How To Transfer Or Migrate From Old SQL Cluster 2000 To New SQL Cluster 2000
Jul 4, 2007
I have two Windows 2000 servers (Advance Edition) to form a Windows Cluster. I also install MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition on the cluster to form a MS SQL cluster. Now, I want to upgrade the hardware and OS (but keep on using SQL 2000), so I install Windows 2003 server Enterprise Edition on two new servers to form a new Windows Cluster. I am planing to install MS SQL 2000 Enterprise Edition on the new cluster, so the old SQL cluster and new SQL cluster are side by side. I would like to know how to setup a new SQL cluster (I know it has problem to rename SQL Cluster name, so how to fix this problem)? And how to transfer everything (such as system databases, users database, sql user account, password and maintenance plan jobs etc) from old SQL cluster to new SQL cluster? And how to switch over from old SQL cluster to new SQL cluster?
We are planning to upgrade the SQL Server in our production environment from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005. This is a 4 Node cluster environment with 3 Databases on 3 Virtual instances. The main requirement is to achieve this with no/minimal downtime.
Could you please suggest or direct me to any documentation for the best practices used to upgrade such an environment?
We're upgrading a SQL Server 2000 cluster (Active/Passive) running on Windows 2000 Server to a SQL Server 2005 Cluster running on Windows Server 2003. We can't purchase new hardware and we have no spare hardware. We also need to move from Windows 2000 Server to Windows 2003 Server at the same time. We want to keep downtime to a bare minimum.
What we were thinking was the following steps... Anyone try this?
1. Break the link between the servers.
2. Install a fresh copy of windows 2003 server on one side along with SQL Server 2005. While this step is running, the active node would still be live on Windows 2000 Server and SQL Server 2000 serving our customers.
3. Restore a copy of a backup from the active production side to the node we're upgrading and at that point we would bring the active node down, switching the active node to be the newly upgraded server.
4. As a final step, the old active node would now have the link to it broken, we would install a fresh copy of windows 2003 server on it and sql server 2005. At this point we would bring it back into the cluster and the cluster would be complete again.
Need your help and guidence for doing upgrading SQL Server 2000 Cluster to SQL Server 2005 Cluster.
Let me explain my current environment.
1. Currently SQL Server 2000 Cluster environment is running on Windows 2000 Server we need to upgrade this to SQL Server 2005 on Windows 2003 Server. >>> Production environment.
My Plans:
1. On Testing Environment Install SQL Server 2000 cluster on Windows 2003 Server and do a restore of databases from the produciton environment.
2. Upgrade In-Place from SQL Server 2000 Cluster to SQL Server 2005 Cluster.
My doubts
1. Can i install SQL Server 2000 Cluster on Windows 2003 Server. Is it possible or not.
I have the cluster configuration on Windows2000 Advance Server. Is it’s possible to install Active–Passive configuration for SQL 7.0 Enterprise edition AND Active–Active configuration for SQL Server 2000 Enterprise edition on the SAME Cluster server? If it's will be work together?
I have heard there were problems whne applying sql sp4 to clusters on sql 2000, has anyone encountered this? problem is we are getting Error: 17883, Severity: 1, State: 0 which the cure is to apply this service pack sql 4 for sql 2000
If I have SQL Server 2000 ENT edition on a cluster active/passive. Do I need to apply the service pack on the active instance, and then bring up other instance and reapply? While I am at it, I believe I still have to apply the hotfix for the awe memory problem also?
I am currently running an active/passive cluster NT4 with SQL7 clustered. I am trying to upgrade SQL to a clustered 2000 version. I have a san disk area allocated as a Z: drive. These are the following steps I have taken: 1. Used cluster wizard to uncluster the SQL 7 instance. 2. Using the SQL 2000 Enterprise cd created a new virtual server (with the same IP address and name as the previous SQL 7 server) I have left the install as a default instance. 3. Part way through the install I am asked to browse to the data area. The data area is Z:mssql7data. On completion of the install I now have the following data path Z:mssql7datamssqldata and all the databases are still SQL7 databases. My questions are:
How can I get the install to update/convert the databases to SQL 2000 as it doesnt seem to recognise them?
