Showing posts with label upgrading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label upgrading. Show all posts

Friday, March 30, 2012

Instance name contains a dash

Hello

We are in the process of upgrading our SQL 2K server to a cluster environment. Currently the server is setup as a default instance running on a single box with log shipping as a warm backup

It is required to create an instance name for the new cluster to work. My question is

1) Has anybody tried to have an instance name that dash (-) in it.

Example: \\SERVERNAME\xxx-xx-xxx

I am told that it is not possible to have a server instance named this way. Would like to know if this naming convention is possible under SQL2K If not what is the suggested workaround

This will save a lot of time in application modifications

Thanks in advance

Gabe J

Don't do it, invest the work now and you will have a much more relaxing future. If it takes much time to modify your application to work with another instance name you probably have a design issue in your application.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

Thanks for the advice.

SQL 2000 books online does not specifically mention that dash (-) cannot be used in an instance name ( you can even create tables and other objects in a database that contains a dash in them why not instance name?). Could you please be a little more specific as what exactly the issues would be if the instance name contained dashes.

I have to justify the requirement to make program changes, for that I need to understand what the issues are going to be.

Appreciate your help

Gabe J

|||

I don′t have any specific issue in mind that I can tell of if you use special characters in instance names. Sure you can have special characters in Tables and other objects, but "What you can do" is often the opposite "What is prefered to do". As from my experience I wouldn′t bet on that horse and take the risk of naming the object or even the instance with special characters, although I can. Thats just my two cents, perhaps someone has another opinion about that, but unless you have a hand on your code and have the opportunity to correct that thing (as of my opinion) I would that effort in it.

HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de

|||

In general I agree with what Jens has to say. As far as I know, putting a dash in the instance name is supported. I remember back in the 7.0 days testers went to a lot of trouble to make sure that dashes worked fine in the server name. I don't remember finding any issues there (but it was a long time ago). I do seem to remember that our automation at the time needed multiple changes to run on those servers. :(

The effort was worth it for Microsoft but might not be for your arbitrary application.

|||

One of the suggestions made to get around with this issue is to place a registry hack by adding a key called "Connectto" in the following node

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MICROSOFT\MSSQLServer\Client\

And specify the value as the OLD server name = "XXX-XX-XXX"

and data = DBNMPNTW,\\<New Server name>\pipe\MSSQL$<Instance name>\sql\query

When applications connect irrespective of the connection string, this registry value connects to the SQL server instance.

Seems to work . Agree this is just a workaround instead of solving the real issue of making application modifications.

Has anyone tried this ?

Thanks for you suggestions

|||

Not sure where you heard about this registry hack, but I would not recommend using it unless it was mentioned in a specific Microsoft article...This ***hack*** may not work after a future release. Looks like this workaround maybe setting up a alias for the server. If this is the case, you should use SQL Server Configuration Manager instead.

As others have said, I am not really sure if dashes are supported, but I would not use...SQL Server maybe able to handle it fine, but some other external component may not.

Thanks,

Peter Saddow

|||

Agree that this is a **hack**. The SQL Server is a 2K version not 2005. How do I use the configuration manager to set up and alias name for the instance at the server level?

Thanks

|||

For SQL Server 2000, use SQL Server Client Network Utility. Select the "Alias" tab and enter the required information.

Hope this helps,

Peter Saddow

Monday, March 26, 2012

Installing SQLServer EE for full text searching

Hi there,
Does anyone know how I go about upgrading from SQL2000 standard edition to
SQL2000 enterprise edition (I need to install full-text searching). Is it as
easy as slamming in the enterprise edition CD and upgrading, or are there any
known issues?
Thanks
Cammie.
It is as easy as that. You should install SQL 2000 standard before adding
SQL 2000 Enterprise.
Hilary
"Cammie" <Cammie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7ED562E7-97C4-447C-ADB6-23782072E195@.microsoft.com...
> Hi there,
> Does anyone know how I go about upgrading from SQL2000 standard edition to
> SQL2000 enterprise edition (I need to install full-text searching). Is it
> as
> easy as slamming in the enterprise edition CD and upgrading, or are there
> any
> known issues?
> Thanks
> Cammie.
|||Cammie,
You can upgrade from Standard Edition to Enterprise Edition (see SQL 2000
BOL titles "Upgrading an Existing Installation of SQL Server" and "Editions
of SQL Server 2000" for details), but you don't need to install the
Enterprise Edition just to get Full-Text Search (FTS) as FTS is installed by
default with the Standard Edition.
If you have a need for both Editions, you can install Standard as the
default installation and Enterprise Edition as a named instance and both
will have FTS capabilities as long as you install both on Win2K/Win2003 OS
Advance or Enterprise server editions.
Regards,
John
"Cammie" <Cammie@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7ED562E7-97C4-447C-ADB6-23782072E195@.microsoft.com...
> Hi there,
> Does anyone know how I go about upgrading from SQL2000 standard edition to
> SQL2000 enterprise edition (I need to install full-text searching). Is it
as
> easy as slamming in the enterprise edition CD and upgrading, or are there
any
> known issues?
> Thanks
> Cammie.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20

We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plans
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQL
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommended
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?
I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?
|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?

Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20

We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plans
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQL
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommended
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||We are looking at the extact ame scenerio. When you say you don't like
upgrading in place, do you mean Windows OS , SQL Server or both ? We agree
that a server rebuild it cleaner but we have never done a SQL server upgrade.
I am wondering if that is true for SQL server as well e.e Is a side-by-side
migration cleaner than an in-place upgrade ?
--
Thanks,
Flora
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
> in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
> to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
> upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
> chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
> generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
> a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
> clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
> long you choose.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> > We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> > SQL
> > Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> > plans
> > to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> > SQL
> > Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> > recommended
> > to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> > should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> > difference?
>
>

Installing SQL Server 2005, then upgrading to Windows 2003 from 20

We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to SQL
Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with plan
s
to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the SQ
L
Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it recommende
d
to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a difference?I haven't tried this sequence, but here is what I have learned fro upgrades
in the past. I prefer to upgrade in release sequence. Therefore, upgrade
to Windows 2003 then upgrade SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. Personally, I don't like
upgrading in place. I try to rebuild servers from scratch when I get a
chance. I use home-grown log shipping scripts to handle the cutover and can
generally keep the downtime to just a few minutes. Of course, this requires
a bit of spare hardware and some decent prep time but I really like having a
clean build. You also have the existing server as a fail-back for however
long you choose.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?|||Hi
I would concur with Geoff, as Windows 2003 is an environmental change is
should have less impact and less likely to require any application changes
(although configuration changes may be necessary!) and therefore I would do
it first. An upgrade to SQL 2005 is more likely to require code changes and
so require more time for preparation and testing.
John
"SandiDBA" <SandiDBA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D594190B-9FA1-4E80-BE41-E7C1680768F2@.microsoft.com...
> We have plans to upgrade all our current SQL Server 2000 SP4 servers to
> SQL
> Server 2005. Most of those servers are running on Windows 2000 with
> plans
> to also upgrade to Windows 2003. Are there any risks to upgrading the
> SQL
> Server, then upgrading the OS to 2003 at a later time? Or is it
> recommended
> to upgrade the OS, then SQL Server for better results? In other words,
> should these upgrades be tied together or does really not make a
> difference?

Monday, March 19, 2012

Installing SQL Server 2005 & keeping SQL Server 2000

the Can I install SQL Server 2005 on a system (Windows XP)that already has a
SQL Server 2000 installed without removing or upgrading SQL Server 2000?
Thank you!
--
MitraMitra,
You should not install SQL Server 2005 beta 2 on a production system, and
there is always a risk that you might need to do a complete reinstall to get
things up and running again. That said, yes, you can install SQL Server 2005
side-by-side with SQL Server 2000. Read the release documentation with SQL
Server 2005 beta 2 for more information about specific issues.
Jon Jahren
"mitra" <mitra@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5595B2B7-7FAC-4A9B-A3ED-A48A31BF1586@.microsoft.com...
> the Can I install SQL Server 2005 on a system (Windows XP)that already has
a
> SQL Server 2000 installed without removing or upgrading SQL Server 2000?
> Thank you!
> --
> Mitra

Installing SQL Server 2005 & keeping SQL Server 2000

the Can I install SQL Server 2005 on a system (Windows XP)that already has a
SQL Server 2000 installed without removing or upgrading SQL Server 2000?
Thank you!
Mitra
Mitra,
You should not install SQL Server 2005 beta 2 on a production system, and
there is always a risk that you might need to do a complete reinstall to get
things up and running again. That said, yes, you can install SQL Server 2005
side-by-side with SQL Server 2000. Read the release documentation with SQL
Server 2005 beta 2 for more information about specific issues.
Jon Jahren
"mitra" <mitra@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5595B2B7-7FAC-4A9B-A3ED-A48A31BF1586@.microsoft.com...
> the Can I install SQL Server 2005 on a system (Windows XP)that already has
a
> SQL Server 2000 installed without removing or upgrading SQL Server 2000?
> Thank you!
> --
> Mitra

Installing SQL Server 2005 & keeping SQL Server 2000

the Can I install SQL Server 2005 on a system (Windows XP)that already has a
SQL Server 2000 installed without removing or upgrading SQL Server 2000?
Thank you!
--
MitraMitra,
You should not install SQL Server 2005 beta 2 on a production system, and
there is always a risk that you might need to do a complete reinstall to get
things up and running again. That said, yes, you can install SQL Server 2005
side-by-side with SQL Server 2000. Read the release documentation with SQL
Server 2005 beta 2 for more information about specific issues.
Jon Jahren
"mitra" <mitra@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5595B2B7-7FAC-4A9B-A3ED-A48A31BF1586@.microsoft.com...
> the Can I install SQL Server 2005 on a system (Windows XP)that already has
a
> SQL Server 2000 installed without removing or upgrading SQL Server 2000?
> Thank you!
> --
> Mitra