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.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]