|
|
You're in the
sql server clustering
group:SQL Server Clustering - OS(64-Bit) SQL (32-Bit)
sql server clustering:
Currently we have 4-NODE SQL Cluster as follows:
H/W = 32-Bit processors Windows 2003 EE (32-Bit) SQL 2000 EE (32-Bit) We plan to setup a new 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster with the intention to upgrade to SQL 2005 64-Bit later. Phase I Set up 4-NODE SQL Cluster with following h/w & s/w configuration: H/W = 64-Bit Windows 2003 EE (64-Bit) SQL Server 2000 EE (32-Bit) Phase II Upgrade SQL Cluster to SQL 2005 EE (64-Bit) Here is my question; a) Is it OK/feasible to setup/configure the 4-NODE SQL Cluster as per Phase I b) If YES then would it be possible/practical to upgrade to SQL 2005 as per Phase II and what would be the steps for MIGRATION/upgrade with MINIMUM down time? Let me know if I should call/contact Microsoft to confirm the above setup/configuration? Thank you!
First, many thanks for quick response/reply.
Second, if you can tell/explain me how that PHASE II should/would work. Lets say we have 4-NODE Cluster configured using SAN , can we install another instance of SQL 2005 cluster using the same DISKS/LUNS while SQL 2000 is active and available all the time. I know you said/mentioned it needs to be well planned strategy but my question/concern is that is it NOT risky to install/configure the SQL 2005 hile SQL2000 cluster is running/working etc. etc. what about QUORUM drive and other issues like FAILOVER TEST, IP Addrress, and other resource etc. Well, if you think a well planned strategy wil work then we might be interested in SQL Server Cluster Expertise but ONLY if it is FEASIBLE? Thank you! [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no Itanium) > with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a stand-alone > system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can be set up that > way. > > As for the migration from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 64-bit, that is not too much > trouble. You cannot do an in-place upgrade because of the 32 to 64 bit > difference, but you can install a second SQL instance using SQL 2005 on the > cluster. You can then detach the databases from the 2000 instance and > reattach them to the 2005 instance. If downtime is more important and you > have disk space, you can log ship from the 2000 instance to the 2005 > instance and perform a cutover in less than 15 minutes, provided you have > tested everything, including security and client access. > > The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the > side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested > changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. > > Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might > look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Senior Database Administrator > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > > "Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:2609214B-CD0E-4F68-AC1D-CD49B7FC5815@microsoft.com... > > Currently we have 4-NODE SQL Cluster as follows: > > > > H/W = 32-Bit processors > > Windows 2003 EE (32-Bit) > > SQL 2000 EE (32-Bit) > > > > We plan to setup a new 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster with the intention to > > upgrade to SQL 2005 64-Bit later. > > > > Phase I > > > > Set up 4-NODE SQL Cluster with following h/w & s/w configuration: > > > > H/W = 64-Bit > > Windows 2003 EE (64-Bit) > > SQL Server 2000 EE (32-Bit) > > > > Phase II > > > > Upgrade SQL Cluster to SQL 2005 EE (64-Bit) > > > > Here is my question; > > > > a) Is it OK/feasible to setup/configure the 4-NODE SQL Cluster as per > > Phase I > > > > b) If YES then would it be possible/practical to upgrade to SQL 2005 as > > per > > Phase II and what would be the steps for MIGRATION/upgrade with MINIMUM > > down > > time? > > > > Let me know if I should call/contact Microsoft to confirm the above > > setup/configuration? > > > > Thank you! > > > >
[quoted text, click to view]
> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no Itanium) > with SP4 and higher. I may not be reading this right. But SQL2000 is supported on Itanium. We have some IA-64 SQL2000 instances running on Unisys ES7000 with Itanium processors. Linchi [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no Itanium) > with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a stand-alone > system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can be set up that > way. > > As for the migration from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 64-bit, that is not too much > trouble. You cannot do an in-place upgrade because of the 32 to 64 bit > difference, but you can install a second SQL instance using SQL 2005 on the > cluster. You can then detach the databases from the 2000 instance and > reattach them to the 2005 instance. If downtime is more important and you > have disk space, you can log ship from the 2000 instance to the 2005 > instance and perform a cutover in less than 15 minutes, provided you have > tested everything, including security and client access. > > The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the > side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested > changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. > > Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might > look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Senior Database Administrator > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > > "Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:2609214B-CD0E-4F68-AC1D-CD49B7FC5815@microsoft.com... > > Currently we have 4-NODE SQL Cluster as follows: > > > > H/W = 32-Bit processors > > Windows 2003 EE (32-Bit) > > SQL 2000 EE (32-Bit) > > > > We plan to setup a new 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster with the intention to > > upgrade to SQL 2005 64-Bit later. > > > > Phase I > > > > Set up 4-NODE SQL Cluster with following h/w & s/w configuration: > > > > H/W = 64-Bit > > Windows 2003 EE (64-Bit) > > SQL Server 2000 EE (32-Bit) > > > > Phase II > > > > Upgrade SQL Cluster to SQL 2005 EE (64-Bit) > > > > Here is my question; > > > > a) Is it OK/feasible to setup/configure the 4-NODE SQL Cluster as per > > Phase I > > > > b) If YES then would it be possible/practical to upgrade to SQL 2005 as > > per > > Phase II and what would be the steps for MIGRATION/upgrade with MINIMUM > > down > > time? > > > > Let me know if I should call/contact Microsoft to confirm the above > > setup/configuration? > > > > Thank you! > > > >
SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no Itanium)
with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a stand-alone system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can be set up that way. As for the migration from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 64-bit, that is not too much trouble. You cannot do an in-place upgrade because of the 32 to 64 bit difference, but you can install a second SQL instance using SQL 2005 on the cluster. You can then detach the databases from the 2000 instance and reattach them to the 2005 instance. If downtime is more important and you have disk space, you can log ship from the 2000 instance to the 2005 instance and perform a cutover in less than 15 minutes, provided you have tested everything, including security and client access. The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. -- Geoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:2609214B-CD0E-4F68-AC1D-CD49B7FC5815@microsoft.com... > Currently we have 4-NODE SQL Cluster as follows: > > H/W = 32-Bit processors > Windows 2003 EE (32-Bit) > SQL 2000 EE (32-Bit) > > We plan to setup a new 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster with the intention to > upgrade to SQL 2005 64-Bit later. > > Phase I > > Set up 4-NODE SQL Cluster with following h/w & s/w configuration: > > H/W = 64-Bit > Windows 2003 EE (64-Bit) > SQL Server 2000 EE (32-Bit) > > Phase II > > Upgrade SQL Cluster to SQL 2005 EE (64-Bit) > > Here is my question; > > a) Is it OK/feasible to setup/configure the 4-NODE SQL Cluster as per > Phase I > > b) If YES then would it be possible/practical to upgrade to SQL 2005 as > per > Phase II and what would be the steps for MIGRATION/upgrade with MINIMUM > down > time? > > Let me know if I should call/contact Microsoft to confirm the above > setup/configuration? > > Thank you! >
[quoted text, click to view]
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message news:O82ySOceGHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no Itanium) > with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a stand-alone > system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can be set up that > way. I just looked and there is no x64 version of SQL Server 2000. [quoted text, click to view] > The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the > side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested > changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. I agree with that take. [quoted text, click to view] > Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might > look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. I can never stress enough that if a company has deemed that HA is appropriate for the SQL databases for certain applications, you should make sure you have the right skills to go along with it. -- Russ Kaufmann MVP - Windows Server - Clustering ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner Web http://www.clusterhelp.com Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp
I should have written this more clearly. 32-bit SQL 2000 SP4 and higher is
supported on the AMD64 and EM64T platforms, but not on the Itanium platform. You need the IA-64 Edition of SQL 2000 for that. -- Geoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:F8ECDA14-F7E4-4F81-AC99-BCE10756E9C4@microsoft.com... >> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no >> Itanium) >> with SP4 and higher. > > I may not be reading this right. But SQL2000 is supported on Itanium. We > have some IA-64 SQL2000 instances running on Unisys ES7000 with Itanium > processors. > > Linchi > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > >> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no >> Itanium) >> with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a stand-alone >> system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can be set up >> that >> way. >> >> As for the migration from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 64-bit, that is not too >> much >> trouble. You cannot do an in-place upgrade because of the 32 to 64 bit >> difference, but you can install a second SQL instance using SQL 2005 on >> the >> cluster. You can then detach the databases from the 2000 instance and >> reattach them to the 2005 instance. If downtime is more important and >> you >> have disk space, you can log ship from the 2000 instance to the 2005 >> instance and perform a cutover in less than 15 minutes, provided you have >> tested everything, including security and client access. >> >> The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the >> side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested >> changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. >> >> Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might >> look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. >> >> -- >> Geoff N. Hiten >> Senior Database Administrator >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> >> >> >> >> "Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:2609214B-CD0E-4F68-AC1D-CD49B7FC5815@microsoft.com... >> > Currently we have 4-NODE SQL Cluster as follows: >> > >> > H/W = 32-Bit processors >> > Windows 2003 EE (32-Bit) >> > SQL 2000 EE (32-Bit) >> > >> > We plan to setup a new 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster with the intention to >> > upgrade to SQL 2005 64-Bit later. >> > >> > Phase I >> > >> > Set up 4-NODE SQL Cluster with following h/w & s/w configuration: >> > >> > H/W = 64-Bit >> > Windows 2003 EE (64-Bit) >> > SQL Server 2000 EE (32-Bit) >> > >> > Phase II >> > >> > Upgrade SQL Cluster to SQL 2005 EE (64-Bit) >> > >> > Here is my question; >> > >> > a) Is it OK/feasible to setup/configure the 4-NODE SQL Cluster as per >> > Phase I >> > >> > b) If YES then would it be possible/practical to upgrade to SQL 2005 as >> > per >> > Phase II and what would be the steps for MIGRATION/upgrade with MINIMUM >> > down >> > time? >> > >> > Let me know if I should call/contact Microsoft to confirm the above >> > setup/configuration? >> > >> > Thank you! >> > >> >> >>
Your idea is very feasable. SQL 2000 and 2005 supports multiple instances
on the same cluster, even intermixing versions. So your 32-bit SQL 2000 instance on your 64-bit cluster hosts will not be affected by the installation of a SQL 2005 64-bit instance. You only need one quorum drive per cluster and that drive will remain unaffected by the install. Your new instance will have a separate IP address and network name and look like a completely new SQL Server. To do the data-in-place migration, you simply detach the databases, move the disks to the new resource group, and reattach them. You will have to manually recreate the logins and update the client connection information, but you will have to do that when transferring to the new 64-bit OS cluster anyway. I strongly suggest downloading the SQL 2005 BOL and reading up on upgrading from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. The cluster upgrade section is very detailed. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx -- Geoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:9E49BD16-1A55-48B2-98F0-4B1FA770EE03@microsoft.com... > First, many thanks for quick response/reply. > > Second, if you can tell/explain me how that PHASE II should/would work. > > Lets say we have 4-NODE Cluster configured using SAN , can we install > another instance of SQL 2005 cluster using the same DISKS/LUNS while SQL > 2000 > is active and available all the time. > > I know you said/mentioned it needs to be well planned strategy but my > question/concern is that is it NOT risky to install/configure the SQL 2005 > hile SQL2000 cluster is running/working etc. etc. what about QUORUM drive > and other issues like FAILOVER TEST, IP Addrress, and other resource etc. > > Well, if you think a well planned strategy wil work then we might be > interested in SQL Server Cluster Expertise but ONLY if it is FEASIBLE? > > Thank you! > > > > > > > > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > >> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no >> Itanium) >> with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a stand-alone >> system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can be set up >> that >> way. >> >> As for the migration from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005 64-bit, that is not too >> much >> trouble. You cannot do an in-place upgrade because of the 32 to 64 bit >> difference, but you can install a second SQL instance using SQL 2005 on >> the >> cluster. You can then detach the databases from the 2000 instance and >> reattach them to the 2005 instance. If downtime is more important and >> you >> have disk space, you can log ship from the 2000 instance to the 2005 >> instance and perform a cutover in less than 15 minutes, provided you have >> tested everything, including security and client access. >> >> The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the >> side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested >> changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. >> >> Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might >> look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. >> >> -- >> Geoff N. Hiten >> Senior Database Administrator >> Microsoft SQL Server MVP >> >> >> >> >> "Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:2609214B-CD0E-4F68-AC1D-CD49B7FC5815@microsoft.com... >> > Currently we have 4-NODE SQL Cluster as follows: >> > >> > H/W = 32-Bit processors >> > Windows 2003 EE (32-Bit) >> > SQL 2000 EE (32-Bit) >> > >> > We plan to setup a new 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster with the intention to >> > upgrade to SQL 2005 64-Bit later. >> > >> > Phase I >> > >> > Set up 4-NODE SQL Cluster with following h/w & s/w configuration: >> > >> > H/W = 64-Bit >> > Windows 2003 EE (64-Bit) >> > SQL Server 2000 EE (32-Bit) >> > >> > Phase II >> > >> > Upgrade SQL Cluster to SQL 2005 EE (64-Bit) >> > >> > Here is my question; >> > >> > a) Is it OK/feasible to setup/configure the 4-NODE SQL Cluster as per >> > Phase I >> > >> > b) If YES then would it be possible/practical to upgrade to SQL 2005 as >> > per >> > Phase II and what would be the steps for MIGRATION/upgrade with MINIMUM >> > down >> > time? >> > >> > Let me know if I should call/contact Microsoft to confirm the above >> > setup/configuration? >> > >> > Thank you! >> > >> >> >>
You are correct. There is no x64 version of SQL 2000. The x86 version is
supported on a x64 OS platform starting with SP4. -- Geoff N. Hiten Senior Database Administrator Microsoft SQL Server MVP [quoted text, click to view] "Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ@clusterhelp.com> wrote in message news:uiiIKWdeGHA.380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:O82ySOceGHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no >> Itanium) with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a >> stand-alone system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can >> be set up that way. > > I just looked and there is no x64 version of SQL Server 2000. > >> The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the >> side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested >> changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. > > I agree with that take. > >> Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might >> look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. > > I can never stress enough that if a company has deemed that HA is > appropriate for the SQL databases for certain applications, you should > make sure you have the right skills to go along with it. > > > -- > Russ Kaufmann > MVP - Windows Server - Clustering > ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner > Web http://www.clusterhelp.com > Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp > >
Thank you every one.
So I should be able to do the following and please free to correct me if I got any wrong: Install/Configure 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster as: a) H/W 64-Bit (Xeon) b) Windows 2003 EE - 64 Bit version c) SQL 2000 sp4 EE - 32 Bit version Let's say that is the production environment and it is up and running available 24/7. later when we aready (application modified etc.) we upgrade the above SQL Sever Cluster to SQL 2005 EE 64-Bit a) Install/Configure SQL Server 2005 EE Cluster on 4-NODE (as noted above and provided enough disk space etc.) b) Check/Test Fail over new INSTANCES (SQL2005) c) Detach & Re-Atach the databases By the way, we have hundreds of databases on single instance would it be feasible to detach/atach few database at time so let say we have SQL 2000 & SQL 2005 Cluster working until all the databases are MOVED to SQL 2005 cluster. In summary as long we have enough available disk space to install/confogure the CLuster there should NOT be any problem etc. Please reply and confirm and again I appreciate all the reply/comments from SQL Server GURUS.... Thanks a Million! Kamal Hassan [quoted text, click to view] "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> You are correct. There is no x64 version of SQL 2000. The x86 version is > supported on a x64 OS platform starting with SP4. > > -- > Geoff N. Hiten > Senior Database Administrator > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > > "Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ@clusterhelp.com> wrote in message > news:uiiIKWdeGHA.380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:O82ySOceGHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no > >> Itanium) with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a > >> stand-alone system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can > >> be set up that way. > > > > I just looked and there is no x64 version of SQL Server 2000. > > > >> The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the > >> side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested > >> changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. > > > > I agree with that take. > > > >> Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might > >> look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. > > > > I can never stress enough that if a company has deemed that HA is > > appropriate for the SQL databases for certain applications, you should > > make sure you have the right skills to go along with it. > > > > > > -- > > Russ Kaufmann > > MVP - Windows Server - Clustering > > ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner > > Web http://www.clusterhelp.com > > Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp > > > > > >
In adition to my previous question/request. can you please also confirm that
two separate cluster instance first SQL 2000 32-bit and second SQL2005 -64-bit would be able to see the SAME LUNS as the custer will be against same drives. THANKS A LOT! Thank you every one. So I should be able to do the following and please free to correct me if I got any wrong: Install/Configure 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster as: a) H/W 64-Bit (Xeon) b) Windows 2003 EE - 64 Bit version c) SQL 2000 sp4 EE - 32 Bit version Let's say that is the production environment and it is up and running available 24/7. later when we aready (application modified etc.) we upgrade the above SQL Sever Cluster to SQL 2005 EE 64-Bit a) Install/Configure SQL Server 2005 EE Cluster on 4-NODE (as noted above and provided enough disk space etc.) b) Check/Test Fail over new INSTANCES (SQL2005) c) Detach & Re-Atach the databases By the way, we have hundreds of databases on single instance would it be feasible to detach/atach few database at time so let say we have SQL 2000 & SQL 2005 Cluster working until all the databases are MOVED to SQL 2005 cluster. In summary as long we have enough available disk space to install/confogure the CLuster there should NOT be any problem etc. Please reply and confirm and again I appreciate all the reply/comments from SQL Server GURUS.... [quoted text, click to view] "Kamal Hassan" wrote:
> Thank you every one. > > So I should be able to do the following and please free to correct me if I > got any wrong: > > Install/Configure 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster as: > a) H/W 64-Bit (Xeon) > b) Windows 2003 EE - 64 Bit version > c) SQL 2000 sp4 EE - 32 Bit version > > Let's say that is the production environment and it is up and running > available 24/7. > > later when we aready (application modified etc.) we upgrade the above SQL > Sever Cluster to SQL 2005 EE 64-Bit > > a) Install/Configure SQL Server 2005 EE Cluster on 4-NODE (as noted above > and provided enough disk space etc.) > b) Check/Test Fail over new INSTANCES (SQL2005) > c) Detach & Re-Atach the databases > > By the way, we have hundreds of databases on single instance would it be > feasible to detach/atach few database at time so let say we have SQL 2000 & > SQL 2005 Cluster working until all the databases are MOVED to SQL 2005 > cluster. > > In summary as long we have enough available disk space to install/confogure > the CLuster there should NOT be any problem etc. > > Please reply and confirm and again I appreciate all the reply/comments from > SQL Server GURUS.... > > Thanks a Million! > > Kamal Hassan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote: > > > You are correct. There is no x64 version of SQL 2000. The x86 version is > > supported on a x64 OS platform starting with SP4. > > > > -- > > Geoff N. Hiten > > Senior Database Administrator > > Microsoft SQL Server MVP > > > > > > > > > > "Russ Kaufmann [MVP]" <russ@clusterhelp.com> wrote in message > > news:uiiIKWdeGHA.380@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > > "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:O82ySOceGHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > >> SQL 2000 is supported on a 64-bit platform (AMD or EM64T only, no > > >> Itanium) with SP4 and higher. This applies on a cluster as well as a > > >> stand-alone system, so the answer to your first question is yes, it can > > >> be set up that way. > > > > > > I just looked and there is no x64 version of SQL Server 2000. > > > > > >> The real key here is not the 32 to 64 bit conversion, it is testing the > > >> side-by-side migration from 2000 to 2005. A well-planned and well-tested > > >> changeover can go smoothly and quickly. Anything else is very risky. > > > > > > I agree with that take. > > > > > >> Note that I am not trolling for work, I have all I can do, but you might > > >> look at renting a cluster migration expert to assist with this project. > > > > > > I can never stress enough that if a company has deemed that HA is > > > appropriate for the SQL databases for certain applications, you should > > > make sure you have the right skills to go along with it. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Russ Kaufmann > > > MVP - Windows Server - Clustering > > > ClusterHelp.com, a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner > > > Web http://www.clusterhelp.com > > > Blog http://msmvps.com/clusterhelp > > > > > > > > > >
[quoted text, click to view] "Kamal Hassan" <KamalHassan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B7117548-EE42-45E1-A80B-B0D58E5CE4C9@microsoft.com... > Thank you every one. > > So I should be able to do the following and please free to correct me if I > got any wrong: > > Install/Configure 4-NODE SQL Server Cluster as: > a) H/W 64-Bit (Xeon) > b) Windows 2003 EE - 64 Bit version > c) SQL 2000 sp4 EE - 32 Bit version > > Let's say that is the production environment and it is up and running > available 24/7. > > later when we aready (application modified etc.) we upgrade the above SQL > Sever Cluster to SQL 2005 EE 64-Bit > > a) Install/Configure SQL Server 2005 EE Cluster on 4-NODE (as noted above > and provided enough disk space etc.) > b) Check/Test Fail over new INSTANCES (SQL2005) > c) Detach & Re-Atach the databases > > By the way, we have hundreds of databases on single instance would it be > feasible to detach/atach few database at time so let say we have SQL 2000 > & > SQL 2005 Cluster working until all the databases are MOVED to SQL 2005 > cluster. > Yes. And if you have hundreds of databases you might want to run multiple seperate virtual servers. All the databases in an instance share memory, cpu and tempdb, and, of course, must run on only one cluster node. Dividing the databases among multiple virtual servers can help you manage performance and achieve higer utilization across your cluster. David
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |