Do I need Enterprise to do clustering?

I'm confused. Reading the SQL 2000 Resource Kit, it definitely says I need
Enterprise in order to do failover clustering. But reading the product
guide on the 2005 version says Standard has clustering capabilities. Is
this something new to 2005 or is it a different type of clustering? We're
looking at clustering and it's all new to me so I'd appreciate any help you
can give me. Thanks.
--Sandy
It is a different feature set for a different product SKU matrix. SQL 2000
requires Enterprise Edition for any clustering. SQL 2005 will allow
two-node clusters in Standard Edition. Both are MSCS failover clustering.
I have been recommending SQL 2005 Standard Edition for lower-cost clustering
with several of my clients. So far, all the systems have performed very
well.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Sandy Proesch" <sproe@.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23dNoaEFSGHA.5908@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'm confused. Reading the SQL 2000 Resource Kit, it definitely says I
> need Enterprise in order to do failover clustering. But reading the
> product guide on the 2005 version says Standard has clustering
> capabilities. Is this something new to 2005 or is it a different type of
> clustering? We're looking at clustering and it's all new to me so I'd
> appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks.
> --Sandy
>
|||Thank you, that is exactly what we're looking to do - a 2-node failover
cluster.
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OeBsiWFSGHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> It is a different feature set for a different product SKU matrix. SQL
> 2000 requires Enterprise Edition for any clustering. SQL 2005 will allow
> two-node clusters in Standard Edition. Both are MSCS failover clustering.
> I have been recommending SQL 2005 Standard Edition for lower-cost
> clustering with several of my clients. So far, all the systems have
> performed very well.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Sandy Proesch" <sproe@.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23dNoaEFSGHA.5908@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Make sure and check out the 64-bit and dual-core processors. No difference
in licensing costs to go with either or both, but you get a huge performance
boost.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Sandy Proesch" <sproe@.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23Fq7LwFSGHA.4900@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thank you, that is exactly what we're looking to do - a 2-node failover
> cluster.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OeBsiWFSGHA.4440@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>
|||Geoff,
If you have to do an upgrade in place on a cluster from 2000 to 2005, can
you go from 2000 Enterprise to 2005 Standard without problems?
Thanks
Chris Wood
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23Q8l%23OGSGHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Make sure and check out the 64-bit and dual-core processors. No
> difference in licensing costs to go with either or both, but you get a
> huge performance boost.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Sandy Proesch" <sproe@.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23Fq7LwFSGHA.4900@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||You cannot do this as an in-place upgrade. You can install a second
instance of SQL 2005 on the same hardware and do a database migration. I
would take the opportunity to build a cluster based on new hardware if your
system is more than a few years old.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e4yn1oeSGHA.5884@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Geoff,
> If you have to do an upgrade in place on a cluster from 2000 to 2005, can
> you go from 2000 Enterprise to 2005 Standard without problems?
> Thanks
> Chris Wood
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Q8l%23OGSGHA.1204@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Geoff,
But we could upgrade SQL2000 Enterprise to SQL2005 Enterprise in place could
we not?
Chris
Currently there is no plan to purchase new hardware for the clustered
production server.
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23okTDKfSGHA.5808@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You cannot do this as an in-place upgrade. You can install a second
> instance of SQL 2005 on the same hardware and do a database migration. I
> would take the opportunity to build a cluster based on new hardware if
> your system is more than a few years old.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:e4yn1oeSGHA.5884@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Now that I have tested (for giggles only) and it works, but I really hate
upgrades!! Especially for HA systems!
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23MmSCyfSGHA.4600@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Geoff,
> But we could upgrade SQL2000 Enterprise to SQL2005 Enterprise in place
> could we not?
> Chris
> Currently there is no plan to purchase new hardware for the clustered
> production server.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23okTDKfSGHA.5808@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||In theory, yes. In practice, I have heard of a lot of problems with the
in-place cluster upgrade wizard and would not recommend that path at this
time. Side-by-side or new platform is the safest way to go.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23MmSCyfSGHA.4600@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Geoff,
> But we could upgrade SQL2000 Enterprise to SQL2005 Enterprise in place
> could we not?
> Chris
> Currently there is no plan to purchase new hardware for the clustered
> production server.
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23okTDKfSGHA.5808@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thank you Geoff. Not really the sort of news I wanted to hear.
Chris
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23$b804fSGHA.4616@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> In theory, yes. In practice, I have heard of a lot of problems with the
> in-place cluster upgrade wizard and would not recommend that path at this
> time. Side-by-side or new platform is the safest way to go.
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23MmSCyfSGHA.4600@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>