April 2, 2008 at 9:33 am
We're upgrading a SQL Server 2000 cluster (Active/Passive) running on Windows 2003 Server 32 - bit Standard to a SQL Server 2005 Cluster running on Windows Server 2003 64-bit Enterprise. Our existent cluster's databases are residing on SAN. We can't purchase new hardware and we have no spare hardware. We also need to move from Windows 2003 32-bit Server to Windows 2003 64-bit Enterprise Server at the same time. We want to keep downtime to a bare minimum.
What we were thinking was the following steps... Did anyone try this?
1. Break the link between the servers. Or should we just evict the passive node?
2. Install a fresh copy of windows 2003 64-bit server on one side along with SQL Server 2005. While this step is running, the active node would still be live on Windows 2003 32-bit Server and SQL Server 2000 serving our customers.
3. Bring the active server down.
4. Create new cluster on the newly upgraded server and assign the same cluster name and IP as the original one.
5 Bring the luns from SAN to the newly upgraded server and initialize SQL Upgrade
6. As a final step, the old active node will be rebuilt, we would install a fresh copy of windows 2003 64 - bit server on it and sql server 2005. At this point we would bring it back into the cluster and the cluster would be complete again.
Thoughts?
April 2, 2008 at 11:37 am
First piece of advice: get Microsoft involved. You've got an enormous amount of risk here.
If you're looking at re-using one of the sides, you'll first want to run the setup and remove SQL Server from the node you're going to evict. Once that's done, then you evict it from the cluster. You'll still have to ensure it can't see the LUNs, but that's the best practice for removing a node hosting SQL Server from a cluster if you have an option.
Are you getting more space on the SAN or are you expected to re-use the existing LUNs?
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
April 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I am expecting to re-use existing luns.... Any kind of comments/advises are most appreciative
Thank you!
April 2, 2008 at 9:02 pm
SQL Server (2000 or 2005) needs to be installed on the top of a cluster with 2 (or more) identical nodes (either Win2000 or Win2003).
I do not think you can install SQL on one node then make it cluster afterwards.
Making a SQL backup and rebuilding your whole cluster seems a way to go. Many risks are in your scenario.
April 4, 2008 at 2:55 am
If you want a SQL Server 2005 cluster it has to be installed as a cluster. You cannot upgrade a non-clustered instance to clustered.
You have a lot of risk in your plan, you don't want to add to this by going outside what Microsoft will support.
The advice on calling Microsoft is good, they should be able to advise on what should work.
If your servers run anything of value to your business, then money can always be found for spare hardware to do an upgrade such as this.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
April 9, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I apologize for the delay in replying, it's been a busy few days.
If you're going to re-use the same LUNs, you effectively can't have both running at the same time. That means your best bet is to ensure you have the appropriate back-ups, extract the logins, and then disconnect the user databases. Copy off the user databases, just to be safe, then rebuild the cluster with x64 operating system and install SQL Server 2005. Then add the logins back and attach the user databases. This doesn't minimize downtime, but it's the safest approach to a stable environment.
If you're looking to do in-place upgrades in this situation, I would more strongly recommend engaging Microsoft.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply