September 27, 2006 at 8:08 am
Hi,
I have recently come across a server running Windows 2003 R2 Standard (SP1) and SQL Server 2000 Standard. SQL Server reports its version as 8.00.194, or RTM - no service packs. However, it is my understanding that SQL Server 2000 with less than SP3 will not run on Windows 2003. The services should start and then stop right away.
Not this machine. SQL Server is humming along and processing requests as thought nothing were the matter.
So, my questions are:
1. Is SQL Server incorrectly reporting the version? If so, what files do I check to verify? (I have tried @@version in QA, Server Properties in EM, the Error Logs, sqlDiag)
2. Is it possible to disable the check for SP3 and allow the SQL Services to run without it?
3. Is this related to Windows 2003 R2?
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Dan B
September 27, 2006 at 10:39 am
Interestingly, there is no footnote on this page to indicate SP3 is required for Windows 2003 R2...
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/system-requirements.mspx
A typo? A Deliberate change?
-Dan B
September 27, 2006 at 11:31 pm
I believe that the official position from MS is that SQL Server 2000 is not supported for Win 2003 unless SP3 or later is installed.
I would strongly recommend that you install SP3 or later because there are simply so many security holes that have been fixed (not to mention all the other things fixed by these service packs)
And there is a footnote on the system requirements page you reference - it covers all versions of Win2003 not just Win 2003 R2
September 28, 2006 at 3:21 am
Happycat is correct.
See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/329329/ I would suggest either installing SP3a directly or go straight to SP4 ASAP as all may look good but you may get anything from incorrect query results to performance / admin issues.
ll
September 28, 2006 at 6:48 am
Thanks for the replies. Please don't misunderstand me, I have no intention of leaving this server unpatched. I only meant to highlight the fact that the behavior I was seeing was inconsistent with what I have seen in the past, and with what I expected.
Respectfully, let me take issue with a few points.
lholman - the KB article you linked was last updated before R2 was released, so I am not sure that it is meant to apply to R2 - which in some ways can be considered a different version (albeit slightly) of the Windows OS.
happycat59 - I'm sorry, but I don't see a footnote that covers all versions of Windows 2003. There are four footnotes covering the Web, Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter editions of Windows 2003. The fact that they explicitly leave R2 off the list would seem to indicate it is no longer a requirement.
Again, I am not advocating running unpatched. I am just curious to see why this server is able to run at all.
Anyway, if it is a requirement, then my question is how is it running on R2 when it would not on the previous version? If it isn't a requirement, what changed that makes this the case? Perhaps there is built in functionality in R2 to protect against the most problematic bugs in unpatched SQL Server 2000?
Thanks again!
Sincerely,
Dan B
September 28, 2006 at 9:52 am
I'd go with SP3 and hotfix 818. SP4 is a kind of bug fix for SP3. However SP4, in some instances, introduces more problems than it fixes. If you are using EE andwant access to lots of memory then you may need SP4. If you are not in need of AWE memory or are not on 64 bit then I'd stay away from SP4.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
September 28, 2006 at 9:59 am
i think it will run but MS won't support you if you call with a problem
MS isn't supporting SP3 anymore, but if you call they may help you
September 28, 2006 at 11:48 am
Thanks again for the replies. Both good points. However, they don't address the core question. Specifically, what changed between Windows 2003 and Windows 2003 R2 to allow SQL Server 2000 to run unpatched? Was the change on purpose or was the patch check simply overlooked?
Further, what is the demarcation between a minor update and a major update? When does Windows 2003 stop being Windows 2003 and become something else?
Can an update still count as a patch if it only contains new material?
Sincerely,
Dan B
September 28, 2006 at 12:37 pm
They both allow to run the server unpatched. Without sp3 or later you won't be able to connect to it with TCP/IP and perhaps other network protocols.
September 28, 2006 at 3:13 pm
In my experience, an unpatched instance of SQL Server 2000 will not start. Specifically, the sql server service starts and stops right away.
This particular instance is unpatched, installed on windows 2003 r2 and running. Other machines on the network are successfully connecting to it via TCP/IP.
Sincerely,
Dan B
October 2, 2006 at 7:23 am
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815431/en-us
found this by acccident while researching another problem. looks like it's just limited to named instances on windows 2003
October 2, 2006 at 9:04 am
Hey,
Interesting KB article, but this is not a named instance. It does have an alias set up pointing . to . on the default TCP port (which I wouldn't think would make much difference), but I can't test that without removing it and this is a production machine.
I will have to test this more thoroughly w/ virtual server - though I have already spent more time than I should on this... I am especially at a loss not having performed the initial install myself, so I can't really tell what happened.
Sincerely,
Dan B
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply