topic Re: SMSQL for SQL 2005 and SQL 2008 in Data Protection

SMSQL for SQL 2005 and SQL 2008

sigmajdblock — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:17:33 GMT

I have a customer that is looking to impliment SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008 in the same cluster. Is this a supported configuration for SnapManager for SQL? I can check for support for one or the other, but haven't seen both on the same cluster.

Thanks,

John

Re: SMSQL for SQL 2005 and SQL 2008

bjornkoopmans — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:43:47 GMT

Hi,

I presume that by 'cluster' you are not talking about a SQL-cluster, but a FAS-cluster.

Then, as far as I know, this is fully supported. Actually, I don't see why not. 🙂

Re: SMSQL for SQL 2005 and SQL 2008

sigmajdblock — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:03:03 GMT

I am talking about a SQL Cluster that is running both flavors of SQL. I haven't seen it in the wild yet, but they assure me that it is supported.

Thanks,

John

Re: SMSQL for SQL 2005 and SQL 2008

qzhang — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:59:02 GMT

SMSQL even supports SQL Server 2000, 2005 and 2008 instances running on a single standalone server. For clustered instances, you will connect to those instances individually, so they will not interfere with each other.

Thanks,

-Qing

Re: SMSQL for SQL 2005 and SQL 2008

sigmajdblock — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:44:25 GMT

OK, they finally have the cluster up and running. When the cluster was built, they created LUNs from the NetApp Cluster and used them for the database since they needed a shared resource for the cluster. We then installed SMSQL, but now we are getting this error. It makes sense to me that the SQL server root is on the NetApp lun because it has to be a a shared resource. How can I correct the situation so we can "migrate" the database and get this running? I quote migrate because it is already on NetApp LUNs...

Thanks,

John