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 |
|
RichardRickard
Starting Member
1 Post |
 Posted - 2007-10-02 : 20:28:34
|
| We have a client running SQL 2000 who wants to implement failover clustering but is reluctant to upgrade to SQL 2005. I realize that 2005 clustering supports more nodes (and SQL instances?), but other than that, are there any significant differences between failover clustering in 2000 vs 2005? In other words, with respect to failover clustering (and replication) is there any compelling reason to upgrade from 2000 to 2005? |
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2007-10-02 : 20:41:31
|
| In regards to clustering, there is no compelling reason to upgrade from 2000 to 2005. Usually the compelling reasons have to do with functionality in the product in regards to functionality needed by the application, getting on current release, performance improvements, etc... I've never heard of anyone upgrading to 2005 because of clustering.I haven't noticed any significant different with clustering for SQL Server 2000 and 2005. We've got quite a few clusters, including a 64-bit 4-node one with 11 SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition instances.Tara KizerMicrosoft MVP for Windows Server System - SQL Serverhttp://weblogs.sqlteam.com/tarad/ |
 |
|
|
sponguru_dba
Yak Posting Veteran
93 Posts |
Posted - 2007-10-31 : 16:40:15
|
| Hi RRNode support Depends on OS,not On SQL Server.SQL Server in only Cluster aware application.What you say tkizerSreenivasaRaoBangalore,INDIA |
|
|
|
rmiao
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7266 Posts |
Posted - 2007-10-31 : 23:26:15
|
| Yes, node support also depends on sql2k5 edition. Standard edition can only do 2-node cluster. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Failover clustering 2005 vs 2000