September 8, 2008 at 9:12 am
My org has a SQL Server farm with four database instances each on it's own virtual machine. I was under the impression that I could add new databases to the existing instances - I thought they would be multi-purpose instances. Now I am told it has to be one database per instance. And these aren't large databases at all. The reasoning is so if they need to bounce a instance, it affects only one application.
Do you agree? I feel it is a complete waste to have a seperate instance for a database that is only 500 MB (and a seperate virtual machine). I feel it is easier to manage multiple databases on one instance than the other way around.
September 8, 2008 at 9:21 am
Basic response, it depends. You really need to look at the requirements of each database/application. It may make sense to have a mission critical database/application on its own instance, separate from others. It may also make sense to combine some applications together on another instance. It also depends on how much the databases interact with each other as well
😎
September 8, 2008 at 9:42 am
You need to look at the maintenance windows for each application.
If one can only be down on Saturday evening from 18:00 to 21:00 and the other can only be down on Sunday morning from 03:00 to 05:00, you would not have a time when both would be allowed to be down.
It could be that the business cost of having these applications down outside their maintenance windows would be greater than the cost of maintaining another instance.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply