Re: Upgrade 2000 to 2005

Thanks Geoff...not what I wanted to hear, but I appreciate the input :)

I have no choice on the upgrade..the client is my best friend, and the
database is the city 911 system, so I need to cover all my bases on this.

Kevin

"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u3hdLb2OHHA.4104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have never been a big fan of a cluster upgrade. The rollback plan
basically becomes uninstall, reinstall, reload from backup. As a safety
measure, I would detach the user databases, upgrade in place, and then
attach. That way, if there is a failure in the upgrade process, you at
least save the restore step.

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




"Kevin3NF" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uF8ZqejOHHA.1240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
New instance requires disk resources. I don't have disk resources
available. Or is 2005 that much different...

--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm

Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com


"Zekske" <Zekske@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:14036779-7155-491E-AEB6-E431A07E05BF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Never did a cluster upgrade yet but I can tell you that images of
clusternodes work.
What you also can do is install SQL 2005 as a new instance aside your
SQL2000.
Then you can migrate your database from 2000 to 2005 keeping your old
databases as rollback and without the need of new hardware

"Kevin3NF" wrote:

Gentlemen, geniuses, either or both....

My client has a multi-instance SQL 2000 SP3 (.818) cluster on Win2K3.

He wants to upgrade both instances to 2005. Cool.

No extra drives/luns/whatever the proper term is are available in the
SAN.

Am I stuck with an in place upgrade? I would have preferred to do a
side by
side and move the databases but the hardware just aint there.

In this situation, what you do from a "rollback" perspective in case he
upgrade blows chunks and has to revert? For a standalone, I assume
imaging
software would work...would a cluster image work just as well?

2005 upgrades are something I just haven't touched yet...:(

Thanks!

--
Kevin Hill
3NF Consulting
http://www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm

Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server:
http://kevin3nf.blogspot.com









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SharePoint Services 3.0 unable to display content
    ... looking at the database table information, ... Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 2.0 ... Can we asume you mean SQL Server 2005? ... The upgrade identified that there was a previous ...
    (microsoft.public.sharepoint.windowsservices)
  • Re: Upgrade 2000 to 2005
    ... leases hardware IIRC, so that would not be an issue. ... Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server: ... measure, I would detach the user databases, upgrade in place, and then ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)
  • Re: Upgrade from MSDE to SQL
    ... Hard to say whether the database is of any use to you now you are partway ... upgrade just in case. ... But FIRST I would in any case see if adding SQL Server ...
    (microsoft.public.sharepoint.windowsservices)
  • Re: Cannot view DB properties
    ... # Ran the setup and upgraded the existing SQL Server 8.00.818 to SQL Server ... owner was NULL after the UPgraded finished successfully. ... The proposed new database owner is already a user or aliased in the ... Sorry, I don't understand, what do you mean by "In-Place Upgrade"? ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.security)
  • Re: Upgrade 2000 to 2005
    ... I would not due an in-place upgrade; they are dirty and they never end up ... So, given your hardware restrictions, here is the tact I would take. ... completely uninstall the SQL 2000 installation. ... Real-world stuff I run across with SQL Server: ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering)