minimal hardware requirement for SQL failover clustering

HI,
I would like to build a SQL 2000 failover clustering to improve my network
knowledge. For testing and learning purpose, what's the minimal hareware
requirment?
Best Regards,
Lynn
Hi
Hardware should be from the the Microsoft HCL
But typically:
2 Identical Servers with Minimum 512Mb RAM
4 NICs
1 x SAN
2 x SAN connectivity
Network and other cabling
Or as Uttam answered yesterday:
"
Lynn,
For testing purposes, you may find this useful
Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005
to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum
hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops with
SCSI card and one
SCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able
to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It
worked and was good
for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as
expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev
cluster.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
"
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4B93ABB7-5F40-478D-B4E9-009520E72C94@.microsoft.com...
> HI,
> I would like to build a SQL 2000 failover clustering to improve my network
> knowledge. For testing and learning purpose, what's the minimal hareware
> requirment?
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
|||Mike,
Thank you so much for your quick response. It's very useful.
Rihgt now, I already have a machine with 512 RAM, and I would like buy a new
machine with higher hardware component. Is "two identical machines" the
must-be? Or, I can configure two-node failover clustering with two different
hardware component machines.
Best Regards,
Lynn
"Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP)" wrote:

> Hi
> Hardware should be from the the Microsoft HCL
> But typically:
> 2 Identical Servers with Minimum 512Mb RAM
> 4 NICs
> 1 x SAN
> 2 x SAN connectivity
> Network and other cabling
> Or as Uttam answered yesterday:
> "
> Lynn,
> For testing purposes, you may find this useful
> Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node
> Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
> This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005
> to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
> If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum
> hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops with
> SCSI card and one
> SCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able
> to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It
> worked and was good
> for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as
> expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev
> cluster.
> Best Regards,
> Uttam Parui
> Microsoft Corporation
> "
> --
> --
> Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Zurich, Switzerland
> IM: mike@.epprecht.net
> MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
> Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
> "Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4B93ABB7-5F40-478D-B4E9-009520E72C94@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Are you looking to build a Highly Available 2-node cluster that is fully supported by Microsoft and the hardware vendor? Or are you just looking to build a 2-node cluster
for testing?
Yesterday, I had already answered for the latter.
For the former -- i.e. to build a highly available cluster supported by Microsoft and hardware vendor, you need a "Qualified complete cluster solution". So, where does
one find the list of complete cluster solutions that are qualified?
The most current Cluster Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) is available at the following Microsoft Web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/hcl (http://www.microsoft.com/hcl)
When you visit this site, click the Cluster category. The Cluster and Cluster/Datacenter categories display only complete cluster solutions that have been qualified. The
subcategories list components that have passed Cluster Component Candidate testing. These cluster components are listed for Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs) and System Integrators to design complete clusters and then submit a complete cluster solution for testing.
The most current Cluster Windows Server Catalog (WSC) is available at the following Microsoft Web Site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/server/ (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/server/)
When you visit this site, click the Hardware tab, and then click on the Cluster Solutions category. The Cluster Solutions category displays only complete cluster solutions
that have been qualified.
NOTE:
Customers should not use this list to build a cluster solution because using these individual components in a cluster does not qualify as a complete HCL or WSC
solution. Microsoft fully supports only clusters that are complete solutions that are listed in the Cluster category on the HCL or WSC.
To answer you qs "Is "two identical machines" the must-be? Or, I can configure two-node failover clustering with two different hardware component machines."
ANS. Currently today, a vendor can submit a solution for testing / qualification if the hardware is dissimilar. For example a Proliant DL380 as one node and a Proliant
DL580 as another node. But the ENTIRE SOLUTION still needs to be submitted as a COMPLETE SOLUTION and Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) qualified.
Now it is true that these are rare...
Recommended Reading
======================
The Microsoft support policy for server clusters, the Hardware Compatibility List, and the Windows Server Catalog
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;309395
The Microsoft support policy for a SQL Server failover cluster
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;327518
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest
way to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx

minimal hardware for building testing failover clustering for SQL

Hi,
I am trying to practice to build a failover clustering for SQL 2000. Does
anyone know the minimal hardware request for a testing clutering? thank you
for your help.
Best Regards,
Lynn
Lynn,
For testing purposes, you may find this useful
Using Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 to Create and Configure a Two-Node Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Cluster
This guide provides step-by-step instructions for using Virtual Server 2005 to create and configure a two-node server cluster.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...y/cvs2005.mspx
If you do not want to install virtual server and want to build using minimum hardware, long ago I had build a two node cluster using two laptops with SCSI card and one
SCSI disk and a cross-over cable. This is the bare minimum. I also was able to install SQL Server 2000 clustered instance on this bare min cluster. It worked and was good
for testing but NOT supported and also it did not work sometimes as expected. Ofcourse, I would not do this for a real test cluster or dev cluster.
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way
to do this is to visit the following websites: http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx

Miniature Clustering Lab

I'm looknig to set up a miniature clustering lab at home and looking for some
advice.
I would like to hopefully keep the price tag to around $750-$1250.
I've already found a couple of boxes that I'm going to use for my nodes
(dual node cluster). I can do all the internal stuff myself (NIC's, etc.).
They each are about $300.
What I need now is shared storage and a switch/hub. I'm new to the
networking side of things. What DO I need: switch, router, etc.? Also, is
there a way to set up things wirelessly? All my big stuff will be in a mini
server room in my basement and my office is upstairs.
If anyone has any advice, I'd really appreciate it.
Thank You!!!
Wireless is probably more of a pain thatn it is worth. A single switch or
hub will be fine. You can use a crossover cable for a two node cluster
heartbeat LAN. As for storage, you can use almost any SCSI drive. get a
self-powered enclosure ($50 or less) , a couple of cables, and a couple of
cheap controllers. I have done it with Adaptec cards, even with mis-matched
ones. It isn't particularly pretty, scalable or stable, but it does work.
One alternative that many people are using is Virtual Server from Microsoft.
Then you have one physical system that can simulate a cluster internally.
Good Luck,
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
"A. Robinson" <ARobinson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C64DB097-820F-4443-BDCA-486493CCFAC7@.microsoft.com...
> I'm looknig to set up a miniature clustering lab at home and looking for
> some
> advice.
> I would like to hopefully keep the price tag to around $750-$1250.
> I've already found a couple of boxes that I'm going to use for my nodes
> (dual node cluster). I can do all the internal stuff myself (NIC's,
> etc.).
> They each are about $300.
> What I need now is shared storage and a switch/hub. I'm new to the
> networking side of things. What DO I need: switch, router, etc.? Also, is
> there a way to set up things wirelessly? All my big stuff will be in a
> mini
> server room in my basement and my office is upstairs.
> If anyone has any advice, I'd really appreciate it.
> Thank You!!!
|||Maybe you could give me your unofficial blessing on the following?
- Found a four port hub
- Two servers both with two NICS. One of the NIC's is connected directly to
the hub. This would constitute the two private IP addresses.
- The second NIC's would be a wireless adapters to act as the "public" IP
addresses. This is so I can see them from my office. Not a good idea?
- The network storage is a network storage device I found...160 GB. This
plugs directly into the hub as well? Once plugged into the hub, would I then
configure IP's, subnets, etc. What is the admin interface?
My next dumb question is this: when setting up the hub, do I just plug it in
and go? I've worked on network stuff before , but it's always been set up for
me. I just go in and assign IP addresses, network names, etc.
Thanks again!!
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> Wireless is probably more of a pain thatn it is worth. A single switch or
> hub will be fine. You can use a crossover cable for a two node cluster
> heartbeat LAN. As for storage, you can use almost any SCSI drive. get a
> self-powered enclosure ($50 or less) , a couple of cables, and a couple of
> cheap controllers. I have done it with Adaptec cards, even with mis-matched
> ones. It isn't particularly pretty, scalable or stable, but it does work.
> One alternative that many people are using is Virtual Server from Microsoft.
> Then you have one physical system that can simulate a cluster internally.
> Good Luck,
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
> Senior Database Administrator
>
> "A. Robinson" <ARobinson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C64DB097-820F-4443-BDCA-486493CCFAC7@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Two problems. Wireless NICs almost always use DHCP addresses. Clusters
require hard-coded IP addresses.
NAS is a definite NO-NO for SQL in general and clusters in specific. There
is no way to arbitrate ownership of a NAS or any network storage type device
which completely rules them out for clustering. Direct Attach SCSI, iSCSI,
Virtual SCSI, or Fibre Channel are your options, even in a test and training
environment.
GNH
"A. Robinson" <ARobinson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46BA24F2-5E44-46CE-95EA-A75825CC7BF3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Maybe you could give me your unofficial blessing on the following?
> - Found a four port hub
> - Two servers both with two NICS. One of the NIC's is connected directly
> to
> the hub. This would constitute the two private IP addresses.
> - The second NIC's would be a wireless adapters to act as the "public" IP
> addresses. This is so I can see them from my office. Not a good idea?
> - The network storage is a network storage device I found...160 GB. This
> plugs directly into the hub as well? Once plugged into the hub, would I
> then
> configure IP's, subnets, etc. What is the admin interface?
> My next dumb question is this: when setting up the hub, do I just plug it
> in
> and go? I've worked on network stuff before , but it's always been set up
> for
> me. I just go in and assign IP addresses, network names, etc.
> Thanks again!!
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||You need a domain controller for the cluster service to even start. Unless
you plan on making one/both of the clustered nodes as DC's.
The hub should just work, plug in and go.
You can use wireless for the public, no worries and the hub for the private.
Your DC will have to be available on the wireless.
I still prefer VS 2005 to cheap hardware
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"A. Robinson" <ARobinson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46BA24F2-5E44-46CE-95EA-A75825CC7BF3@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Maybe you could give me your unofficial blessing on the following?
> - Found a four port hub
> - Two servers both with two NICS. One of the NIC's is connected directly
> to
> the hub. This would constitute the two private IP addresses.
> - The second NIC's would be a wireless adapters to act as the "public" IP
> addresses. This is so I can see them from my office. Not a good idea?
> - The network storage is a network storage device I found...160 GB. This
> plugs directly into the hub as well? Once plugged into the hub, would I
> then
> configure IP's, subnets, etc. What is the admin interface?
> My next dumb question is this: when setting up the hub, do I just plug it
> in
> and go? I've worked on network stuff before , but it's always been set up
> for
> me. I just go in and assign IP addresses, network names, etc.
> Thanks again!!
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||For the wireless router, I would be assigning a static IP (my linksys router
allows for this). I'd be configuring one of the nodes as the domain
controller.
A question about virtual server (pc): how does one simulate the shared
storage? Do I still need actual SCSI storage? Also, Does Virtual Server allow
you to simulate multiple NIC's per virtual machine?
Thanks!
"Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:

> You need a domain controller for the cluster service to even start. Unless
> you plan on making one/both of the clustered nodes as DC's.
> The hub should just work, plug in and go.
> You can use wireless for the public, no worries and the hub for the private.
> Your DC will have to be available on the wireless.
> I still prefer VS 2005 to cheap hardware
>
> Cheers,
> Rod
> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
> "A. Robinson" <ARobinson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:46BA24F2-5E44-46CE-95EA-A75825CC7BF3@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Yes. VS allows you to attach multiple virtual server instances to a single
virtual SCSI array. You can also have multiple virtual NICs.
GNH
"A. Robinson" <ARobinson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:22485BE1-0A7D-477E-85B7-0ABD0B32D386@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> For the wireless router, I would be assigning a static IP (my linksys
> router
> allows for this). I'd be configuring one of the nodes as the domain
> controller.
> A question about virtual server (pc): how does one simulate the shared
> storage? Do I still need actual SCSI storage? Also, Does Virtual Server
> allow
> you to simulate multiple NIC's per virtual machine?
> Thanks!
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||As for VS, yes, no (Real SCSI Storage), and yes.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
"A. Robinson" <ARobinson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:22485BE1-0A7D-477E-85B7-0ABD0B32D386@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> For the wireless router, I would be assigning a static IP (my linksys
> router
> allows for this). I'd be configuring one of the nodes as the domain
> controller.
> A question about virtual server (pc): how does one simulate the shared
> storage? Do I still need actual SCSI storage? Also, Does Virtual Server
> allow
> you to simulate multiple NIC's per virtual machine?
> Thanks!
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
|||i have used VMware workstation(100bucks), have 4 different clusters running
on my laptop..
much easier then buying all the stuff. all you need is a vmworkstation 4.3
version(this is one older then what they have now) Workes like a VM lab for
me. simulations are much easier and faster ..
"A. Robinson" <ARobinson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:22485BE1-0A7D-477E-85B7-0ABD0B32D386@.microsoft.com...
> For the wireless router, I would be assigning a static IP (my linksys
router
> allows for this). I'd be configuring one of the nodes as the domain
> controller.
> A question about virtual server (pc): how does one simulate the shared
> storage? Do I still need actual SCSI storage? Also, Does Virtual Server
allow[vbcol=seagreen]
> you to simulate multiple NIC's per virtual machine?
> Thanks!
> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" wrote:
Unless[vbcol=seagreen]
private.[vbcol=seagreen]
directly[vbcol=seagreen]
IP[vbcol=seagreen]
This[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
up[vbcol=seagreen]
switch[vbcol=seagreen]
cluster[vbcol=seagreen]
get a[vbcol=seagreen]
couple[vbcol=seagreen]
internally.[vbcol=seagreen]
looking[vbcol=seagreen]
nodes[vbcol=seagreen]
(NIC's,[vbcol=seagreen]
Also,[vbcol=seagreen]
in a[vbcol=seagreen]

Migrating to SQL Server 2005 and Clustering

I have a fairly unique scenario, and I would like to see if anyone can point
out any potential holes of difficulties with this migration plan:
What client has -- 1 SQL Server 2000 enterprise Edition running on SQL 2003
NOT clustered, and using a SCSI disk array.
What client wants -- 2 SQL Server 2005 systems, running on a 2 node cluster
(Active-Passive) using a shared FiberChannel SAN. The active system will be
new, the failover system will be current system listed above. Note that
Clustering HCL has already been verified.
Goals -- provide ability to perform a gradual, testable migration from SQL
Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005 Cluster
Plan:
1) Setup New Server and SAN. Connect Both New server and old server to SAN
2) Install MS Clustering service on both servers, keeping original
un-clustered SQL 2000 in production
3) Install new instance of SQL 2005 on cluster
4) Test and then migrate databases from SQL Server 2000 to new SQL Server
2005 cluster one at a time. This means running the non-clustered SQL 2000 on
the physical hardware as the clustered SQL 2005 failover node. I realize
that failover probably wont work well during the transition, due to a lack of
resources.
5) When transition is complete, remove SQL Server 2000 from failover node.
Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Paul
My only concern is that you are reusing the existing node as a cluster node.
For simplicity's sake, I would create a a clustered installation without
reusing any of the existing hardware. You then have the original system
completely untouched during the transition. You don't need to connect the
existing SQL server to the SAN to do a minimal down time transfer. Given
proper set up time, I can do a server cutover in less than 15 minutes,
regardless of the total database size or count. Since you are moving one DB
at a time, it even gets easier.
If you have to reuse the existing hardware, I would add it to the cluster
after migration is complete. Install the cluster to a single-node, perform
the migration/cutover, and then reload the OS and add the node to the
cluster. You won't have failover redundancy until the project is complete,
but since you don't have that now, you won't miss it.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"PMartin" <PMartin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:413AB596-D87F-4EFD-93E3-5335FAC3D647@.microsoft.com...
>I have a fairly unique scenario, and I would like to see if anyone can
>point
> out any potential holes of difficulties with this migration plan:
> What client has -- 1 SQL Server 2000 enterprise Edition running on SQL
> 2003
> NOT clustered, and using a SCSI disk array.
> What client wants -- 2 SQL Server 2005 systems, running on a 2 node
> cluster
> (Active-Passive) using a shared FiberChannel SAN. The active system will
> be
> new, the failover system will be current system listed above. Note that
> Clustering HCL has already been verified.
> Goals -- provide ability to perform a gradual, testable migration from SQL
> Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005 Cluster
> Plan:
> 1) Setup New Server and SAN. Connect Both New server and old server to
> SAN
> 2) Install MS Clustering service on both servers, keeping original
> un-clustered SQL 2000 in production
> 3) Install new instance of SQL 2005 on cluster
> 4) Test and then migrate databases from SQL Server 2000 to new SQL Server
> 2005 cluster one at a time. This means running the non-clustered SQL 2000
> on
> the physical hardware as the clustered SQL 2005 failover node. I realize
> that failover probably wont work well during the transition, due to a lack
> of
> resources.
> 5) When transition is complete, remove SQL Server 2000 from failover
> node.
> Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
|||Geoff,
Unfortunately, we do need to re-use the hardware, so your suggestion of
installing a single node cluster sounds like oustanding advice. The lack of
failover during the transition will not be critical.
You mentioned reloading the OS on the current (soon to be failover) server.
Is this neceessary with Windows 2003, or just wise a precaution?
Thanks again!
Paul
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:

