http://blogs.technet.com/mat_stephen/archive/2005/08/23/ReplicationUpgrade.aspxJonathan Allen wrote to me asking what order one should upgrade servers in a replication topology - pointing out that this doesn't seem obviouis from Books On Line, which I agree. The answer is essentially the same as for any previous upgrade: Distributoren-GBCommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)http://blogs.technet.com/mat_stephen/archive/2005/08/23/ReplicationUpgrade.aspx#409681Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:55:13 GMTd5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:409681KevinRemdeI just posted about this today as well. (<a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://blogs.technet.com/kevinremde/archive/2005/08/23/SQLTidbit004.aspx">http://blogs.technet.com/kevinremde/archive/2005/08/23/SQLTidbit004.aspx</a>) <br> <br>My understanding, though is that as long as you have done the distributor, it really doesn't matter which ones you do next. Publishers and Subscribers can be either 2000 or 2005. http://blogs.technet.com/mat_stephen/archive/2005/08/23/ReplicationUpgrade.aspx#409719Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:26:52 GMTd5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:409719Mat_StephenHi Kevin <br> <br>I'm sure you're correct - I was taking a 'safe' steer from SQL 2000 BOL (mk:@MSITStore:C:\Program%20Files\Microsoft%20SQL%20Server\80\Tools\Books\instsql.chm::/in_upgrade_45ir.htm)which does give this order but does make exception - and a colleague with a priori knowledge