Re: Migrating to SQL Server 2005 and Clustering

I have prefer clean OS installs over upgrades. I have never personally had
any problems with 2000-2003 upgrades, but I have had issues with earlier OS
upgrade paths. I have even go so far as to upgrade each node in a cluster
then go back and wipe and reload each node, just so I don't have any
leftover bits. Since you will be migrating a W2000/SQL 2000 standalone host
to a W2003/SQL2005 clustered host, I would definitely wipe the system and
start over. If nothing else, you can guarantee it is an exact OS match for
its peer node.

--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP




"PMartin" <PMartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:F8076304-BBFE-4447-B0D8-D7A39F0544D4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Geoff,
>
> Unfortunately, we do need to re-use the hardware, so your suggestion of
> installing a single node cluster sounds like oustanding advice. The lack
> of
> failover during the transition will not be critical.
>
> You mentioned reloading the OS on the current (soon to be failover)
> server.
> Is this neceessary with Windows 2003, or just wise a precaution?
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Paul
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
>
>> My only concern is that you are reusing the existing node as a cluster
>> node.
>> For simplicity's sake, I would create a a clustered installation without
>> reusing any of the existing hardware. You then have the original system
>> completely untouched during the transition. You don't need to connect
>> the
>> existing SQL server to the SAN to do a minimal down time transfer. Given
>> proper set up time, I can do a server cutover in less than 15 minutes,
>> regardless of the total database size or count. Since you are moving one
>> DB
>> at a time, it even gets easier.
>>
>> If you have to reuse the existing hardware, I would add it to the cluster
>> after migration is complete. Install the cluster to a single-node,
>> perform
>> the migration/cutover, and then reload the OS and add the node to the
>> cluster. You won't have failover redundancy until the project is
>> complete,
>> but since you don't have that now, you won't miss it. :)
>>
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "PMartin" <PMartin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:413AB596-D87F-4EFD-93E3-5335FAC3D647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >I have a fairly unique scenario, and I would like to see if anyone can
>> >point
>> > out any potential holes of difficulties with this migration plan:
>> >
>> > What client has -- 1 SQL Server 2000 enterprise Edition running on SQL
>> > 2003
>> > NOT clustered, and using a SCSI disk array.
>> > What client wants -- 2 SQL Server 2005 systems, running on a 2 node
>> > cluster
>> > (Active-Passive) using a shared FiberChannel SAN. The active system
>> > will
>> > be
>> > new, the failover system will be current system listed above. Note
>> > that
>> > Clustering HCL has already been verified.
>> > Goals -- provide ability to perform a gradual, testable migration from
>> > SQL
>> > Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005 Cluster
>> >
>> > Plan:
>> > 1) Setup New Server and SAN. Connect Both New server and old server
>> > to
>> > SAN
>> > 2) Install MS Clustering service on both servers, keeping original
>> > un-clustered SQL 2000 in production
>> > 3) Install new instance of SQL 2005 on cluster
>> > 4) Test and then migrate databases from SQL Server 2000 to new SQL
>> > Server
>> > 2005 cluster one at a time. This means running the non-clustered SQL
>> > 2000
>> > on
>> > the physical hardware as the clustered SQL 2005 failover node. I
>> > realize
>> > that failover probably wont work well during the transition, due to a
>> > lack
>> > of
>> > resources.
>> > 5) When transition is complete, remove SQL Server 2000 from failover
>> > node.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Paul
>> >
>>
>>
>>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Exchange 2007 CCR on Windows 2008 x64 RTM
    ... install guide, but I always did it too quickly after the failure. ... I'm an MCITP on Server 2008 & Exchange ... I'm told that this is caused by the way the cluster service creates the ... respond to the start or control request in a timely fashion occured ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Exchange 2007 cluster install - interesting note on an SCC installation
    ... I got my client/hub server setup just fine, and then when I went to my ... the install was going smoothly but then I noticed in the cluster ... I was using during the Exchange install was 10.40.32.170. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • RE: Standalone Exchange 2007 installation
    ... if you would change your mind to install Exchange enterprise edition ... You CAN NOT install Exchange 2007 in a cluster together with other ... There are 2 domain controllers and 1 Exchange Server 2003 Standard edition. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • 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: Upgrading to SBS2003 - realistic to do ourselves?
    ... the IT Pros because we are talking about a pretty long day of work. ... A scratch install of SBS remains on of the big lies of the business world. ... server is a typical 6 hr minimum process for scratch install. ... assumption that for an IT Pro...doing upgrades is a way to make money. ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)