Post reply

Why would one create a number of instances rather than a single instance on a stand alone SQL server?

  • February 11, 2009 at 10:34 am

    #205330

    Why would one create a number of instances rather than a single instance on a stand alone SQL server?

    Other than being able to optimise how much memory an instance uses or how many procs are assigned to it why would I separate my databases into different instances?

    The applications / infrastructure are all Microsoft based, specifically OCS configuration databases.

    I am being told by MS that I have to separate the OCS roles onto separate SQL instances. From an SQL point of view why should I HAVE to do this?

    It would be a stand alone server, not clustered, not mirrored, not log shipped...

    Thoughts?

    Thanks in advance

    Tim

  • February 11, 2009 at 11:36 am

    #942397

    I can think of a few reasons to have a number of instances on one server.

    1.) consolidation. If you have a number of small SQL Servers on your network, you could consolidate them all on a bigger server. I am in the process of doing this now. Very easy to maintain and administer.

    2.) cost. You could save a lot of money on consolidation by not having to buy a lot of SQL Server licenses. For example, I am cutting down a huge portion of our SQL Server costs because instead of paying for 34 SQL Server CPU licenses, I am getting this cut down to 14. 34 x $6,000 = $204,000. Where as 14 x $6,000 = $84,000 (just quick numbers off top of my head).

    3.) 3rd party costs. If you run any 3rd party software for your SQL Server, depending on how it is licensed, you dont have to buy as my licenses if you have fewer servers.

    These are just a couple of examples.

    Does that help?

    Cheers,

    Jason

  • February 11, 2009 at 11:39 am

    #942399

    My own experience with assisting our Enterprise Engineers with a recent LCS to OCS migration, its because OCS depends on the database names being a specific name. The database name that OCS and LCS uses is not configureable. So in the case where we were migrating from LCS to OCS, both configurations were looking for a database with the same name. So in order to keep them both online at the same time, since you can't have 2 databases with the same name on the same Instance, you have to have multiple Instances. I hope I understood your question.

  • February 11, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    #942424

    Thanks Jason,

    This is a new implementation of OCS, not a consolidation exercise.

    Thanks for your input though 🙂

    Regards

    Tim

  • February 11, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    #942425

    Thanks James,

    That could be it.

    I'll check whether all of the names are hardcoded for each app/role.

    Cheers

    Tim

    🙂

  • February 11, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    #942520

    No Problem! And by the way, posting a link to this question on Twitter was a great idea! That's how I found it.

  • February 11, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    #942541

    may be host multiple sql express instance in the same box if you run into the 2 GB limitation... 😉 hint: custom bootstrapper

    free expresso!

    Rajib Bahar
    http://www.rajib-bahar.com
    http://www.twitter.com/rajib2k5
    http://www.youtube.com/icsql

  • February 12, 2009 at 3:42 am

    #942685

    I've checked each install (Differing OCS components) and naming isn't an issue as the default database name is either different or there is scope to name the database yourself.

    Any more ideas?

    This could be a result of MS not testing all OCS config databases in the same instance yet, and thus, there may not be a valid answer....

    Thanks

    Tim

  • February 12, 2009 at 11:40 am

    #943072

    tim_breslin (2/11/2009)

    Thanks Jason,

    This is a new implementation of OCS, not a consolidation exercise.

    Thanks for your input though 🙂

    Regards

    Tim

    Oops...my mistake. Sorry about that. How did I miss that? :w00t:

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

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