SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive
2005 & 2000 on same server….
This is going to sound like a silly question but I’m having difficulty locating something in print to confirm the hearsay that SQL2005 and SQL2000 should NOT be installed on the same server. I have just built a 2005 box for a new development but it turns out that there is an application to go on there that will not work with SQL2005 (one of those apps that is an afterthought to the non-existent requirements document). The Project Manager now wants an instance of 2000 put on the *same* server so that the dodgy old application can still be a part of the project. I’ve said that they can’t go on the same box because the 2 versions won’t play well together very nicely but I have no documented proof that this will be the case so that I can head this request off at the pass before it gains momentum.
I’ve said that if they really want the 2 versions on the same box then one or both should be in a virtual server. This option wasn’t popular either. I’ve searched in a few places with various keywords and cannot locate anything even relatively close. Any information would be greatly appreciated and please feel free to contradict my information if you have any to the contrary. Thanks ** A lack of planning on your part does not constitute and emergency on mine. **
SQL 2000 and 2005 can coexists without any issues.
I have one server but not production without any issues… http://groups.google.com/groups?q=sql server 2000 coexists sql server 2005&hl=en&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-41,GGLJ:en&sa=N&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wg
Thank you for getting back to me so quickly – it is greatly appreciated. This could be an interesting situation as SQL2005 is already on the box and it is destined to be a production server (albeit Data Warehouse) when the app is built. It should be OK since it’s an X3650 (dual proc) w/4Gb. Both SQL versions are standard. ** A lack of planning on your part does not constitute and emergency on mine. **
You can configure to use 2GB for each instance…sql 2000 standard can’t use >2 GB where sql 2005 can… I can’t comments on performance because it all depends on what kinds of apps you are running….if it is production server you have to be more careful about performance…
<br />The 2000 instance will be running a document retrieval software package (Xythos) and apparently has a low impact so I will probably knock back the memory usage for it and crank ’05 up the bit extra.<br /><br />Thanks for your advice <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’‘ /><br /><br />** A lack of planning on your part does not constitute and emergency on mine. **
Now a days memory is cheap<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’‘ /><br />If you have additional slots try to increase the memory…<br /><br /><br />MohammedU.<br />Moderator<br />SQL-Server-Performance.com