locked
installation RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi all,

    when we install side by side installation , when we install in place  installation in ms sql server?

    or

    which situation we install both side by side installation and in place  installation ?

    • Moved by Tom Phillips Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:05 PM Upgrade question
    Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:48 AM

Answers

  • Hello you have in place up gradation & side-by-side installation& upgrade-

    Work with Multiple Versions and Instances of SQL Server
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143694.aspx

    you can type in googleyou will get the number of PDF and Doc fromMS whitepapaers

    Sample-from white paper

    Choosing an Upgrade Strategy You primarily have two paths for upgrading previous versions of SQL Server to SQL Server 2008 R2. These are an in-place upgrade and a side-by-side upgrade. In-Place Upgrade An in-place upgrade modifies the existing database, the end result being that the new version replaces the previous version. Using an in-place upgrade strategy, the SQL Server 2008 R2 Setup program directly replaces a SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005, or SQL Server 2008 instance with a new SQL Server 2008 R2 instance on the same 32-bit or 64-bit platform. There is no need to copy database-related data from the older instance to SQL Server 2008 because the old data files are automatically converted to the new format. When the process is complete, you remove the old SQL Server instance from the server. You can only restore the database instance to its previous state from backups. Side-by-Side Upgrade In a direct side-by-side upgrade, you transfer database structure and component data from the previous SQL Server instance to a new, distinct SQL Server 2008 R2 instance. The new SQL Server 2008 R2 instance operates alongside the existing SQL Server instance by using either two servers or a single server. In a side-by-side upgrade, several object types are not automatically transferred and must manually be transferred using other methods. This method offers the most flexibility and control: You can take advantage of a new and potentially more powerful server and platform, but the existing server remains as a fallback if you encounter compatibility issues. This method lets you rigorously test the new database before transitioning it into the production environment. The downside of a side-by-side upgrade is that increased manual interventions are required, so it might take more up-front preparation and planning. In most cases, the benefits of this degree of control merit the extra effort.  



    Thanks, Rama Udaya.K (http://rama38udaya.wordpress.com) ---------------------------------------- Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and UN-mark them if they provide no help,Vote if they gives you information.

    Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:30 PM
  • Hello,

    You plan for a side-by-side installation, when you need to upgrade an instance no a new version but SQL Server setup program does not support the upgrade path for some reason. Maybe because is a cross platform upgrade, or you are upgrading from Enterprise Edition to Standard Edition, for example. Those are examples of upgrade paths not supported by SQL Server setup.

    You can choose a side-by-side upgrade when you need to run the new SQL Server version in parallel with the legacy version. This makes rollback to the legacy instance very easy. You have more control on the upgrade process when you choose a side-by-side upgrade, and you can test applications as needed.

    In the other hand, the in-place upgrade replaces the current SQL Server version of a target instance with a new SQL Server version, preserving server configuration and databases. It’s a great method for small systems and it is a fast process. The disadvantage of this method is complex rollback procedure.

    Hope this helps.


    Regards,

    Alberto Morillo
    SQLCoffee.com

    • Proposed as answer by Candy_Zhou Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:48 AM
    • Marked as answer by Allen Li - MSFT Tuesday, August 6, 2013 1:52 PM
    Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:56 PM

All replies

  • both side by side installation and in place  installation ?


    There is nothing like an "in place installation", only a in-place migration when you upgrade an existing SQL Server instance to a newer version; do you mean this?

    Olaf Helper

    Blog Xing

    Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:50 AM
  • Hello you have in place up gradation & side-by-side installation& upgrade-

    Work with Multiple Versions and Instances of SQL Server
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143694.aspx

    you can type in googleyou will get the number of PDF and Doc fromMS whitepapaers

    Sample-from white paper

    Choosing an Upgrade Strategy You primarily have two paths for upgrading previous versions of SQL Server to SQL Server 2008 R2. These are an in-place upgrade and a side-by-side upgrade. In-Place Upgrade An in-place upgrade modifies the existing database, the end result being that the new version replaces the previous version. Using an in-place upgrade strategy, the SQL Server 2008 R2 Setup program directly replaces a SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005, or SQL Server 2008 instance with a new SQL Server 2008 R2 instance on the same 32-bit or 64-bit platform. There is no need to copy database-related data from the older instance to SQL Server 2008 because the old data files are automatically converted to the new format. When the process is complete, you remove the old SQL Server instance from the server. You can only restore the database instance to its previous state from backups. Side-by-Side Upgrade In a direct side-by-side upgrade, you transfer database structure and component data from the previous SQL Server instance to a new, distinct SQL Server 2008 R2 instance. The new SQL Server 2008 R2 instance operates alongside the existing SQL Server instance by using either two servers or a single server. In a side-by-side upgrade, several object types are not automatically transferred and must manually be transferred using other methods. This method offers the most flexibility and control: You can take advantage of a new and potentially more powerful server and platform, but the existing server remains as a fallback if you encounter compatibility issues. This method lets you rigorously test the new database before transitioning it into the production environment. The downside of a side-by-side upgrade is that increased manual interventions are required, so it might take more up-front preparation and planning. In most cases, the benefits of this degree of control merit the extra effort.  



    Thanks, Rama Udaya.K (http://rama38udaya.wordpress.com) ---------------------------------------- Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and UN-mark them if they provide no help,Vote if they gives you information.

    Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:30 PM
  • Hello,

    You plan for a side-by-side installation, when you need to upgrade an instance no a new version but SQL Server setup program does not support the upgrade path for some reason. Maybe because is a cross platform upgrade, or you are upgrading from Enterprise Edition to Standard Edition, for example. Those are examples of upgrade paths not supported by SQL Server setup.

    You can choose a side-by-side upgrade when you need to run the new SQL Server version in parallel with the legacy version. This makes rollback to the legacy instance very easy. You have more control on the upgrade process when you choose a side-by-side upgrade, and you can test applications as needed.

    In the other hand, the in-place upgrade replaces the current SQL Server version of a target instance with a new SQL Server version, preserving server configuration and databases. It’s a great method for small systems and it is a fast process. The disadvantage of this method is complex rollback procedure.

    Hope this helps.


    Regards,

    Alberto Morillo
    SQLCoffee.com

    • Proposed as answer by Candy_Zhou Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:48 AM
    • Marked as answer by Allen Li - MSFT Tuesday, August 6, 2013 1:52 PM
    Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:56 PM