> My only concern is that you are reusing the existing node as a cluster node.
> For simplicity's sake, I would create a a clustered installation without
> reusing any of the existing hardware. You then have the original system
> completely untouched during the transition. You don't need to connect the
> existing SQL server to the SAN to do a minimal down time transfer. Given
> proper set up time, I can do a server cutover in less than 15 minutes,
> regardless of the total database size or count. Since you are moving one DB
> at a time, it even gets easier.
> If you have to reuse the existing hardware, I would add it to the cluster
> after migration is complete. Install the cluster to a single-node, perform
> the migration/cutover, and then reload the OS and add the node to the
> cluster. You won't have failover redundancy until the project is complete,
> but since you don't have that now, you won't miss it.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "PMartin" <PMartin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:413AB596-D87F-4EFD-93E3-5335FAC3D647@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I have prefer clean OS installs over upgrades. I have never personally had
any problems with 2000-2003 upgrades, but I have had issues with earlier OS
upgrade paths. I have even go so far as to upgrade each node in a cluster
then go back and wipe and reload each node, just so I don't have any
leftover bits. Since you will be migrating a W2000/SQL 2000 standalone host
to a W2003/SQL2005 clustered host, I would definitely wipe the system and
start over. If nothing else, you can guarantee it is an exact OS match for
its peer node.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"PMartin" <PMartin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F8076304-BBFE-4447-B0D8-D7A39F0544D4@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Geoff,
> Unfortunately, we do need to re-use the hardware, so your suggestion of
> installing a single node cluster sounds like oustanding advice. The lack
> of
> failover during the transition will not be critical.
> You mentioned reloading the OS on the current (soon to be failover)
> server.
> Is this neceessary with Windows 2003, or just wise a precaution?
> Thanks again!
> Paul
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
|||I don't see anything wrong with this. It's the way that I've upgraded more
than one system already.
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
"PMartin" <PMartin@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:413AB596-D87F-4EFD-93E3-5335FAC3D647@.microsoft.com...
>I have a fairly unique scenario, and I would like to see if anyone can
>point
> out any potential holes of difficulties with this migration plan:
> What client has -- 1 SQL Server 2000 enterprise Edition running on SQL
> 2003
> NOT clustered, and using a SCSI disk array.
> What client wants -- 2 SQL Server 2005 systems, running on a 2 node
> cluster
> (Active-Passive) using a shared FiberChannel SAN. The active system will
> be
> new, the failover system will be current system listed above. Note that
> Clustering HCL has already been verified.
> Goals -- provide ability to perform a gradual, testable migration from SQL
> Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005 Cluster
> Plan:
> 1) Setup New Server and SAN. Connect Both New server and old server to
> SAN
> 2) Install MS Clustering service on both servers, keeping original
> un-clustered SQL 2000 in production
> 3) Install new instance of SQL 2005 on cluster
> 4) Test and then migrate databases from SQL Server 2000 to new SQL Server
> 2005 cluster one at a time. This means running the non-clustered SQL 2000
> on
> the physical hardware as the clustered SQL 2005 failover node. I realize
> that failover probably wont work well during the transition, due to a lack
> of
> resources.
> 5) When transition is complete, remove SQL Server 2000 from failover
> node.
> Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Paul
>