Biztalk 2004 + 2006 + 2009 SxS on SQL ?

[hermes]

Would a single shared SQL server should be able to hold three Biztalk
Groups side by side for separate installations of Biztalk 2004, 2006,
R2 and 2009. You would just need to make sure each group is created to
use unique table names, correct? I can't find any documentation on
this.

I'm considering gradually migrating our Production environment from
2006 to 2006 R2, over a period of weeks/months. So I'm considering
possibly seperate 2006 and 2006 R2 installations sharing our one SQL
database server. But it might also be useful to know for development
environments.

Thanks :)

[dgrospelier]

Hi,

When you say "share a single SQL Server", do you mean a single box or
a single instance of SQL Server ?
If you want to reduce the cost of your platform, you can set up all
the BizTalk databases in a single instance of SQLServer, just choose
the right version (i.e. : BizTalk 2009 is not compatible with SQL 2000
and I don't think BizTalk 2004 is able to work with SQL 2008 maybe SQL
2005 is the best choice).
If you do that, just choose different database names when you set up
BizTalk. For example : BizTalkMgmtDb2004 for BizTalk 2004, ... And let
the default name for BizTalk 2009 if it is the release you keep after
the migration process.

Another way to use the same server is to set up three instances of SQL
Server, one for each BizTalk version. With this configuration, you can
use the default names of databases and mixed versions of SQL Server on
the same server.

Otherwise, be sure that your server can manage the load of three
BizTalk configurations.... Maybe virtualization would be a good way ?

David GROSPELIER
***@noveli.fr
http://blog.noveli.fr

Post by hermes
Would a single shared SQL server should be able to hold three Biztalk
Groups side by side for separate installations of Biztalk 2004, 2006,
R2 and 2009. You would just need to make sure each group is created to
use unique table names, correct? I can't find any documentation on
this.
I'm considering gradually migrating our Production environment from
2006 to 2006 R2, over a period of weeks/months.  So I'm considering
possibly seperate 2006 and 2006 R2 installations sharing our one SQL
database server. But it might also be useful to know for development
environments.
Thanks :)

[Svavark]

Hi.

I am migrating my BTS2006 install to BTS2009 and although i am using ney
boxes for BisTalk I plan on using the same server\instance for tha SQL
database.
When running the configuration I can specify database name for Mangament
database, MessageBox database and the Tracking database (and I just postfix
the names with 2009)
But when I come to configuring the Rule engine database I am not able to
write into the field for the database Name.
So my plot is failing?
Any Ideas on how to fix this?

Best regards Svavar Kvaran Kaupthing Bank.

Post by dgrospelier
Hi,
When you say "share a single SQL Server", do you mean a single box or
a single instance of SQL Server ?
If you want to reduce the cost of your platform, you can set up all
the BizTalk databases in a single instance of SQLServer, just choose
the right version (i.e. : BizTalk 2009 is not compatible with SQL 2000
and I don't think BizTalk 2004 is able to work with SQL 2008 maybe SQL
2005 is the best choice).
If you do that, just choose different database names when you set up
BizTalk. For example : BizTalkMgmtDb2004 for BizTalk 2004, ... And let
the default name for BizTalk 2009 if it is the release you keep after
the migration process.
Another way to use the same server is to set up three instances of SQL
Server, one for each BizTalk version. With this configuration, you can
use the default names of databases and mixed versions of SQL Server on
the same server.
Otherwise, be sure that your server can manage the load of three
BizTalk configurations.... Maybe virtualization would be a good way ?
David GROSPELIER
http://blog.noveli.fr

Post by hermes
Would a single shared SQL server should be able to hold three Biztalk
Groups side by side for separate installations of Biztalk 2004, 2006,
R2 and 2009. You would just need to make sure each group is created to
use unique table names, correct? I can't find any documentation on
this.
I'm considering gradually migrating our Production environment from
2006 to 2006 R2, over a period of weeks/months. So I'm considering
possibly seperate 2006 and 2006 R2 installations sharing our one SQL
database server. But it might also be useful to know for development
environments.
Thanks :)

.

[Stefan[www.itsconsulting.fr]]

Just a small remark,

Microsoft does not support BizTalk Server 2004 on SQL Server 2005.
The supported configuration is BizTalk Server 2006 on SQL Server 2000
SP4

Regards,
Stefan
http://www.itsconsulting.fr/
http://www.elbeb.com

[hermes]

@David and Stefan: Thanks very much for your help. Should make
development life a little easier too :)

On Nov 25, 11:17 pm, "Stefan[www.itsconsulting.fr]"

Post by Stefan[www.itsconsulting.fr]
Just a small remark,
Microsoft does not support BizTalk Server 2004 on SQL Server 2005.
The supported configuration is BizTalk Server 2006 on SQL Server 2000
SP4
Regards,
Stefanhttp://www.itsconsulting.fr/http://www.elbeb.com