Will the install always suffix the data path with mssqldata
Hey there I am an SQL noob, our bank has no real SQL Admin, we had onw that left but never had a good knowledge transfer. We have 2 SQL servers clustered. IBSQL1 and IBSQL2 they make up cluster IBSQL. We have 2 other servers IBIIS1 ans IBIIS2 and we noticed when installing apps on them that they could not see the database. Yet it can ping IBSQL. The problem is on IBSQL1 and 2 port 1433 is not listening or open. Thus on IBSQL it isn't either of course. I have read of all kinds of people having this issue and most have said you need to manually add a connection string "Provider=sqloledb;Data Source=machineName,1433;Initial Catalog=xx;User ID=xx;Password=xx" Problem is I do not know how to add a connection string.
I need step by step instructions since im new to this. Start/programs/etc..... Apparently it is not enough to open the properties of tcp/ip in the config util and say 1433. You need to reenforce it by adding that string.
As it stands I cannot "telnet ibsql 1433" it tells me to take a hike basically.
So is the connection string the likely cause? or could it be something simpler? Thanks in advance.
Hi,I need manuals, tecnical papres, instalation guide, etc abouthow to install one cluster sql server 2000 64 bits withwindows server 2003.It`s posible a need one document step by step about thisThanks,RaulGZ.
We wish to upgrade our hardware of two sql boxes onto a single cluster. One of our databases will not run on sql 2005 and so I wanted to know if it is possible to run an instance of sql2000 and an instance of sql 2005 on the same cluster.
This is possible or would it cause as a lot of problems?
I have an Active/Active/Passive cluster with 64GB RAM on each node running SQL 2000 EE, AWE is enabled as well as the PAE switch, all is dandy with that.
Question: Should I configure each SQL Instance to have only a max mem usage of 32GB in the event both failover to the same node ? or will the memory allocation be handled without any issue if each node is configured to use 64GB ?
Good Morning! I am beginning the process of moving SQL 2000 databases to SQL 2005 cluster. Has anyone already did this and is there anything I should know? We plan on leaving the SQL 2000 database up during this process and granting read only at the time. I am nervous about this as this is a high profile database in our dept. I don't even know if I know where to begin! Any suggestions are truely welcome! Thanks, /P
I installed MS SQL 2000 on a Windows 2003 server cluster (no servicepacks). Both nodes are online and both domain controllers are online.I tried to install SP3 and got the following error:--------------Logon Account could not be validated.No authority could be contacted for authentication.---------------I installed SQL SP 2 and did not get the error but I do get it everytime I try to install SP3.Does anybody have an idea that might help resolve the problem.
I know that it is possible with 2 machines with the clasical solution of Machine1: active-passive, Machine2: passive-active, this way if one of the machines goes down the other one will take the job of both instances, but I dont know if this solution is possible in SQL server 2000 with 3 instances at the same time.
We have 2 SQL servers in a failover cluster environment. SQL1 and SQL2. Currently SQL1 is the primary in the cluster, and we need to upgrade from Service Pack 3 to Service Pack 4.
Our setup:
Both servers are Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition. Both servers have SQL Server 2000 Service Pack 3.
My question is:
Which upgrade plan do I take? Do I:
1. Upgrade the backup (offline) server in the cluster (SQL2) first, reboot, then failover from SQL1 to SQL2? Then do the other server?
2. Upgrade the primary (online) server in the cluster (SQL1) first and see if it replicates to the backup?
We're upgrading a SQL Server 2000 cluster (Active/Passive) running on Windows 2003 Server 32 - bit Standard to a SQL Server 2005 Cluster running on Windows Server 2003 64-bit Enterprise. Our existent cluster's databases are residing on SAN. We can't purchase new hardware and we have no spare hardware. We also need to move from Windows 2003 32-bit Server to Windows 2003 64-bit Enterprise Server at the same time. We want to keep downtime to a bare minimum.
What we were thinking was the following steps... Anyone try this?
1. Break the link between the servers. Or should we just evict the passive node?
2. Install a fresh copy of windows 2003 64-bit server on one side along with SQL Server 2005. While this step is running, the active node would still be live on Windows 2003 32-bit Server and SQL Server 2000 serving our customers.
