September 1, 2010 at 1:15 pm
We are looking into getting a new 64-bit server running Windows Server 2003 64 downgrade from Windows Server 2008 64.
Currently, we run a mix of SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2008 32-bit. With the new server we want to go with SQL Server 2008 64-bit.
My question is: can we run several instances of SQL Server 2000 (32-bit) with at least one instance of SQL Server 2008 (64-bit) on the same machine? We need to do this because we are using some older software is not verified for 2008.
Thanks for any insight!
HW
September 1, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Caveats:
1. I didn't check the MS documentation to see if they have an explicit position on this.
2. I'm 99% sure you want to install your SQL 2000 servers first and make sure you install NO SQL 2000 default instances, ALL named instances.
Ok, At first blush I can't think of a reason this wouldn't work, obviously it is not an ideal situation, and I would limit the number of servers as much as possible.
Be sure to set minimum and maximum memory for ALL of the SQL Servers. SQL can and will use all memory available to it if it needs it. By setting min and max memory you can limit an instance that has a lower priority and give preference to an instance that has a higher priority.
Also, you *might* look at processor affinity and limit the sql 2000 boxes to specific processors, again don't want a single SQL 2000 box to take over the server.
CEWII
September 3, 2010 at 7:40 am
Install SQL 2000 first, make a note of where you put the tools and management console. Make sure its not the same location for the SQL 2008 install.
SQL 2008 is fine on Windows 2003 sp, see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506(SQL.100).aspx
Personally I would install SQL2000 as the default instance (older software may not support instances, when newer software can or could perform a patch)
September 3, 2010 at 10:53 am
adrian.saunders (9/3/2010)
Install SQL 2000 first, make a note of where you put the tools and management console. Make sure its not the same location for the SQL 2008 install.SQL 2008 is fine on Windows 2003 sp, see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506(SQL.100).aspx
Personally I would install SQL2000 as the default instance (older software may not support instances, when newer software can or could perform a patch)
Adrian,
The tools won't overlap because they will install into seperate directories and I don't think you can actually make it do otherwise.
I would only install SQL 2000 as a default instance if I absolutely had to, remember you can only have one default instance and the goal is to eventually get rid of SQL 2000.
Newer software that doesn't support named instances is competely unacceptable, that is a good enough reason to not use the software and a reason I would heavily lobby against a purchase. I say that because supporting named instances requires NO coding effort using any of the drivers for the last 5-8 years.
CEWII
September 3, 2010 at 11:05 am
You can run a SQL 2000 database on a SQL 2008 server in compatibility mode 80. That might work for you.
Not sure if SQL 2000 can run as a named instance with 2008. I know that there were issues with v7 as anything other than a default instance with other versions, not sure if that changed in 2000. You might try this in a VM (I will later) and see if it works.
Please post back if you do.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
September 7, 2010 at 7:13 am
Hi guys, thanks very much for the responses.
We are already running SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2008 together on the same box. There is a default instance of SQL Server 2000 and several named instances. There is only one instance of SQL Server 2008 which is named of course.
Our biggest doubt comes from the switch to a 64-bit operating system and a new 64-bit version of SQL Server 2008 running with the old, 32-bit version of SQL Server 2000. Basically, will 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Servers play well together?
I have not yet found anything to indicate that they would not.
As a caveat, I totally agree with you, Elliott:
...software that doesn't support named instances is competely unacceptable, that is a good enough reason to not use the software
It is the "need" for that SQL Server 2000 default instance, according to the vendor, that is driving this whole issue. Unfortunately, that was not my choice to make.
Thanks again guys!
Hank
September 7, 2010 at 7:27 am
AFAIK, SQL 2000, x86, should run under the WoW environment on the server. I haven't seen much posted about it, but I'll drop a note out on Twitter and a few places, see if anyone has any ideas on how this works.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
September 7, 2010 at 8:32 am
I have a cluster running Win 2k3 x64 with the following SQL versions:
SQL 2000 Ent x86
SQL 2005 Ent x64
SQL 2008 Ent x64
All 3 have run on the same node during reboots/maintenance without issue. Since it's a cluster, all are named instances, so I can't speak for the default instance situation.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply