"Michael Clifford" <mjclifford@hotmail_nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e82JLB9TJHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We are doing a side-by-side upgrade migration from 2000 to 2005. The SQL
> Server 2005 Upgrade Technical Article says (page 57) that, at the point of
> renaming:
>
> < Instance name change: In a side-by-side upgrade, the new SQL Server 2005
> instance must have a different name than the legacy instance >
>
> That doesn't make sense. Our server was originally set as <srvr1\EPICSQL>
> and I intend to set the target as <srvr2/EPICSQL> so that we can renaming
> the target and take the source offline after certification.
>
> Please confirm that the instance can (or must be) the same between target
> and source.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Clifford
>
>

> > and I intend to set the target as <srvr2/EPICSQL> so that we can
renaming
> > the target and take the source offline after certification.
>
> As Geoff said, you can't rename a named instance.  Whether it makes sense
or
> not doesn't change the fact.  Now, as he suggested, you can use DNS and
> aliases to prevent making changes to the applications, otherwise, whether
> the new instance has the same name as the old or not, isn't it still going
> to require connection string / info changes to your applications anyway,
if
> the server name is also changing?
>
>

> We are going to ensure that the instance is named the same for both the
> source and target server. Then we'll alter DNS when we are ready to
> deprecate the old server. We are using the backup/restore method of
> migration.
>
> Do you see a problem with this strategy?
>
> TIA
>
> Michael
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in
> message
> news:O4SvVQ%23TJHA.5080@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> > < Instance name change: In a side-by-side upgrade, the new SQL Server
> 2005
>> > instance must have a different name than the legacy instance >
>> >
>> > That doesn't make sense. Our server was originally set as
> <srvr1\EPICSQL>
>> > and I intend to set the target as <srvr2/EPICSQL> so that we can
> renaming
>> > the target and take the source offline after certification.
>>
>> As Geoff said, you can't rename a named instance.  Whether it makes sense
> or
>> not doesn't change the fact.  Now, as he suggested, you can use DNS and
>> aliases to prevent making changes to the applications, otherwise, whether
>> the new instance has the same name as the old or not, isn't it still
>> going
>> to require connection string / info changes to your applications anyway,
> if
>> the server name is also changing?
>>
>>
>
>