December 8, 2016 at 11:34 am
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!
December 8, 2016 at 11:56 am
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/
December 9, 2016 at 4:24 am
I have setup one Instance per VM. It helps us better resource management and ease in Troubleshooting Virtual Machine Crashes.
ThanksSaurabh.D
December 12, 2016 at 11:08 am
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...
December 12, 2016 at 11:28 am
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.
December 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm
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...
December 15, 2016 at 4:32 am
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