Post reply

SQL 2K on win 2003

  • February 4, 2004 at 4:32 pm

    #177857

    Is any one implemented SQL 2000 in Win 2003 here? Please post the pros and cons also any performance gain?

     

    Thanks

    Shas3

  • February 4, 2004 at 5:32 pm

    #492813

    We migrated from a 2G 4x700Mhz server on W2K to a 32G 4x2.8G server on W2003.

    We went to W2003 primarily so we could make use of 32G instead of 8G of memory.

    It performs a LOT better, but I have no clear way to indicate whether the W2003 was relevant because we also added a heck of a lot of CPU horsepower at the same time.\

    So far it has been very stable however, which is a good sign for us.  We're taking our second server up this weekend, but again we're adding CPU horsepower (4 way -> 8 way and 3G to 32G).

     

  • February 5, 2004 at 2:21 am

    #492849

    Hi,

    I'm trying to install the SQLServer SQL2000 incl. SP2 (CD) on a Win2003 Cluster and have some problems withe the installation. I found sin hits in the Web

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;815431

    With this hints the installation SQL2000SP2 is running ... but the second sthe to install the SP3 failed ...

    Has someboy an idea ??

    I try to get an installation CD SQL2000SP3 ...

  • February 5, 2004 at 9:33 am

    #492922

    What do the last few lines of your sqlstp.log report? It should be in %SYSTEMROOT%. You can go from SQL Server 2000 RTM (the CD) straight to SP3 without applying the others.... the Service Packs are cumulative.

    As for the initial question, we're running Win2K3/SQL2KSP3 Active/Active. Experiencing some issues with distributed transactions and MS DTC, but we're working through them with MS.

     

    K. Brian Kelley
    @kbriankelley

  • February 5, 2004 at 10:07 am

    #492930

    The mail server here (Ssc.com) is W2K3 with SQL Sp3 on it. We're getting ready to install a 2nd server to handle the load with W2K3/SQL SP3 as well. Not sure again how it will affect performance since the architecture is changing as mentioned above.

    At my real job we're getting ready to upgrade some servers so I'll have more info then.

  • February 5, 2004 at 11:54 am

    #492939

    When installing SQL 2K on a Win2003 box you will get an error saying that this is not possible, however you can bypass the error and continue with the installation.  You then need to apply SQL SP3 ~

  • February 5, 2004 at 12:13 pm

    #492945

    From the presentation I saw from Microsoft DTS on the server is not available and Ent. Manager is not availalble either. They also said low end applications running on SQL Server will probably be a little slower. We have not had a chance to look at Win2003 as we are swamped here and just trying to get all of our servers off of NT 4.

  • February 5, 2004 at 3:23 pm

    #492963

    Enterprise Manager is available and I'm not aware of any issues with DTS though I don't believe we've migrated any DTS packages over as of yet. Are you sure your presentation wasn't covering a defect in SP3 when it first released? Because in that case, there was an issue with DTS Designer for flat files where the column length was too long.

     

    K. Brian Kelley
    @kbriankelley

  • February 6, 2004 at 9:26 am

    #493111

    We've installed Win2003 Standard edition with SQL 2000 SP3 on an old machine (single P4 2.4Ghz, RAID 5, 2Gb Ram), and compared to when it was Win 2000, the performance is quite impressive.

    I can't give any benchmarks, but from what I've seen, everything is a lot more stable (been up now for 236 days without a reboot). Memory management is better as well - but it could just be our environment.

    As for DTS packages - they run the same as before, although you do have to watch for permissions sometimes if you're querying the file system.

    When installing SQL, just ignore the installation messages, then install SP3 as soon you can - ie; before any databases are created. After that, its the same as before - just faster and more stable!

  • February 6, 2004 at 9:32 am

    #493114

    Mark and I have been trading PMs... looks like the briefing was discussing the 64-bit version of SQL Server. There's a KB article from the 9th of Jan that also talks about the problems.

     

    K. Brian Kelley
    @kbriankelley

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply