Instance Stacking vs. VM Stacking

  • I'm in a situation where we have the option to put multiple SQL instances on a single VM, or spread them out (1 per VM) and put multiple VMs on a single host. Either way would save us in SQL licensing costs. The multiple VM approach would be costlier for Windows licensing, but would make it easier to migrate SQL instances to different hosts.

    Can anyone think of any good/bad reasons to do one versus the other?

    Thanks!

  • Check this link out from Brent Ozar, they just did a write up of exactly what you are asking - https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2016/12/install-multiple-instances-sql-server/

  • I have setup one Instance per VM. It helps us better resource management and ease in Troubleshooting Virtual Machine Crashes.

    ThanksSaurabh.D

  • Thanks guys! I think the dedicated instance per VM makes more sense from a DBA perspective. It's worth the cost of the extra Windows licensing for our purposes...

  • Would you not be licensing cores, rather than VM's?

    I'm a DBA.
    I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.

  • For SQL Server, yes. For Windows, the team responsible told me that each VM needed its own license. I am going off of what they are telling me...

  • Clint-525719 (12/12/2016)


    For SQL Server, yes. For Windows, the team responsible told me that each VM needed its own license. I am going off of what they are telling me...

    Windows may be licenced the same as sql server allowing multiple instances of the OS to be virtualised

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply