December 11, 2009 at 4:25 am
Hi guys
First timer on here. 🙂
I have a SQL Server 2000 default instance. In the dim and distant past, someone installed this incorrectly and left the SQL Datafiles to be placed in the default location, which as we all know is C: drive.
Now the client wants this upgraded to SQL Server 2005. I installed a named instance of 2005 alongside the existing instance, but the migration tool supplied by the vendor manages to get confused by this and won't work. Now the application vendor will only recommend that we remove the SQL Server 2005 named instance and instead upgrade the default SQL Server instance using the install-over-the-top method.
Having done one of these over-the-top 2000-2005 upgrades before, I know that I can specify the Datafiles location during the install procedure. Last time I just specified the original location for the datafiles because in that case the original install was correct.
My question is this: if I specify a new location for the datafiles during the 2005 upgrade, will it be honoured? Will it set up the "datafiles" directory in the new location?
I know that existing user databases will stay in their original location. I can manually move the system databases if necessary. But it's all the rest of the stuff that SQL Server sets up like the LOGS directory and stuff that I'd like to be relocated elsewhere as part of the install/upgrade.
They're pushing for this today, so any rapid responses would be gratefully recieved.
Many thanks in advance.
January 20, 2010 at 4:02 am
I hate bumping things. But it's been a couple of months since I posted this.
It's no longer as urgent, but I'd still like an answer if anyone would care to oblige.
In short the question is, if I upgrade SQL Server 2000 to 2005 specifying a new location for the datafiles in the install wizard, will the SQL root folder be established in the new location?
Many thanks.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply