InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comMon, 17 Jun 2013 23:33:54 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1382081-391-1.aspxIn this case all applications will support the same edition/version/patch level. No conflicting instance-level settings are needed and Transparent Data Encryption will not be used. I'm also confident security can be designed to keep vendor support out of other vendors' DBs.What other factors would make multiple instances a better choice?Thu, 08 Nov 2012 09:31:45 GMTdan-572483http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1382081-391-1.aspxIt depends. There are good reasons for each alternative and not enough information to say which is better.Wed, 07 Nov 2012 23:52:25 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1382081-391-1.aspx[quote][b]dan-572483 (11/7/2012)[/b][hr]If you have two beefy 64-bit servers in 2-node cluster, and several applications that need a database server, is it generally better to install multiple instances, or deploy databases for multiple applications on once instances.I would think you would use two instances when different applications require a different version/edition of SQL Server, or different server-level configuration settings, you'd install multiple instances.But if all the applications support the same edition/version of SQL Server and default database level settings, then I would think that one instance would offer the most effient use of storage and memory.Am I right?[/quote]1 instance uber alles. It jsut doesnt make sense to do it any other way, if you dont have to support server versioning.Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:54:26 GMTDiverKashttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1382081-391-1.aspxIf you have two beefy 64-bit servers in 2-node cluster, and several applications that need a database server, is it generally better to install multiple instances, or deploy databases for multiple applications on once instances.I would think you would use two instances when different applications require a different version/edition of SQL Server, or different server-level configuration settings, you'd install multiple instances.But if all the applications support the same edition/version of SQL Server and default server level settings, then I would think that one instance would offer the most efficient use of storage and memory.Am I right?Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:33:05 GMTdan-572483