Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
apatel4000
Starting Member
4 Posts |
 Posted - 2008-09-08 : 04:20:23
|
| Hi I'm new to SQL server so i'm hoping that some of you pros out there maybe able to help with my question. We are looking to perform an upgrade on our SQL clusters before Christmas. Fortunately enough we have two sets of hardware so this probably makes life a little easier in that the existing cluster will remain untouched. Spec:-Existing Cluster: SQL Server 2000/Win2k3 EntNew Cluster: SQL Server 2005/Win2K3 Ent**Both clusters are attached to two separate storage devices.We effectively want one cluster active, and the other offline and both clusters will be connected to the same network but will remain in a active/passive state so to speak - Each cluster has (and will) have two instances of SQL running. To aid with the migration can we bring one cluster down and bring the new one up? Not sure if that’s possible and what potential problems this would cause. I'd be grateful if anybody can shed any light or advise what the best approach would be in this case? Ideally if things don't go according to plan, we want to be in a position where we can revert back to the old (SQL 2000) cluster. |
|
|
mcrowley
Aged Yak Warrior
771 Posts |
Posted - 2008-09-08 : 14:00:22
|
| Not quite sure what the best way for you to do this, without a little more background on why you are trying to do it one way, or another. Some questions:Are you trying to make the cutover with as little downtime as possible?OrAre you trying to preserve the names of the existing Virtual Servers? |
 |
|
|
jordanam
Yak Posting Veteran
62 Posts |
Posted - 2008-09-08 : 15:10:24
|
| If you are looking to migrate your production cluster from Cluster A to Cluster B and you don't need to maintain virtual server names, then yes, they can both be up simultaneously. From there, you would do a database-level synch (backup/restore), and then point all your applications to the new database servers. (I have left out quite a few steps, this is highly simplified)If you are looking to keep instance and virtual server names across the board, then unless you put the new cluster in an isolated environment, you can't really have them up at the same time. You could (I suppose) go through a DNS/networking headache involving vlans and AD tinkering, but at that point you really have to think about what you're trying to accomplish. Depending on the size of your environment and complexity (2 instances sounds simple, but that could be deceiving), if your intention is to be fully upgraded by Christmas, I'd recommend getting the ball rolling rather soon. |
|
|
|
apatel4000
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 2008-09-09 : 04:53:18
|
| I suppose we want to preserve the names due to the dependencies we have within our environment.Can we use a new set of names for the new SQL Server Instances and then simply set up a DNS alias that points the 'old names' to the 'new servers'? |
|
|
|
jordanam
Yak Posting Veteran
62 Posts |
Posted - 2008-09-09 : 12:37:17
|
| Yes, that's a good solution. Stating the obvious, just make sure you leave time for dns propagation and that you don't have both names (whether they are cnames or A records) live at the same time.It also sounds like you will be migrating side-by-side? In other words, that you will get the new cluster up and running independently of the old, and then when you're ready, make live the DNS changes. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clustering SQL Server