|
Home > Archive > MS SQL Server > August 2005 > SQL 2005 patching
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| JeremyInNC 2005-08-01, 11:23 am |
| Will SQL 2005 service packs require taking the database offline to apply?
This is our major problem with 2000. I am mainly interested reguarding
Clustered servers, not stand alone.
| |
|
|
| Jens Süßmeyer 2005-08-01, 11:23 am |
| Yeah, for sure, thats what patching is about. If you are changing the engine
of something, putting in new cylinders e.g. you don´t wanna let it run, don´t
you ?! In clustered enviroments you can use the active / passive
functionality (if applicable), so you can patch one node after the other.
--
HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
---
http://www.sqlserver2005.de
---
"JeremyInNC" wrote:
> Will SQL 2005 service packs require taking the database offline to apply?
> This is our major problem with 2000. I am mainly interested reguarding
> Clustered servers, not stand alone.
| |
| JeremyInNC 2005-08-01, 11:23 am |
| How would that work? I assume that if I patch something there are specific
parts (say the schema) that change. I don't see how using a fail over can get
around this, can you point me at a document?
"Jens Süßmeyer" wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Yeah, for sure, thats what patching is about. If you are changing the engine
> of something, putting in new cylinders e.g. you don´t wanna let it run, don´t
> you ?! In clustered enviroments you can use the active / passive
> functionality (if applicable), so you can patch one node after the other.
> --
> HTH, Jens Suessmeyer.
>
> ---
> http://www.sqlserver2005.de
> ---
>
>
> "JeremyInNC" wrote:
>
| |
| Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) 2005-08-02, 3:23 am |
| Hi
AFAIK, all nodes on a cluster need to be patched at the same time, so your
take on the situation is correct. SP only really come out once every 12-18
months, so the time required for the SP install is still possible withing the
time required for 99.9 or 99.99 uptime.
Regards
--
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"JeremyInNC" wrote:
[color=darkred]
> How would that work? I assume that if I patch something there are specific
> parts (say the schema) that change. I don't see how using a fail over can get
> around this, can you point me at a document?
>
> "Jens Süßmeyer" wrote:
>
|
|
|
|
|