August 4, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I'm running into a problem upgrading a SQL 2000 instance in an Active/Active Cluster Environment to SQL 2005. This is not the first time the cluster has had a 2000 instance upgraded to 2005. It currently has 8 instances of SQL running on it, however only 2 are SQL 2005. The previous upgrade happened before I started here, so there isn't any documentation for me to reference, and I haven't found any documentation online that pertains to this situation. When I click through the upgrade process step 12 is not consistent with the installation instructions I've found on MSDN (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179530.aspx).
I do not encounter a screen that prompts me to input a Virtual SQL Server Name. I'm assuming this is due to this being an upgrade and not a new install, however the more I've worked on this it seems to be the cause for my problem.
Additionally when I try to finish the installation, I receive the following error:
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Setup
------------------------------
SQL Server Setup did not install SQL Server on one or more remote nodes of your failover cluster. To continue, log off of all remote nodes and then run Setup again from the primary node.
For help, click:
------------------------------
BUTTONS:
OK
------------------------------
Here is the Summary.txt log that appears after the above error message:
Microsoft SQL Server 2005 9.00.3042.00
==============================
OS Version : Microsoft Windows Server 2003 family, Enterprise Edition Service Pack 1 (Build 3790)
Time : Sat Aug 04 22:16:55 2007
NODE2 : Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) is either not installed or is disabled. IIS is required by some SQL Server features. Without IIS, some SQL Server features will not be available for installation. To install all SQL Server features, install IIS from Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel or enable the IIS service through the Control Panel if it is already installed, and then run SQL Server Setup again. For a list of features that depend on IIS, see Features Supported by Editions of SQL Server in Books Online.
NODE2 : To change an existing instance of Microsoft SQL Server 2005 to a different edition of SQL Server 2005, you must run SQL Server 2005 Setup from the command prompt and include the SKUUPGRADE=1 parameter.
NODE2 : No nodes to operate on were specified by the user. Please run setup and specify the nodes to install on.
NOTE: NODE2 is not the node in the cluster that I'm logged into or the node the SQL instance I want to upgrade is on. I'm logged into NODE1 as that's where the instance is. Additionally I moved all the VMs to NODE1 just to make sure this wasn't the reason for the problem after trying the install when some SQL Instances were on NODE1 and others were on NODE2.
I've tried performing this update by logging into the VM, the current node the VM is on (this is also the node where the cluster IP VM is located), and the failover node the VM isn't on. All of which result in the same lack of entering a Virtual SQL Server Name step and the failure noted above.
If anyone has any suggestions or experience with this, please pass that information on.
Thanks,
John
August 5, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Hi John,
I haven't tried your exact scenario but I have seen some of these messages when installing SQL 2005 from scratch on a cluster and maybe these suggestions will help:
If installing SQL 2005 from scratch, the message about IIS appears as a warning at an early stage when the installer checks the machine to see if it's suitable for SQL2K5. IIS is required for Reporting Services, you can ignore the warning if you don't plan to install RS on the database server (we usually put it on an IIS server, if we're using it at all, and we don't install IIS on a database server).
Although you're running your instance on a particular node, the installer will try to install or upgrade executables on the C drive of every node where the instance might be required to run (assuming the executables were put on C when the original installation was done). I agree that it's probably not prompting for a virtual instamce name because it knows which one you're upgrading, that virtual instance will be part of a resource group, and every node which could be an owner of that resource group will need to be upgraded. Check the possible owners for the resource group and the list should include node1 and node2.
The SQL installer is cluster-aware so will try to run upgrade processes in parallel on all nodes where the instance could run. There's a known 'gotcha' with SQL2K5 which says that you must only be logged in on one node to do the install/upgrade, if you are logged in on any other node, the install process for that node won't be able to connect and you'll get the 'log off all remote nodes' error.
I hope this helps, regards
Julie
August 6, 2007 at 7:27 am
somewhere rattling around in the back of my head..comes the fact that you cannot run the installer via an RDP session or something of the sorts. You get that message when trying to run setup while Remote desktoped/ RDP'd / Terminal serviced into the nodes.
i had a similar issue when setting up my active/active 2005 from scratch.
I hope that helps.
Good luck!
Dan
August 6, 2007 at 7:30 am
oh, I see Julie already covered that one. Sorry for being redundant.
August 6, 2007 at 7:58 am
Thanks for the suggestions, but I solved the issue with a stroke of dumb luck.
It looks like the problem was because my SQL instance was on the passive node in the cluster, according to the installer. This isn't the case, but the name of the node that my SQL instance was on was alphabetically after the other node in the cluster. For instance, the node my SQL instance was on was named BETA, and the other node in the cluster was named ALPHA. When I failed over my SQL instance to the ALPHA node, the installation worked.
I checked with our network guy and asked him if there are any settings in the cluster that determine the active node over the passive, and he said if it's anything it'd be that one server was set up in the cluster before the other, but there isn't a specific setting. I'm guessing it was just the name of the nodes that was holding me up.
Again, thanks for the suggestions. I feel like an idiot that I didn't try this solution first.
John
August 6, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Some wise person once (allegedly) said that 'experience is what you get just after you needed it'
Don't feel like an idiot. We've all been there!! Glad you sorted it.
I think we've avoided that particular issue because all our nodes have the same name except for the last 2 characters, which are numeric. We consider the primary node to be the lowest numbered and install stuff from there; just a happy coincidence that it will also be the first node in alpha sort order.
Julie
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply