Differences in clustered system db's vs standalone system db's?

Hello,
We have a standalone Enterprise edition sql 2000 server that we want to
migrate to a cluster and make it a virtual sql server, for high availability
reasons.
We do not want to change the name of the SQL Server, as hundreds of
databases are on this server, and hundreds of applications refer to this SQL
Server name. Because of these requirements, we cannot use the steps in BOL
to upgrade our standalone to a cluster (that includes changing the sql server
name)
We are moving to two new servers (the current server will be retired)
Does anyone know the following two questions...
Is it possible to take the system databases from a standalone version of SQL
Server, and restore them to a clustered SQL Server?
Are there differences in the system databases on a stand alone SQL Server
vs. a clustered virtual SQL Server?
Here is a high level idea of what we would like to do:
- Stop SQL on the standalone server
- Rename the standalone server
- Install sql on the cluster, and give the virtual sql server the orignal
name of my standalone server
- shutdown sql on the cluster
- copy the data and log files for all system and user databases to the
cluster from the standalone server
- start up sql on the cluster
Thanks for your help and time!
I wouldn't try and copy the system databases from one server to another,
much less from a non-clustered instance to a clustered instance. You are
likely much better off aliasing the old name to the new name using a DNS
record or a client-side alias. Even if you do manage to copy the system
databases, the network name presented to the outside world by the Cluster
won't change so you will not solve your initial problem.
Geoff N.Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"KellyVV" <KellyVV@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6BC09EC5-ACC9-4493-8E89-43684AC9A82E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We have a standalone Enterprise edition sql 2000 server that we want to
> migrate to a cluster and make it a virtual sql server, for high
> availability
> reasons.
> We do not want to change the name of the SQL Server, as hundreds of
> databases are on this server, and hundreds of applications refer to this
> SQL
> Server name. Because of these requirements, we cannot use the steps in
> BOL
> to upgrade our standalone to a cluster (that includes changing the sql
> server
> name)
> We are moving to two new servers (the current server will be retired)
> Does anyone know the following two questions...
> Is it possible to take the system databases from a standalone version of
> SQL
> Server, and restore them to a clustered SQL Server?
> Are there differences in the system databases on a stand alone SQL Server
> vs. a clustered virtual SQL Server?
> Here is a high level idea of what we would like to do:
> - Stop SQL on the standalone server
> - Rename the standalone server
> - Install sql on the cluster, and give the virtual sql server the orignal
> name of my standalone server
> - shutdown sql on the cluster
> - copy the data and log files for all system and user databases to the
> cluster from the standalone server
> - start up sql on the cluster
> Thanks for your help and time!
|||The ability to move the system and user databases between a standalone
Enterprise instance and clustered Enterprise server instance as you are
proposing is perfectly possible.
I have not noticed any difference between clustered and non-clustered system
databases, I however have not conducted any comprehensive comparison.
The issues you will more likely encounter here are the same issues as
migrating system databases between standalone instances of SQL.
Have a look at 224071. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224071.
You may want to evaluate the possibility of migrating your user databases
and specific system information (Logins etc) as an alternative to ensure
your new setup clean.
Your assumptions about the SQL instance names are correct, if I understand
you correctly, are correct: You have a default standalone instance on
ServerX (which will be removed from the network) which you wish to replace
with a ServerX virtual server default instance. The only consideration here
would be that there can not be another preexisting default instance of SQL
installed on the cluster.
Regards
Gary Hope
iSolve Business Solutions
South Africa
"KellyVV" <KellyVV@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6BC09EC5-ACC9-4493-8E89-43684AC9A82E@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We have a standalone Enterprise edition sql 2000 server that we want to
> migrate to a cluster and make it a virtual sql server, for high
> availability
> reasons.
> We do not want to change the name of the SQL Server, as hundreds of
> databases are on this server, and hundreds of applications refer to this
> SQL
> Server name. Because of these requirements, we cannot use the steps in
> BOL
> to upgrade our standalone to a cluster (that includes changing the sql
> server
> name)
> We are moving to two new servers (the current server will be retired)
> Does anyone know the following two questions...
> Is it possible to take the system databases from a standalone version of
> SQL
> Server, and restore them to a clustered SQL Server?
> Are there differences in the system databases on a stand alone SQL Server
> vs. a clustered virtual SQL Server?
> Here is a high level idea of what we would like to do:
> - Stop SQL on the standalone server
> - Rename the standalone server
> - Install sql on the cluster, and give the virtual sql server the orignal
> name of my standalone server
> - shutdown sql on the cluster
> - copy the data and log files for all system and user databases to the
> cluster from the standalone server
> - start up sql on the cluster
> Thanks for your help and time!