
plan on naming the VIrtual SQL Server - 'Server1', which is the name of our
current stand alone server.

I will check out the links you sent.

Thanks again.

"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Clustered named instances show up as VirtualServerName\InstanceName. Since
> the Virtual Server and the Instance have the same name your system would
> start out as Server2\Server2. Renaming a clustered instance is possible but
> unsupported and highly unrecommended.
>
> How to change a clustered SQL Server Network Name
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307336
>
> Again, I strongly urge you to look at a DNS-based solution.
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2782.html
>
> GNH
>
>
> "KellyVV" <KellyVV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:61E53FEE-965B-4037-8C07-D60EC3DF5F54@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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
    ... I plan on giving the Virtual SQL Instance name the same name as my current ... That way the name of the SQL Server will not change. ... Again, copying the system databases, even if successful, won't fix ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Adding Second Virtual SQL Server Instance to a Cluster.
    ... IP address and disk resources for another virtual ... you install the new instance like you installed ... Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP ... > We consider implementing a Report Server by adding a second Virtual SQL ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Adding Second Virtual SQL Server Instance to a Cluster.
    ... At the moment the Virtual SQL Server uses a 133 GB ... There is no unused space on the SAN. ... shared disk for a new shared disk resource for the second Virtual SQL ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • RE: Backup and Restore of the Cluster
    ... restore a VIRTUAL SQL Server running on a cluster to another VIRTUAL SQL ... I am most interessed in how to restore the master and msdb database on the ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: (local) Alias does not function in an virtual sql server?
    ... There is an Environment Variable you can use in order to run the SQLDIAG ... How To Run SQLDIAG On a Clustered/Virtual SQL Server ... > virtual sql server, the application tries to connect to the active node ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)