Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12

Rename instance name in SQL Server 2008 R2 Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, May 14, 2012 12:47 PM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:31 AM
Points: 2,737, Visits: 3,551
ndevr (5/14/2012)
whats is the best practice for prod server Named Instance or Default instance? Please suggest (Pros and cons)

Thanks!

Personally, I find no benefit to having a named instance if you only will have 1 instance. If you have more than 1 instance, it is up to you whether or not to have 1 default and other named or just to make them all named. Really, there aren't many general pros and cons.


Thanks,

Jared
SQL Know-It-All

How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help - Jeff Moden
Post #1299805
Posted Monday, May 14, 2012 1:08 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 12, 2015 8:42 AM
Points: 9,294, Visits: 9,496
I always use named instances, because I never know for sure if I may need to add another instance (permanently or temporarily) on the current server.

Since, as already noted, you cannot rename them, I find it easier to just give them all unique names. That way, if I ever need to have two instances temporarily reside on the same server, it's no problem.


-- RBarryYoung, (302)375-0451 blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc.
"Performance is our middle name."
Post #1299822
Posted Monday, May 14, 2012 1:17 PM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:31 AM
Points: 2,737, Visits: 3,551
RBarryYoung (5/14/2012)
I always use named instances, because I never know for sure if I may need to add another instance (permanently or temporarily) on the current server.

Since, as already noted, you cannot rename them, I find it easier to just give them all unique names. That way, if I ever need to have two instances temporarily reside on the same server, it's no problem.
Just curious... What changes with your scenario if you have to add an instance? I, personally, still don't see any issues. If you have to have temporarily reside on the same server, there is still no issue with 1 named and 1 default.


Thanks,

Jared
SQL Know-It-All

How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help - Jeff Moden
Post #1299830
Posted Monday, May 14, 2012 7:27 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 12, 2015 8:42 AM
Points: 9,294, Visits: 9,496
SQLKnowItAll (5/14/2012)
RBarryYoung (5/14/2012)
I always use named instances, because I never know for sure if I may need to add another instance (permanently or temporarily) on the current server.

Since, as already noted, you cannot rename them, I find it easier to just give them all unique names. That way, if I ever need to have two instances temporarily reside on the same server, it's no problem.
Just curious... What changes with your scenario if you have to add an instance? I, personally, still don't see any issues. If you have to have temporarily reside on the same server, there is still no issue with 1 named and 1 default.


If I am moving it from another server, then I don't have to give it a new instance name, it already has one. Since I name the instances (as opposed to the server names, which are under networking's control), then I always know what they are, no matter what server-name they are running on. And if two or more have to co-exist for a while (happens all the time), then I don't have to worry about changing the instance names.


-- RBarryYoung, (302)375-0451 blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc.
"Performance is our middle name."
Post #1299996
Posted Monday, May 14, 2012 8:18 PM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:31 AM
Points: 2,737, Visits: 3,551
RBarryYoung (5/14/2012)
SQLKnowItAll (5/14/2012)
RBarryYoung (5/14/2012)
I always use named instances, because I never know for sure if I may need to add another instance (permanently or temporarily) on the current server.

Since, as already noted, you cannot rename them, I find it easier to just give them all unique names. That way, if I ever need to have two instances temporarily reside on the same server, it's no problem.
Just curious... What changes with your scenario if you have to add an instance? I, personally, still don't see any issues. If you have to have temporarily reside on the same server, there is still no issue with 1 named and 1 default.


If I am moving it from another server, then I don't have to give it a new instance name, it already has one. Since I name the instances (as opposed to the server names, which are under networking's control), then I always know what they are, no matter what server-name they are running on. And if two or more have to co-exist for a while (happens all the time), then I don't have to worry about changing the instance names.
I still don't understand, I guess. If you move a default instance to another machine, you can still make it the default instance. Are you saying, maybe, that in your case you probably already have a default instance on the "new" server and therefore can't move a default instance to that machine easily or have to add a name to it? In that case, I understand. I am not arguing, I am just trying to understand since I know you have more experience than I.


Thanks,

Jared
SQL Know-It-All

How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help - Jeff Moden
Post #1300009
Posted Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:12 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:12 AM
Points: 1, Visits: 1
You are talking about naming conventions, which are best practice in my book. Default names shouldn't be used in production envs for a few reasons:

1. It avoids any clashes (such as moving the default instance to a server already running a default instance)

2. It can describe more fully the instance

3. Instances can be managed

4. Default names for anything are more vulnerable to attack


I also change the default port whenever it's feasible.


The only 2 real reasons I can see for using the default instance are:

1. Dev environments where you just want to connect to a DB

2. You need to allow others to easily discover the instance

I think a default instance name says "hey I'm just a plain old vanilla instance and you're free to mess around with me". If you name it something descriptive, people are a lot less likely to mess because they think the instance has a specific role and has been set up for that role. If you see an instance called ACCOUNTS, you'll think more than twice about changing anything!
Post #1681526
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse