SQL Server Always-On Availability Groups PatchingPatching SQL Server 2012patching SQL Server with Availability Group and Secondary ReplicaLogin in Always On Availability GroupsSQL 2014 Always On Availability Groups - Read ReplicaDoes SQL Server 2017 CU1 break clusterless availability groups?
Applications of mathematics in clinical setting
How do rulers get rich from war?
Plausibility and performance of a composite longbow
What is this WWII four-engine plane on skis?
Microservices and Stored Procedures
How far away from you does grass spread?
Should the pagination be reset when changing the order?
Can Brexit be undone in an emergency?
Is this adjustment to the Lucky feat underpowered?
Could the Orion project pusher plate model be used for asteroid deflection?
What if I don't know whether my program will be linked to a GPL library or not?
Cube around 2 points with correct perspective
Why do we need to use transistors when building an OR gate?
Cassiopeia Sleeper Train Japan - Tours?
Unpredictability of Stock Market
Can we have a C++ function with multiple return types? ( C++11 and above)
All numbers in a 5x5 Minesweeper grid
What is the origin of the “clerics can create water” trope?
Can I separate garlic into cloves for storage?
Is it possible that the shadow of The Moon is a single dot during solar eclipse?
Delete empty subfolders, keep parent folder
Name of example of irrationality of proportional and absolute cost
What is Cousin Itt in The Addams Family?
Why do things cool off?
SQL Server Always-On Availability Groups Patching
Patching SQL Server 2012patching SQL Server with Availability Group and Secondary ReplicaLogin in Always On Availability GroupsSQL 2014 Always On Availability Groups - Read ReplicaDoes SQL Server 2017 CU1 break clusterless availability groups?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
My SQL server farm has been neglected with patching OS level & SQL server level (because they are critical systems, outages are hard to come by).
An option is to patch the secondary nodes of our AOAG clusters up to the latest patch one month, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary). This will mean the nodes wont be on the same patch level for a month.. is this “a no no”?
sql-server availability-groups patching
add a comment
|
My SQL server farm has been neglected with patching OS level & SQL server level (because they are critical systems, outages are hard to come by).
An option is to patch the secondary nodes of our AOAG clusters up to the latest patch one month, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary). This will mean the nodes wont be on the same patch level for a month.. is this “a no no”?
sql-server availability-groups patching
3
What is the reasoning for patching in different months? If you plan a date for a failover, why not patch the secondaries just before the scheduled failover? This would significantly reduce the amount of time that you are running different versions of SQL Server.
– Taryn♦
8 hours ago
how long do your failovers take? are you seeing connection issues when you fail over? you shouldn't be seeing much of a down time when failing over. we patch on a monthly cycle and we're basically a 24/7 shop.
– DForck42
26 mins ago
also, how many ag's and how many nodes? are they all sync? mix of sync and async?
– DForck42
25 mins ago
add a comment
|
My SQL server farm has been neglected with patching OS level & SQL server level (because they are critical systems, outages are hard to come by).
An option is to patch the secondary nodes of our AOAG clusters up to the latest patch one month, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary). This will mean the nodes wont be on the same patch level for a month.. is this “a no no”?
sql-server availability-groups patching
My SQL server farm has been neglected with patching OS level & SQL server level (because they are critical systems, outages are hard to come by).
An option is to patch the secondary nodes of our AOAG clusters up to the latest patch one month, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary). This will mean the nodes wont be on the same patch level for a month.. is this “a no no”?
sql-server availability-groups patching
sql-server availability-groups patching
edited 6 hours ago
Ross
538 bronze badges
538 bronze badges
asked 9 hours ago
Daniel NashDaniel Nash
786 bronze badges
786 bronze badges
3
What is the reasoning for patching in different months? If you plan a date for a failover, why not patch the secondaries just before the scheduled failover? This would significantly reduce the amount of time that you are running different versions of SQL Server.
– Taryn♦
8 hours ago
how long do your failovers take? are you seeing connection issues when you fail over? you shouldn't be seeing much of a down time when failing over. we patch on a monthly cycle and we're basically a 24/7 shop.
– DForck42
26 mins ago
also, how many ag's and how many nodes? are they all sync? mix of sync and async?
– DForck42
25 mins ago
add a comment
|
3
What is the reasoning for patching in different months? If you plan a date for a failover, why not patch the secondaries just before the scheduled failover? This would significantly reduce the amount of time that you are running different versions of SQL Server.
– Taryn♦
8 hours ago
how long do your failovers take? are you seeing connection issues when you fail over? you shouldn't be seeing much of a down time when failing over. we patch on a monthly cycle and we're basically a 24/7 shop.
– DForck42
26 mins ago
also, how many ag's and how many nodes? are they all sync? mix of sync and async?
– DForck42
25 mins ago
3
3
What is the reasoning for patching in different months? If you plan a date for a failover, why not patch the secondaries just before the scheduled failover? This would significantly reduce the amount of time that you are running different versions of SQL Server.
– Taryn♦
8 hours ago
What is the reasoning for patching in different months? If you plan a date for a failover, why not patch the secondaries just before the scheduled failover? This would significantly reduce the amount of time that you are running different versions of SQL Server.
– Taryn♦
8 hours ago
how long do your failovers take? are you seeing connection issues when you fail over? you shouldn't be seeing much of a down time when failing over. we patch on a monthly cycle and we're basically a 24/7 shop.
– DForck42
26 mins ago
how long do your failovers take? are you seeing connection issues when you fail over? you shouldn't be seeing much of a down time when failing over. we patch on a monthly cycle and we're basically a 24/7 shop.
– DForck42
26 mins ago
also, how many ag's and how many nodes? are they all sync? mix of sync and async?
– DForck42
25 mins ago
also, how many ag's and how many nodes? are they all sync? mix of sync and async?
– DForck42
25 mins ago
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
This is an unsupported configuration as per the docs
Mixing versions of SQL Server instances in the same AG is not supported outside of a rolling upgrade and should not exist in that state for extended periods of time as the upgrade should take place quickly. The other option for upgrading SQL Server 2016 and later is through the use of a distributed availability group.
What does this mean practically? It might be completely fine - there may be zero compatibility issues and it could go swimmingly. It also might not. Microsoft has not tested the configuration you are running if you choose to mix versions between instances. At that point for me personally, the risks far outweigh the advantages.
It's also worth noting that using the rolling upgrade process as defined in the link I posted reduces downtime to a minimal figure anyway. If that's still not good enough, why not build two new servers and a new AG, and migrate to them, rather than patching? It's a lot more work but you should be able to minimise downtime even further.
add a comment
|
Patch your secondary server, on the day of your down time, but finish before your down time.
Failover to it as scheduled.
Patch the primary server, as soon as you complete the failover and are stable.
Both servers should be built the same, so it really should not matter which one is primary. But if you care, fail back at a different down time window.
Or better yet, add a listener to your AG, have the application point to the Listener (not all applications can do this), you can patch the servers one after the other every month, and the only down time is the first time the application re-points to the listener.
add a comment
|
An option is to patch the secondary node of AOAG clusters up to the latest patch, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary).
When you plan for patch update you must plan it for all replicas in AG to keep solution really Always On, it's one of core advantage of Availability Groups that server maintenance can be done without downtime.
In your approach your breaking the term of Always-on business continuity, for example, when you update secondary replica, leave primary replica without updating. For some-reason you wanted to fail-over to the secondary, that moment on-wards it may not fail-back over to the original primary again - one of the reason that the databases always upgraded to newer version but never be downgraded, there must be some workaround (scripting out) to downgrade the DB version, in this case when you cannot fail-back over to primary replica it's not Always On, thus, it's recommended to schedule patch update for all replicas together with recommended order..
Although, there is no down-time, the better time to perform patch updated is during less overload on the servers. Before proceeding, you may want to consider (if not configured already) Node and fail-share majority quorum configuration at WSFC as it's recommended when there are even number of nodes in WSFC, so the file-share witness maintain a vote to keep healthy quorum and cluster resources healthy (listeners) especially when secondary node is offline which normal during patch update.
Following query would be helpful to see the synchronization health (it's essential before and after doing patch update), some info cannot be available in the availability group dashboard but you can get it though DMVs (as follows):
select db.name,
db.database_id,
ag.name as GroupName,
state_desc,
recovery_model_desc,
log_reuse_wait_desc,
AGDB.truncation_lsn,
Rep.replica_server_name,
rep.endpoint_url,
DBRepStats.is_primary_replica,
DBRepStats.synchronization_health_desc,
DBRepStats.database_state_desc,
(redo_queue_size / 1024.0) as redo_queue_size_MB,
last_redone_time,
last_redone_lsn,
DBRepStats.end_of_log_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_time,
DBRepStats.last_received_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_received_time,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_time
from sys.databases as db
left outer join sys.availability_databases_cluster as AGDB on db.group_database_id = AGDB.group_database_id
left outer join sys.dm_hadr_database_replica_states as DBRepStats on db.group_database_id = DBRepStats.group_database_id
left outer join sys.availability_replicas as Rep on DBRepStats.group_id = Rep.group_id and DBRepStats.replica_id = Rep.replica_id
left outer join sys.availability_groups as AG on DBRepStats.group_id = AG.group_id
where db.database_id > 4
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f248866%2fsql-server-always-on-availability-groups-patching%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is an unsupported configuration as per the docs
Mixing versions of SQL Server instances in the same AG is not supported outside of a rolling upgrade and should not exist in that state for extended periods of time as the upgrade should take place quickly. The other option for upgrading SQL Server 2016 and later is through the use of a distributed availability group.
What does this mean practically? It might be completely fine - there may be zero compatibility issues and it could go swimmingly. It also might not. Microsoft has not tested the configuration you are running if you choose to mix versions between instances. At that point for me personally, the risks far outweigh the advantages.
It's also worth noting that using the rolling upgrade process as defined in the link I posted reduces downtime to a minimal figure anyway. If that's still not good enough, why not build two new servers and a new AG, and migrate to them, rather than patching? It's a lot more work but you should be able to minimise downtime even further.
add a comment
|
This is an unsupported configuration as per the docs
Mixing versions of SQL Server instances in the same AG is not supported outside of a rolling upgrade and should not exist in that state for extended periods of time as the upgrade should take place quickly. The other option for upgrading SQL Server 2016 and later is through the use of a distributed availability group.
What does this mean practically? It might be completely fine - there may be zero compatibility issues and it could go swimmingly. It also might not. Microsoft has not tested the configuration you are running if you choose to mix versions between instances. At that point for me personally, the risks far outweigh the advantages.
It's also worth noting that using the rolling upgrade process as defined in the link I posted reduces downtime to a minimal figure anyway. If that's still not good enough, why not build two new servers and a new AG, and migrate to them, rather than patching? It's a lot more work but you should be able to minimise downtime even further.
add a comment
|
This is an unsupported configuration as per the docs
Mixing versions of SQL Server instances in the same AG is not supported outside of a rolling upgrade and should not exist in that state for extended periods of time as the upgrade should take place quickly. The other option for upgrading SQL Server 2016 and later is through the use of a distributed availability group.
What does this mean practically? It might be completely fine - there may be zero compatibility issues and it could go swimmingly. It also might not. Microsoft has not tested the configuration you are running if you choose to mix versions between instances. At that point for me personally, the risks far outweigh the advantages.
It's also worth noting that using the rolling upgrade process as defined in the link I posted reduces downtime to a minimal figure anyway. If that's still not good enough, why not build two new servers and a new AG, and migrate to them, rather than patching? It's a lot more work but you should be able to minimise downtime even further.
This is an unsupported configuration as per the docs
Mixing versions of SQL Server instances in the same AG is not supported outside of a rolling upgrade and should not exist in that state for extended periods of time as the upgrade should take place quickly. The other option for upgrading SQL Server 2016 and later is through the use of a distributed availability group.
What does this mean practically? It might be completely fine - there may be zero compatibility issues and it could go swimmingly. It also might not. Microsoft has not tested the configuration you are running if you choose to mix versions between instances. At that point for me personally, the risks far outweigh the advantages.
It's also worth noting that using the rolling upgrade process as defined in the link I posted reduces downtime to a minimal figure anyway. If that's still not good enough, why not build two new servers and a new AG, and migrate to them, rather than patching? It's a lot more work but you should be able to minimise downtime even further.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
George.PalaciosGeorge.Palacios
4,40611 silver badges33 bronze badges
4,40611 silver badges33 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Patch your secondary server, on the day of your down time, but finish before your down time.
Failover to it as scheduled.
Patch the primary server, as soon as you complete the failover and are stable.
Both servers should be built the same, so it really should not matter which one is primary. But if you care, fail back at a different down time window.
Or better yet, add a listener to your AG, have the application point to the Listener (not all applications can do this), you can patch the servers one after the other every month, and the only down time is the first time the application re-points to the listener.
add a comment
|
Patch your secondary server, on the day of your down time, but finish before your down time.
Failover to it as scheduled.
Patch the primary server, as soon as you complete the failover and are stable.
Both servers should be built the same, so it really should not matter which one is primary. But if you care, fail back at a different down time window.
Or better yet, add a listener to your AG, have the application point to the Listener (not all applications can do this), you can patch the servers one after the other every month, and the only down time is the first time the application re-points to the listener.
add a comment
|
Patch your secondary server, on the day of your down time, but finish before your down time.
Failover to it as scheduled.
Patch the primary server, as soon as you complete the failover and are stable.
Both servers should be built the same, so it really should not matter which one is primary. But if you care, fail back at a different down time window.
Or better yet, add a listener to your AG, have the application point to the Listener (not all applications can do this), you can patch the servers one after the other every month, and the only down time is the first time the application re-points to the listener.
Patch your secondary server, on the day of your down time, but finish before your down time.
Failover to it as scheduled.
Patch the primary server, as soon as you complete the failover and are stable.
Both servers should be built the same, so it really should not matter which one is primary. But if you care, fail back at a different down time window.
Or better yet, add a listener to your AG, have the application point to the Listener (not all applications can do this), you can patch the servers one after the other every month, and the only down time is the first time the application re-points to the listener.
answered 2 hours ago
James JenkinsJames Jenkins
2,7782 gold badges25 silver badges52 bronze badges
2,7782 gold badges25 silver badges52 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
An option is to patch the secondary node of AOAG clusters up to the latest patch, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary).
When you plan for patch update you must plan it for all replicas in AG to keep solution really Always On, it's one of core advantage of Availability Groups that server maintenance can be done without downtime.
In your approach your breaking the term of Always-on business continuity, for example, when you update secondary replica, leave primary replica without updating. For some-reason you wanted to fail-over to the secondary, that moment on-wards it may not fail-back over to the original primary again - one of the reason that the databases always upgraded to newer version but never be downgraded, there must be some workaround (scripting out) to downgrade the DB version, in this case when you cannot fail-back over to primary replica it's not Always On, thus, it's recommended to schedule patch update for all replicas together with recommended order..
Although, there is no down-time, the better time to perform patch updated is during less overload on the servers. Before proceeding, you may want to consider (if not configured already) Node and fail-share majority quorum configuration at WSFC as it's recommended when there are even number of nodes in WSFC, so the file-share witness maintain a vote to keep healthy quorum and cluster resources healthy (listeners) especially when secondary node is offline which normal during patch update.
Following query would be helpful to see the synchronization health (it's essential before and after doing patch update), some info cannot be available in the availability group dashboard but you can get it though DMVs (as follows):
select db.name,
db.database_id,
ag.name as GroupName,
state_desc,
recovery_model_desc,
log_reuse_wait_desc,
AGDB.truncation_lsn,
Rep.replica_server_name,
rep.endpoint_url,
DBRepStats.is_primary_replica,
DBRepStats.synchronization_health_desc,
DBRepStats.database_state_desc,
(redo_queue_size / 1024.0) as redo_queue_size_MB,
last_redone_time,
last_redone_lsn,
DBRepStats.end_of_log_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_time,
DBRepStats.last_received_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_received_time,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_time
from sys.databases as db
left outer join sys.availability_databases_cluster as AGDB on db.group_database_id = AGDB.group_database_id
left outer join sys.dm_hadr_database_replica_states as DBRepStats on db.group_database_id = DBRepStats.group_database_id
left outer join sys.availability_replicas as Rep on DBRepStats.group_id = Rep.group_id and DBRepStats.replica_id = Rep.replica_id
left outer join sys.availability_groups as AG on DBRepStats.group_id = AG.group_id
where db.database_id > 4
add a comment
|
An option is to patch the secondary node of AOAG clusters up to the latest patch, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary).
When you plan for patch update you must plan it for all replicas in AG to keep solution really Always On, it's one of core advantage of Availability Groups that server maintenance can be done without downtime.
In your approach your breaking the term of Always-on business continuity, for example, when you update secondary replica, leave primary replica without updating. For some-reason you wanted to fail-over to the secondary, that moment on-wards it may not fail-back over to the original primary again - one of the reason that the databases always upgraded to newer version but never be downgraded, there must be some workaround (scripting out) to downgrade the DB version, in this case when you cannot fail-back over to primary replica it's not Always On, thus, it's recommended to schedule patch update for all replicas together with recommended order..
Although, there is no down-time, the better time to perform patch updated is during less overload on the servers. Before proceeding, you may want to consider (if not configured already) Node and fail-share majority quorum configuration at WSFC as it's recommended when there are even number of nodes in WSFC, so the file-share witness maintain a vote to keep healthy quorum and cluster resources healthy (listeners) especially when secondary node is offline which normal during patch update.
Following query would be helpful to see the synchronization health (it's essential before and after doing patch update), some info cannot be available in the availability group dashboard but you can get it though DMVs (as follows):
select db.name,
db.database_id,
ag.name as GroupName,
state_desc,
recovery_model_desc,
log_reuse_wait_desc,
AGDB.truncation_lsn,
Rep.replica_server_name,
rep.endpoint_url,
DBRepStats.is_primary_replica,
DBRepStats.synchronization_health_desc,
DBRepStats.database_state_desc,
(redo_queue_size / 1024.0) as redo_queue_size_MB,
last_redone_time,
last_redone_lsn,
DBRepStats.end_of_log_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_time,
DBRepStats.last_received_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_received_time,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_time
from sys.databases as db
left outer join sys.availability_databases_cluster as AGDB on db.group_database_id = AGDB.group_database_id
left outer join sys.dm_hadr_database_replica_states as DBRepStats on db.group_database_id = DBRepStats.group_database_id
left outer join sys.availability_replicas as Rep on DBRepStats.group_id = Rep.group_id and DBRepStats.replica_id = Rep.replica_id
left outer join sys.availability_groups as AG on DBRepStats.group_id = AG.group_id
where db.database_id > 4
add a comment
|
An option is to patch the secondary node of AOAG clusters up to the latest patch, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary).
When you plan for patch update you must plan it for all replicas in AG to keep solution really Always On, it's one of core advantage of Availability Groups that server maintenance can be done without downtime.
In your approach your breaking the term of Always-on business continuity, for example, when you update secondary replica, leave primary replica without updating. For some-reason you wanted to fail-over to the secondary, that moment on-wards it may not fail-back over to the original primary again - one of the reason that the databases always upgraded to newer version but never be downgraded, there must be some workaround (scripting out) to downgrade the DB version, in this case when you cannot fail-back over to primary replica it's not Always On, thus, it's recommended to schedule patch update for all replicas together with recommended order..
Although, there is no down-time, the better time to perform patch updated is during less overload on the servers. Before proceeding, you may want to consider (if not configured already) Node and fail-share majority quorum configuration at WSFC as it's recommended when there are even number of nodes in WSFC, so the file-share witness maintain a vote to keep healthy quorum and cluster resources healthy (listeners) especially when secondary node is offline which normal during patch update.
Following query would be helpful to see the synchronization health (it's essential before and after doing patch update), some info cannot be available in the availability group dashboard but you can get it though DMVs (as follows):
select db.name,
db.database_id,
ag.name as GroupName,
state_desc,
recovery_model_desc,
log_reuse_wait_desc,
AGDB.truncation_lsn,
Rep.replica_server_name,
rep.endpoint_url,
DBRepStats.is_primary_replica,
DBRepStats.synchronization_health_desc,
DBRepStats.database_state_desc,
(redo_queue_size / 1024.0) as redo_queue_size_MB,
last_redone_time,
last_redone_lsn,
DBRepStats.end_of_log_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_time,
DBRepStats.last_received_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_received_time,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_time
from sys.databases as db
left outer join sys.availability_databases_cluster as AGDB on db.group_database_id = AGDB.group_database_id
left outer join sys.dm_hadr_database_replica_states as DBRepStats on db.group_database_id = DBRepStats.group_database_id
left outer join sys.availability_replicas as Rep on DBRepStats.group_id = Rep.group_id and DBRepStats.replica_id = Rep.replica_id
left outer join sys.availability_groups as AG on DBRepStats.group_id = AG.group_id
where db.database_id > 4
An option is to patch the secondary node of AOAG clusters up to the latest patch, then the next month the business agree to schedule a fail over out of hours.. I can then patch the new secondary (old primary).
When you plan for patch update you must plan it for all replicas in AG to keep solution really Always On, it's one of core advantage of Availability Groups that server maintenance can be done without downtime.
In your approach your breaking the term of Always-on business continuity, for example, when you update secondary replica, leave primary replica without updating. For some-reason you wanted to fail-over to the secondary, that moment on-wards it may not fail-back over to the original primary again - one of the reason that the databases always upgraded to newer version but never be downgraded, there must be some workaround (scripting out) to downgrade the DB version, in this case when you cannot fail-back over to primary replica it's not Always On, thus, it's recommended to schedule patch update for all replicas together with recommended order..
Although, there is no down-time, the better time to perform patch updated is during less overload on the servers. Before proceeding, you may want to consider (if not configured already) Node and fail-share majority quorum configuration at WSFC as it's recommended when there are even number of nodes in WSFC, so the file-share witness maintain a vote to keep healthy quorum and cluster resources healthy (listeners) especially when secondary node is offline which normal during patch update.
Following query would be helpful to see the synchronization health (it's essential before and after doing patch update), some info cannot be available in the availability group dashboard but you can get it though DMVs (as follows):
select db.name,
db.database_id,
ag.name as GroupName,
state_desc,
recovery_model_desc,
log_reuse_wait_desc,
AGDB.truncation_lsn,
Rep.replica_server_name,
rep.endpoint_url,
DBRepStats.is_primary_replica,
DBRepStats.synchronization_health_desc,
DBRepStats.database_state_desc,
(redo_queue_size / 1024.0) as redo_queue_size_MB,
last_redone_time,
last_redone_lsn,
DBRepStats.end_of_log_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_sent_time,
DBRepStats.last_received_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_received_time,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_lsn,
DBRepStats.last_hardened_time
from sys.databases as db
left outer join sys.availability_databases_cluster as AGDB on db.group_database_id = AGDB.group_database_id
left outer join sys.dm_hadr_database_replica_states as DBRepStats on db.group_database_id = DBRepStats.group_database_id
left outer join sys.availability_replicas as Rep on DBRepStats.group_id = Rep.group_id and DBRepStats.replica_id = Rep.replica_id
left outer join sys.availability_groups as AG on DBRepStats.group_id = AG.group_id
where db.database_id > 4
answered 7 hours ago
Shekar KolaShekar Kola
7021 silver badge13 bronze badges
7021 silver badge13 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f248866%2fsql-server-always-on-availability-groups-patching%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
What is the reasoning for patching in different months? If you plan a date for a failover, why not patch the secondaries just before the scheduled failover? This would significantly reduce the amount of time that you are running different versions of SQL Server.
– Taryn♦
8 hours ago
how long do your failovers take? are you seeing connection issues when you fail over? you shouldn't be seeing much of a down time when failing over. we patch on a monthly cycle and we're basically a 24/7 shop.
– DForck42
26 mins ago
also, how many ag's and how many nodes? are they all sync? mix of sync and async?
– DForck42
25 mins ago