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

Multiple Instances vs. Multiple DBs on one instance Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:33 AM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 11:06 AM
Points: 557, Visits: 1,648
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 server level settings, then I would think that one instance would offer the most efficient use of storage and memory.

Am I right?
Post #1382081
Posted Wednesday, November 7, 2012 10:54 AM


SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 16, 2013 8:28 AM
Points: 249, Visits: 460
dan-572483 (11/7/2012)
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?


1 instance uber alles. It jsut doesnt make sense to do it any other way, if you dont have to support server versioning.
Post #1382090
Posted Wednesday, November 7, 2012 11:52 PM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:16 AM
Points: 40,602, Visits: 37,056
It depends. There are good reasons for each alternative and not enough information to say which is better.


Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1382279
Posted Thursday, November 8, 2012 9:31 AM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 11:06 AM
Points: 557, Visits: 1,648
In 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?
Post #1382580
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse