<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://sqlblog.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Search results matching tags 'sql server 2005' and 'patching'</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?o=DateDescending&amp;tag=sql+server+2005,patching&amp;orTags=0</link><description>Search results matching tags 'sql server 2005' and 'patching'</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)</generator><item><title>Installing Service Packs / Cumulative Updates on a SQL 2005 cluster</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand/archive/2009/11/20/installing-service-packs-cumulative-updates-on-a-sql-2005-cluster.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:56:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:19020</guid><dc:creator>AaronBertrand</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;In our environment, we run the task scheduler as a cluster resource, so that scheduled tasks always run on the active node.&amp;nbsp; (In ancient history, we would have scheduled tasks that weren't cluster aware - in the event of a failover, we'd have to manually disable task scheduler on the now passive node, and manually enable it on the active node.)&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, when you run in this mode, the service pack or hotfix can't patch both nodes, because the patching of the passive node is achieved by remotely creating a scheduled task.&amp;nbsp; When it tries to create the task on the passive node(s), the log records this error:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;table bgcolor="#eeeeee" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;pre style="padding:10px 20px;-moz-background-clip:border;-moz-background-origin:padding;font-size:12px;font-family:consolas,lucida console,courier new,courier;-moz-background-inline-policy:continuous;"&gt;Task Scheduler: Error, cannot create new scheduled task for product instance target \\&amp;lt;PSVNodeName&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;Task Scheduler: Error, cannot create scheduled task for product instance target \\&amp;lt;PSVNodeName&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;Task Scheduler: Removed remote folder for product instance target \\&amp;lt;PSVNodeName&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;Error, remote process failed for product instance target&lt;br&gt;Exit code for passive node: &amp;lt;PSVNodeName&amp;gt; = 1603&lt;br&gt;The following exception occurred: No passive nodes were successfully patched&amp;nbsp; &lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp; Date: &amp;lt;date/time&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;&amp;nbsp; File: \depot\sqlvault\stable\setupmainl1\setup\sqlse\sqlsedll\instance.cpp&amp;nbsp; Line: 3510&lt;br&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;The workaround &lt;a title="http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic727172-146-1.aspx" target="_blank" href="http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic727172-146-1.aspx"&gt;Grasshopper posted in this SQLServerCentral thread&lt;/a&gt; might work, but it seems like a lot of hassle to me.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What I did to get around the problem was as follows (and I'll use a 2-node, single instance cluster as the example):&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;establish remote desktop sessions on the individual nodes (not through the cluster)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;in Cluster Administrator on the active node (say, node1), pause the passive node (say, node2)&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;install the hotfix on node1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;un-pause node2&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;failover to node2 (since you can't install a patch from a passive node)&lt;br&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;reboot node1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;from node2, wait for node1 to come back online, and then pause node1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;install the hotfix on node2&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;un-pause node1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;reboot node2, failing back over to node1&amp;nbsp;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;[Yes, this requires two brief outages, so you should do this during a maintenance window.]&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So, is this more or less hassle than Grasshopper's solution?&amp;nbsp; I think the answer is very subjective.&amp;nbsp; His also requires restarting nodes, so the service downtime during failover is unavoidable at least with these two approaches.&amp;nbsp; I am just offering an alternative "solution" so you can pick your own poison.&lt;br&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>