Mixing SQL Server 2016 and 2017 in a distributed availability group

Multi tool use
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I have an old Availability Group made up of 2 SQLServer 2016 instances (2 Windows 2016 servers in WSFC)
I also have 2 new SQLServer 2017 instances (2 Windows Server 2016) that I originally wanted to join to the 2016 AG.
This is a 0 downtime migration scenario and the 2016 servers should be dismissed once the DBs were aligned on the 2017 ones.
To my great disappointment, I discovered that it is not possible to join the 2017 instances to an existing 2016 AG, but I cannot afford the burden of stopping production, taking and restoring a backup, waiting for DBs synchronization, changing the name (and possibly the ip) of the new AG to match the original one
unless as the very last resource...
Then I came across the new 2016 service called "Distributed AG Group" and I started thinking about using it for my migration scenario ... basically like this:
- Create a new AG with the SQL 2017 instances
- Create a Distributed AG between the original 2016 AG and the new 2017 AG (applications continue to connect to the 2016's listener)
- Wait for the DBs synchronization to take place in the 2017 AG
- Make the 2017 AG as the primary
- Remove the 2016 AG from the Distributed AG (short applications downtime)
- Change the name and the ip of the 2017's listener (applications are up again)
- Remove the distributed AG
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
sql-server sql-server-2016 availability-groups sql-server-2017 distributed-availability-groups
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I have an old Availability Group made up of 2 SQLServer 2016 instances (2 Windows 2016 servers in WSFC)
I also have 2 new SQLServer 2017 instances (2 Windows Server 2016) that I originally wanted to join to the 2016 AG.
This is a 0 downtime migration scenario and the 2016 servers should be dismissed once the DBs were aligned on the 2017 ones.
To my great disappointment, I discovered that it is not possible to join the 2017 instances to an existing 2016 AG, but I cannot afford the burden of stopping production, taking and restoring a backup, waiting for DBs synchronization, changing the name (and possibly the ip) of the new AG to match the original one
unless as the very last resource...
Then I came across the new 2016 service called "Distributed AG Group" and I started thinking about using it for my migration scenario ... basically like this:
- Create a new AG with the SQL 2017 instances
- Create a Distributed AG between the original 2016 AG and the new 2017 AG (applications continue to connect to the 2016's listener)
- Wait for the DBs synchronization to take place in the 2017 AG
- Make the 2017 AG as the primary
- Remove the 2016 AG from the Distributed AG (short applications downtime)
- Change the name and the ip of the 2017's listener (applications are up again)
- Remove the distributed AG
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
sql-server sql-server-2016 availability-groups sql-server-2017 distributed-availability-groups
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I have an old Availability Group made up of 2 SQLServer 2016 instances (2 Windows 2016 servers in WSFC)
I also have 2 new SQLServer 2017 instances (2 Windows Server 2016) that I originally wanted to join to the 2016 AG.
This is a 0 downtime migration scenario and the 2016 servers should be dismissed once the DBs were aligned on the 2017 ones.
To my great disappointment, I discovered that it is not possible to join the 2017 instances to an existing 2016 AG, but I cannot afford the burden of stopping production, taking and restoring a backup, waiting for DBs synchronization, changing the name (and possibly the ip) of the new AG to match the original one
unless as the very last resource...
Then I came across the new 2016 service called "Distributed AG Group" and I started thinking about using it for my migration scenario ... basically like this:
- Create a new AG with the SQL 2017 instances
- Create a Distributed AG between the original 2016 AG and the new 2017 AG (applications continue to connect to the 2016's listener)
- Wait for the DBs synchronization to take place in the 2017 AG
- Make the 2017 AG as the primary
- Remove the 2016 AG from the Distributed AG (short applications downtime)
- Change the name and the ip of the 2017's listener (applications are up again)
- Remove the distributed AG
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
sql-server sql-server-2016 availability-groups sql-server-2017 distributed-availability-groups
I have an old Availability Group made up of 2 SQLServer 2016 instances (2 Windows 2016 servers in WSFC)
I also have 2 new SQLServer 2017 instances (2 Windows Server 2016) that I originally wanted to join to the 2016 AG.
This is a 0 downtime migration scenario and the 2016 servers should be dismissed once the DBs were aligned on the 2017 ones.
To my great disappointment, I discovered that it is not possible to join the 2017 instances to an existing 2016 AG, but I cannot afford the burden of stopping production, taking and restoring a backup, waiting for DBs synchronization, changing the name (and possibly the ip) of the new AG to match the original one
unless as the very last resource...
Then I came across the new 2016 service called "Distributed AG Group" and I started thinking about using it for my migration scenario ... basically like this:
- Create a new AG with the SQL 2017 instances
- Create a Distributed AG between the original 2016 AG and the new 2017 AG (applications continue to connect to the 2016's listener)
- Wait for the DBs synchronization to take place in the 2017 AG
- Make the 2017 AG as the primary
- Remove the 2016 AG from the Distributed AG (short applications downtime)
- Change the name and the ip of the 2017's listener (applications are up again)
- Remove the distributed AG
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
sql-server sql-server-2016 availability-groups sql-server-2017 distributed-availability-groups
sql-server sql-server-2016 availability-groups sql-server-2017 distributed-availability-groups
edited Sep 11 at 8:55
asked Sep 10 at 9:07
Blablas
183
183
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
I have confirmed from Allan Hirt SQL Server MVP and HA/DR Guru that this is indeed possible and supported. So please go ahead, the confusion may arise because in BOL two different things are mentioned. I will highlight both
Quoting from Distributed Availability groups document
A distributed availability group spans multiple availability groups,
each on its own underlying WSFC cluster, and a distributed
availability group is a SQL Server-only construct. This means the WSFC
clusters that house the individual availability groups can have
different major versions of Windows Server. The major versions of
SQL Server must be the same
So while you can have different Windows server version in DAG but you cannot have different SQL Server version in DAG. From here it seems like the versions should be same but if you again look at Upgrading Availability group instances it says
To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later.
Now you should believe this one not the the previous one.
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
Apart from distributed AG, I would consider 2 approaches here
- Side By side upgrade
I believe transaction logshipping should help here.
Create new WSFC with SQL Server 2017 installed--No downtime
Do not create AG as of now
Logship database from SQL Server 2016 to SQL Server 2017. --No downtime
During "cutover" stop logshipping and bring database on SQL Server 2017 online.--small downtime
Now point application to this new database.
Go ahead and configure AG on new SQL Server 2017.
I know there is bit of pain involved in configuring logshipping if you have big databases but this is best I see.
- In-place upgrade
Do the rolling upgrade of Availability groups. Upgrading Availability group instances
1
This made me think it'd be possible: Upgrading Always On Availability Group Replica Instances "...To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later." Anyway, your side by side approach sounds quite good to me. Thanks!
– Blablas
Sep 10 at 10:20
This, I believe is confusing 2 official documents stating 2 different thing, or are we understanding it incorrectly ? I have asked for clarification, will revert when I get one.Meanwhile if you have resources you can test
– Shanky
Sep 10 at 12:26
@EmilianoGiovannetti Sorry for incorrect response, I confirmed and indeed the scenario you are asking is possible. I will update my answer. This all confusion arose because of different things mentioned in BOL.
– Shanky
Sep 11 at 4:03
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
I have confirmed from Allan Hirt SQL Server MVP and HA/DR Guru that this is indeed possible and supported. So please go ahead, the confusion may arise because in BOL two different things are mentioned. I will highlight both
Quoting from Distributed Availability groups document
A distributed availability group spans multiple availability groups,
each on its own underlying WSFC cluster, and a distributed
availability group is a SQL Server-only construct. This means the WSFC
clusters that house the individual availability groups can have
different major versions of Windows Server. The major versions of
SQL Server must be the same
So while you can have different Windows server version in DAG but you cannot have different SQL Server version in DAG. From here it seems like the versions should be same but if you again look at Upgrading Availability group instances it says
To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later.
Now you should believe this one not the the previous one.
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
Apart from distributed AG, I would consider 2 approaches here
- Side By side upgrade
I believe transaction logshipping should help here.
Create new WSFC with SQL Server 2017 installed--No downtime
Do not create AG as of now
Logship database from SQL Server 2016 to SQL Server 2017. --No downtime
During "cutover" stop logshipping and bring database on SQL Server 2017 online.--small downtime
Now point application to this new database.
Go ahead and configure AG on new SQL Server 2017.
I know there is bit of pain involved in configuring logshipping if you have big databases but this is best I see.
- In-place upgrade
Do the rolling upgrade of Availability groups. Upgrading Availability group instances
1
This made me think it'd be possible: Upgrading Always On Availability Group Replica Instances "...To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later." Anyway, your side by side approach sounds quite good to me. Thanks!
– Blablas
Sep 10 at 10:20
This, I believe is confusing 2 official documents stating 2 different thing, or are we understanding it incorrectly ? I have asked for clarification, will revert when I get one.Meanwhile if you have resources you can test
– Shanky
Sep 10 at 12:26
@EmilianoGiovannetti Sorry for incorrect response, I confirmed and indeed the scenario you are asking is possible. I will update my answer. This all confusion arose because of different things mentioned in BOL.
– Shanky
Sep 11 at 4:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
I have confirmed from Allan Hirt SQL Server MVP and HA/DR Guru that this is indeed possible and supported. So please go ahead, the confusion may arise because in BOL two different things are mentioned. I will highlight both
Quoting from Distributed Availability groups document
A distributed availability group spans multiple availability groups,
each on its own underlying WSFC cluster, and a distributed
availability group is a SQL Server-only construct. This means the WSFC
clusters that house the individual availability groups can have
different major versions of Windows Server. The major versions of
SQL Server must be the same
So while you can have different Windows server version in DAG but you cannot have different SQL Server version in DAG. From here it seems like the versions should be same but if you again look at Upgrading Availability group instances it says
To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later.
Now you should believe this one not the the previous one.
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
Apart from distributed AG, I would consider 2 approaches here
- Side By side upgrade
I believe transaction logshipping should help here.
Create new WSFC with SQL Server 2017 installed--No downtime
Do not create AG as of now
Logship database from SQL Server 2016 to SQL Server 2017. --No downtime
During "cutover" stop logshipping and bring database on SQL Server 2017 online.--small downtime
Now point application to this new database.
Go ahead and configure AG on new SQL Server 2017.
I know there is bit of pain involved in configuring logshipping if you have big databases but this is best I see.
- In-place upgrade
Do the rolling upgrade of Availability groups. Upgrading Availability group instances
1
This made me think it'd be possible: Upgrading Always On Availability Group Replica Instances "...To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later." Anyway, your side by side approach sounds quite good to me. Thanks!
– Blablas
Sep 10 at 10:20
This, I believe is confusing 2 official documents stating 2 different thing, or are we understanding it incorrectly ? I have asked for clarification, will revert when I get one.Meanwhile if you have resources you can test
– Shanky
Sep 10 at 12:26
@EmilianoGiovannetti Sorry for incorrect response, I confirmed and indeed the scenario you are asking is possible. I will update my answer. This all confusion arose because of different things mentioned in BOL.
– Shanky
Sep 11 at 4:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
I have confirmed from Allan Hirt SQL Server MVP and HA/DR Guru that this is indeed possible and supported. So please go ahead, the confusion may arise because in BOL two different things are mentioned. I will highlight both
Quoting from Distributed Availability groups document
A distributed availability group spans multiple availability groups,
each on its own underlying WSFC cluster, and a distributed
availability group is a SQL Server-only construct. This means the WSFC
clusters that house the individual availability groups can have
different major versions of Windows Server. The major versions of
SQL Server must be the same
So while you can have different Windows server version in DAG but you cannot have different SQL Server version in DAG. From here it seems like the versions should be same but if you again look at Upgrading Availability group instances it says
To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later.
Now you should believe this one not the the previous one.
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
Apart from distributed AG, I would consider 2 approaches here
- Side By side upgrade
I believe transaction logshipping should help here.
Create new WSFC with SQL Server 2017 installed--No downtime
Do not create AG as of now
Logship database from SQL Server 2016 to SQL Server 2017. --No downtime
During "cutover" stop logshipping and bring database on SQL Server 2017 online.--small downtime
Now point application to this new database.
Go ahead and configure AG on new SQL Server 2017.
I know there is bit of pain involved in configuring logshipping if you have big databases but this is best I see.
- In-place upgrade
Do the rolling upgrade of Availability groups. Upgrading Availability group instances
It is feasible? Can I mix 2016 and 2017 AGs in a Distributed AG?
I have confirmed from Allan Hirt SQL Server MVP and HA/DR Guru that this is indeed possible and supported. So please go ahead, the confusion may arise because in BOL two different things are mentioned. I will highlight both
Quoting from Distributed Availability groups document
A distributed availability group spans multiple availability groups,
each on its own underlying WSFC cluster, and a distributed
availability group is a SQL Server-only construct. This means the WSFC
clusters that house the individual availability groups can have
different major versions of Windows Server. The major versions of
SQL Server must be the same
So while you can have different Windows server version in DAG but you cannot have different SQL Server version in DAG. From here it seems like the versions should be same but if you again look at Upgrading Availability group instances it says
To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later.
Now you should believe this one not the the previous one.
Or there is (obviously!) something that I'm missing and there's a simpler or more proper way to make it?
Apart from distributed AG, I would consider 2 approaches here
- Side By side upgrade
I believe transaction logshipping should help here.
Create new WSFC with SQL Server 2017 installed--No downtime
Do not create AG as of now
Logship database from SQL Server 2016 to SQL Server 2017. --No downtime
During "cutover" stop logshipping and bring database on SQL Server 2017 online.--small downtime
Now point application to this new database.
Go ahead and configure AG on new SQL Server 2017.
I know there is bit of pain involved in configuring logshipping if you have big databases but this is best I see.
- In-place upgrade
Do the rolling upgrade of Availability groups. Upgrading Availability group instances
edited Sep 11 at 4:09
answered Sep 10 at 9:53


Shanky
13.2k31939
13.2k31939
1
This made me think it'd be possible: Upgrading Always On Availability Group Replica Instances "...To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later." Anyway, your side by side approach sounds quite good to me. Thanks!
– Blablas
Sep 10 at 10:20
This, I believe is confusing 2 official documents stating 2 different thing, or are we understanding it incorrectly ? I have asked for clarification, will revert when I get one.Meanwhile if you have resources you can test
– Shanky
Sep 10 at 12:26
@EmilianoGiovannetti Sorry for incorrect response, I confirmed and indeed the scenario you are asking is possible. I will update my answer. This all confusion arose because of different things mentioned in BOL.
– Shanky
Sep 11 at 4:03
add a comment |Â
1
This made me think it'd be possible: Upgrading Always On Availability Group Replica Instances "...To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later." Anyway, your side by side approach sounds quite good to me. Thanks!
– Blablas
Sep 10 at 10:20
This, I believe is confusing 2 official documents stating 2 different thing, or are we understanding it incorrectly ? I have asked for clarification, will revert when I get one.Meanwhile if you have resources you can test
– Shanky
Sep 10 at 12:26
@EmilianoGiovannetti Sorry for incorrect response, I confirmed and indeed the scenario you are asking is possible. I will update my answer. This all confusion arose because of different things mentioned in BOL.
– Shanky
Sep 11 at 4:03
1
1
This made me think it'd be possible: Upgrading Always On Availability Group Replica Instances "...To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later." Anyway, your side by side approach sounds quite good to me. Thanks!
– Blablas
Sep 10 at 10:20
This made me think it'd be possible: Upgrading Always On Availability Group Replica Instances "...To migrate to a new version of the SQL Server instance using AGs, the only supported method is a distributed AG, which is in SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition or later." Anyway, your side by side approach sounds quite good to me. Thanks!
– Blablas
Sep 10 at 10:20
This, I believe is confusing 2 official documents stating 2 different thing, or are we understanding it incorrectly ? I have asked for clarification, will revert when I get one.Meanwhile if you have resources you can test
– Shanky
Sep 10 at 12:26
This, I believe is confusing 2 official documents stating 2 different thing, or are we understanding it incorrectly ? I have asked for clarification, will revert when I get one.Meanwhile if you have resources you can test
– Shanky
Sep 10 at 12:26
@EmilianoGiovannetti Sorry for incorrect response, I confirmed and indeed the scenario you are asking is possible. I will update my answer. This all confusion arose because of different things mentioned in BOL.
– Shanky
Sep 11 at 4:03
@EmilianoGiovannetti Sorry for incorrect response, I confirmed and indeed the scenario you are asking is possible. I will update my answer. This all confusion arose because of different things mentioned in BOL.
– Shanky
Sep 11 at 4:03
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217148%2fmixing-sql-server-2016-and-2017-in-a-distributed-availability-group%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password