Dual-boot with SQL 2000

A client has a program that uses a SQL database. They already have a Windows
2003 + SQL 2000 SP3a server they had planned to use with this app, then
discovered the vendor only will not support Windows 2003 + SQL 2000 SP3a
until the end of the year.
Our thought is to install Windows 2000 + SQL 2000 as a dual-boot with the
existing Windows 2003 + SQL 2000 installation. Set the SQL database and log
folders to the same folders in both installations, and when the vendor
certifies Windows 2003, boot into 2003 and immediately resume operations
with minimal downtime.
Is this workable? Or do we need to keep the two SQL installations completely
separate and do a backup from Win2000/SQL2000 and then restore to
Win2003/SQL2000?
--
Jeff Vandervoort
JRVsystems
http://jrvsystems.comAssuming that the folder for all database files are the same and the machine name is the same, yes
it should work. Not supported, though.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Jeff Vandervoort" <jeffv @. jrvsystems dot com> wrote in message
news:%2390OgxPnDHA.3612@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> A client has a program that uses a SQL database. They already have a Windows
> 2003 + SQL 2000 SP3a server they had planned to use with this app, then
> discovered the vendor only will not support Windows 2003 + SQL 2000 SP3a
> until the end of the year.
> Our thought is to install Windows 2000 + SQL 2000 as a dual-boot with the
> existing Windows 2003 + SQL 2000 installation. Set the SQL database and log
> folders to the same folders in both installations, and when the vendor
> certifies Windows 2003, boot into 2003 and immediately resume operations
> with minimal downtime.
> Is this workable? Or do we need to keep the two SQL installations completely
> separate and do a backup from Win2000/SQL2000 and then restore to
> Win2003/SQL2000?
> --
> Jeff Vandervoort
> JRVsystems
> http://jrvsystems.com
>|||Thanks for your reply, Tibor.
--
Jeff Vandervoort
JRVsystems
http://jrvsystems.com
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:%235lyAISnDHA.2312@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Assuming that the folder for all database files are the same and the
machine name is the same, yes
> it should work. Not supported, though.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Jeff Vandervoort" <jeffv @. jrvsystems dot com> wrote in message
> news:%2390OgxPnDHA.3612@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > A client has a program that uses a SQL database. They already have a
Windows
> > 2003 + SQL 2000 SP3a server they had planned to use with this app, then
> > discovered the vendor only will not support Windows 2003 + SQL 2000 SP3a
> > until the end of the year.
> >
> > Our thought is to install Windows 2000 + SQL 2000 as a dual-boot with
the
> > existing Windows 2003 + SQL 2000 installation. Set the SQL database and
log
> > folders to the same folders in both installations, and when the vendor
> > certifies Windows 2003, boot into 2003 and immediately resume operations
> > with minimal downtime.
> >
> > Is this workable? Or do we need to keep the two SQL installations
completely
> > separate and do a backup from Win2000/SQL2000 and then restore to
> > Win2003/SQL2000?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jeff Vandervoort
> > JRVsystems
> > http://jrvsystems.com
> >
> >
>