SQL Server 2000 上的 SQL Server 2005
我想问一下，在生产服务器的SQL Server 2000企业版上安装SQL Server 2005企业版有什么问题或风险吗？
请告诉我安装指南...
I want to ask is there any issues or risks involved in installation of SQL Server 2005 Enterprise Edition on SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in production server?
Please tell me the guidelines in installation...
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
2000 和 2005 可以并存，您只需为其中至少一个使用命名实例（只有一个可以是默认实例）。
如果您正在谈论升级，这里有一些很好的起点：
http: //searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid87_gci1269983,00.html
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/upgrading.aspx
还可以获取 2005 升级顾问，它应该突出显示您的特定环境中的任何潜在问题：
http://www.microsoft.com/ downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1470e86b-7e05-4322-a677-95ab44f12d75
2000 and 2005 can exist side-by-side, you just have to use a named instance for at least one of them (only one can be the default instance).
If you are talking about upgrading, here are some good starting points:
http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid87_gci1269983,00.html
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2005/en/us/upgrading.aspx
Also get the 2005 upgrade advisor, which should highlight any potential issues in your specific environment:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1470e86b-7e05-4322-a677-95ab44f12d75
如果您要将 SQL Server 2000 实例就地升级到 Sql Server 2005，我不建议这样做。行为上的一些差异可能会导致应用程序失败。
我遇到的问题与默认架构和 SQL Server GUI 有关。在 SQL Server 2005 版本之前，我可以使用 GUI 创建数据库、创建用户、使用户成为数据库的所有者，然后该数据库的默认架构将是该用户的用户名。在 SQL Server 2005 中，我必须添加额外的步骤，将默认架构设置为该用户的用户名。如果没有这个，我们用于设置新模式的工具就会失败。
在脚本中进行所有设置的工作方式与以前相同，只是某些过程的名称已更改。不过，这比默认模式名称问题更容易追踪。
总之：重大变化，所以不要只是进行就地升级。
If you're upgrading a SQL Server 2000 instance to Sql Server 2005 in place, I wouldn't recommend it. There are some differences in behavior that can cause applications to fail.
The one that I ran into had to do with default schemas and the SQL Server GUI. Before the 2005 version of SQL Server, I could use the GUI to create a database, create a user, make the user the owner of the database, and then the default schema for that database would be that user's username. In SQL Server 2005, I had to add the additional step of setting the default schema to that user's username. Without that, our tool for setting up new schemas failed.
Doing all of the setup in scripting worked the same as it had before, except that some of the names of the procedures had changed. That was much easier to track down than the default schema name issue, though.
In summary: major changes, so don't just do an upgrade-in-place.