Re: Breaking a Sql Cluster

2 reasons, First, we can't do an upgrade because we know some of the
databases are not compatible with SQL 2005 so an inline upgrade won't work
for us. Second, Microsoft recommended we create another cluster group and
install along side the existing but we don't have the disk space on the
existing SAN and we are currently in an extreme budget crunch right now so
expanding is out of the question. So with no server money or SAN money we
talked about breaking the cluster and doing a fresh SQL install on the new
server once we took the passive node from the cluster. We should have
Active/Passive and not active/active/passive after it's done, right?

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

Why not keep the cluster and run SQL 2005 on there?

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau


"David" <David@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A05DA0CB-60E8-4EB4-A2E3-7DF5A2CBF031@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes we are aware we lose the high availability. After we have the standalone
we are going to install SQL 2005 on the box and migrate our databases to the
standalone SQL 2005 box. After all the migration is complete we will
probably
kill the cluster and use the servers for something else. There was some talk
about possibly building another cluster later.

"Tom Moreau" wrote:

A cluster can run with even one node. What you are planning is quite
feasible. What are your plans once you have the DB's on the stand-alone?
Keep in mind that on a stand-alone server, you lose the high availability
that you once had.

--
Tom

----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA, MCITP, MCTS
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Tom.Moreau


"David" <David@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:167E99AC-0D2C-4FA5-8A07-0ED3A45CDB68@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We have an Active/Active/Passive SQL 2000 cluster and budgetary
constraints
have made it impossible for us to upgrade the hardware to new servers. Our
current servers are capable of handling the upgrade but some of our
databases
might not be compatible with SQL 2005. Can we evict the passive node,
make
it a standalone, upgrade it and then migrate the databases to the new
server
without killing the cluster? Will the cluster run if the passive node is
evicted?






.

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)