3. Bring the active server down.
4. Create new cluster on the newly upgraded server and assign the same cluster name and IP as the original one.
5 Bring the luns from SAN to the newly upgraded server and initialize SQL Upgrade
6. As a final step, the old active node will be rebuilt, we would install a fresh copy of windows 2003 64 - bit server on it and sql server 2005. At this point we would bring it back into the cluster and the cluster would be complete again.
We are running a two-node cluster for SQL Server 2000 Enterprise on Windows Server 2003. Each node has four processors and 4GB RAM. Our application is hosted on a seperate IIS server with 150-200 connections accessing the database via ADO.NET (ASP.NET 1.1). Our processor utilization has been high, averaging around 80% and out context switches/sec counter averages around 15,000. We are not using NT Fibers and our performance seems to be sluggish when the context switches/sec counter is high - over 10,000. In peak periods we se this counter hit 30-50,000. I have read articles that state NT Fibers have better performance in machines with 8 or more processors. Is this something that would also help in a four processor machine? The SQL Server is dedicated to SQL, i.e. there are no other applications running. I am also considering using the "Priority Boost" option... do these options really improve performance? I'm trying to squeeze as much performance out of these machines while waiting for new hardware to arrive. Thanks.
I have a cluster with 4 sql server 2000 instances and would like to upgrade 2 of these to sql server 2005 - is there any document or list of things to ensure I do
We have a new failover cluster (Windows 2003 SP1, Microsoft SQL 2000 SP4) with each node of the cluster hosting 7 SQL Server instances in a 2-node active-active configuration connected to a SAN. We are planning to move some SQL Server Instances(from existing stand-alone servers) into this Cluster. Any insight into the process of moving SQL Servers into the cluster would be highly appreciated.
I can't find any articles telling me how to restore master,msdb databases on a sql 2000 cluster. Both in a active/active setup and active/passive set up. I am experimenting to see if normal restore in a stand alone environment would work. But I would like to know if there is a definitive method to use. Looked on BOL could not find anything.
Lately we have come across a problem where our application is undergoing some extreme load against the SQL 2000 server database we have setup, where the server is hitting 100% CPU utilization each time. Currently the box is a 2 processor box.
Here is the question I have. I have seen under most SQL Server clusters that an active/passive setup is implemented. Where the passive server just exists as a failover mechanism. What I am looking for is some information on how to setup active/active setup where each server receives processes to handle.
Has anyone created a setup like this? Are there any standard benchmarking tools that can be used to see how this configuration increases performance? Is this setup more favorable than going to a 4 processor server as oppossed to our current 2 processor server?
BTW: We have noticed that after a web application where the user sits idle for a while the SQL Server application loses the connection with the application user...Is this the SQL Timeout causing the connection to disconnect?
I have a production failover cluster running SQL Server 2000 at SP3that I want to upgrade to SP4. I do not have a test failover clusterto test with so I need the install on the primary server to work thefirst time. Per the information I have I just install the patch on theprimary server and it will install both on the primary and on thesecondary.However, I remember when I did the initial install and it failed. Thefirst problem traced to the fact that the install uses temporary filesunder the profile of the installing administrator and the id had neverlogged into the second server so the install failed on creating thetemporary file. The was a second problem that related to an OS featurethat had to be off for the install to work.If anyone out there has done this upgrade and remembers encountering aproblem and its fix/workaround I would appreciate a head up warning.Thank you-- Mark D Powell --
I have a Cluster environment that has SQL 2000 Enterprise installed. I would like to install SQL 2005 Enterprise as well. What should I watch out for. Do I need to specify a named instance for the 05 install, setup is giving me the option and does see the 2000 instance? Is there a document that walks through this installation?
We have a sql2000 clustered server running on a windows 2003 cluster, today we noticed that the SQL resources where in a Online Pending state and do not came up anymore.
I have searched the net and found some info about the sqlstate = 08001 Native error 11 , witch indicated that the SQL Network name could have been renamed , however this is not the case here , . i also found that there might be Resolve issue but The Cluster Name and the SQL Network name can be resolved by both Cluster nodes ..
does anyone here got experience with this kind of problem ? Pls Help
Here is a part of the cluster.log with the errors :
ERR SQL Server : [sqsrvres] ODBC sqldriverconnect failed ERR SQL Server : [sqsrvres] checkODBCConnectError: sqlstate = 08001; native error = 11; message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]SQL Server does not exist or access denied. ERR SQL Server : [sqsrvres] ODBC sqldriverconnect failed ERR SQL Server : [sqsrvres] checkODBCConnectError: sqlstate = 01000; native error = 2; message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionOpen (Connect()). ERR SQL Server : [sqsrvres] ODBC sqldriverconnect failed ERR SQL Server : [sqsrvres] checkODBCConnectError: sqlstate = 08001; native error = 11; message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]SQL Server does not exist or access denied. ERR SQL Server : [sqsrvres] ODBC sqldriverconnect failed ERR SQL Server : [sqsrvres] checkODBCConnectError: sqlstate = 01000; native error = 2; message = [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][DBNETLIB]ConnectionOpen (Connect()). INFO [CP] CppRegNotifyThread checkpointing key SOFTWAREMicrosoftMicrosoft SQL ServerDBHSBMSSQLSERVER to id 4 due to timer INFO [Qfs] QfsGetTempFileName C:DOCUME~1SRVCCL~1LOCALS~1Temp, CLS, 13 => C:DOCUME~1SRVCCL~1LOCALS~1TempCLSD.tmp, status 0
According to the SQL server log the server is started and all databases are brought on-line then a stop request from Service Control Manager terminates SQL Server see log below:
2007-11-05 14:04:02.89 server Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.2039 (Intel X86) May 3 2005 23:18:38 Copyright (c) 1988-2003 Microsoft Corporation Enterprise Edition on Windows NT 5.2 (Build 3790: )
2007-11-05 14:04:02.89 server Copyright (C) 1988-2002 Microsoft Corporation. 2007-11-05 14:04:02.89 server All rights reserved. 2007-11-05 14:04:02.89 server Server Process ID is 3264. 2007-11-05 14:04:02.89 server Logging SQL Server messages in file 'P:mssqlMSSQL$DBHSBlogERRORLOG'. 2007-11-05 14:04:02.89 server SQL Server is starting at priority class 'high'(2 CPUs detected). 2007-11-05 14:04:03.61 server initdata: Warning: Could not set working set size to 823168 KB. 2007-11-05 14:04:03.66 server SQL Server configured for thread mode processing. 2007-11-05 14:04:03.72 server Using dynamic lock allocation. [2500] Lock Blocks, [5000] Lock Owner Blocks. 2007-11-05 14:04:03.77 server Attempting to initialize Distributed Transaction Coordinator. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.32 spid2 Starting up database 'master'. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.52 spid2 Server name is 'HSBSQL01DBHSB'. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.52 spid5 Starting up database 'msdb'. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.52 spid6 Starting up database 'model'. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.52 spid8 Starting up database 'dbHSB'. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.52 server Using 'SSNETLIB.DLL' version '8.0.2039'. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.56 server SQL server listening on 10.122.131.103: 1433. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.62 spid8 Analysis of database 'dbHSB' (7) is 100% complete (approximately 0 more seconds) 2007-11-05 14:04:06.63 server SQL server listening on TCP, Shared Memory, Named Pipes. 2007-11-05 14:04:06.63 server SQL Server is ready for client connections 2007-11-05 14:04:06.66 spid6 Clearing tempdb database. 2007-11-05 14:04:07.10 spid6 Starting up database 'tempdb'. 2007-11-05 14:04:07.20 spid2 Recovery complete. 2007-11-05 14:04:07.20 spid2 SQL global counter collection task is created. 2007-11-05 14:04:16.41 spid1 Warning: unable to allocate 'min server memory' of 1658MB. 2007-11-05 14:10:45.18 spid2 SQL Server is terminating due to 'stop' request from Service Control Manager.
We shall be taking a bunch of 7.0 instances and moving/upgrading to a SQL 2000 cluster server. I was thinking of creating new named instances on the 2000 cluster and upgrading each 7.0 server to it's respective named instance. Also thought of using the 2000 copy database wizard; I was told this didn't always work. Anyone hear of problems with this? Thanks
I have a system running a sql 2000 instance w/ multiple databases located in a SAN. I would like to cluster my SQL 2000 environment on the same system. Can I do this without reinstalling another database instance? Can I put my current default instance and put it to my virtual server instance? Help is really appreciated. Any tips and links can be helpful to me.
