Maximum instances supported by SQL Server 2008

  • MSDN States 50 and 16: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645993.aspx

  • How can we be expected to know what the right answer is when Microsoft is reporting different answers?

    Once again, there's your evidence that bigger is not always better.



    Alvin Ramard
    Memphis PASS Chapter[/url]

    All my SSC forum answers come with a money back guarantee. If you didn't like the answer then I'll gladly refund what you paid for it.

    For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]

  • It's harder to maintain things as they grow, and this is a good example. BOL is built by a team, and my guess is someone copied the documentation from 2005, thinking that it hadn't changed. Someone else changed docs, and who knows what was the final marketing/technical decision.

    I will award back all points since the question was misworded once I have a good answer from MS.

  • Alright - who wants to volunteer to go and install 50 instances this morning and see what happens? Please name one after me 😀

  • Chad Crawford (5/18/2009)


    Alright - who wants to volunteer to go and install 50 instances this morning and see what happens? Please name one after me 😀

    You mean: "Who wants to try and install as many instances of the Standard Edition as possible?"

    🙂



    Alvin Ramard
    Memphis PASS Chapter[/url]

    All my SSC forum answers come with a money back guarantee. If you didn't like the answer then I'll gladly refund what you paid for it.

    For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]

  • I'll pass. I'm certainly not going to install

    51 on Enterprise

    51 on standard (or 17 if it fails)

    17 on Workgroup.

    Perhaps Ed Vassie, with his automated install utility will try.

  • Steve Jones - Editor (5/18/2009)


    I'll pass. I'm certainly not going to install

    51 on Enterprise

    51 on standard (or 17 if it fails)

    17 on Workgroup.

    Perhaps Ed Vassie, with his automated install utility will try.

    The script needs to be able to create a new instance name each time.

    I'm passing on it too.



    Alvin Ramard
    Memphis PASS Chapter[/url]

    All my SSC forum answers come with a money back guarantee. If you didn't like the answer then I'll gladly refund what you paid for it.

    For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]

  • Didn't we have a question about how many instances you can install a few months ago? Or was the one I'm thinking of for 2005?

    The Redneck DBA

  • This is confusing, especially seeing this page:

    http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/editions-compare.aspx

  • I think there was a question on 2005 Enterprise, which was 50 (above the usual 16 in 2000)

  • Perhaps I am confused or simply don't understand the question or have a bad reference source.

    The whitepaper "SQL Server Consolidation with SQL Server 2008"

    Writer: Martin Ellis

    Reviewer: Prem Mehra,Lindsey Allen, Tiffany Wissner, Sambit Samal

    Published: March 2009

    Applies to: SQL Server 2008

    page ten, lists

    EditionMaximum instances

    SQL Server 2008 Standard 16*

    SQL Server 2008 Enterprise50*

    *Depending upon available system resources and workload

  • zzx375 (5/18/2009)


    Perhaps I am confused or simply don't understand the question or have a bad reference source.

    The whitepaper "SQL Server Consolidation with SQL Server 2008"

    Writer: Martin Ellis

    Reviewer: Prem Mehra,Lindsey Allen, Tiffany Wissner, Sambit Samal

    Published: March 2009

    Applies to: SQL Server 2008

    page ten, lists

    EditionMaximum instances

    SQL Server 2008 Standard 16*

    SQL Server 2008 Enterprise50*

    *Depending upon available system resources and workload

    Check out the link below. It's the one referenced in the answer. It states both Enterprise and Standard can handle 50.



    Alvin Ramard
    Memphis PASS Chapter[/url]

    All my SSC forum answers come with a money back guarantee. If you didn't like the answer then I'll gladly refund what you paid for it.

    For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]

  • .

  • Losing the point! :w00t:

    Any strong reason why 50 - 50 !? We have documentation that 50 - 16 failover cluster!

    :w00t::w00t:

    ============================================================
    SELECT YOUR PROBLEM FROM SSC.com WHERE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION =
    http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/[/url]

  • Noel McKinney (5/18/2009)


    The page below (under "Scalability & Performance") gives 50 for Enterprise and 16 for Standard edition:

    http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/editions-compare.aspx

    I had seen the comparison above and got the question right. However, unless I'm missing something, this does seem to contradict the page referenced by the answer's explanation (from the BOL) at

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx%5B/quote%5D

    I agree, there is a mismatch between BOL and http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx

    /Håkan

    /Håkan Winther
    MCITP:Database Developer 2008
    MCTS: SQL Server 2008, Implementation and Maintenance
    MCSE: Data Platform

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 37 total)

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