Q
Problem solve Get help with specific problems with your technologies, process and projects.

Two named instances versus two apps on one instance

We will be having two separate vendors database solutions on our SQL Server 2000. Both applications need to be able to be stopped and started independently. It looks like "named instances" will be a good feature for us to use. How do I compare the overhead of two named instances running on a server as opposed to both apps running in one instance. I am assuming one distance is the most efficient, so how much degradation might I expect with two or three instances running?

You can assume that both apps are not system hogs although one app will be new so we really don't know that for sure. It seems like the different users accessing the proper instance with no possibility of overlap would make the two-instance scenario preferable. Also, is there any advantage to having the heavier used app being the default instance or would I be better off making them both "named"?

You are in effect running 2 SQL Servers on the same machine, so you are going to have resources for two SQL Servers used. The only real way is to test the two apps together in a single database, separately, and on different instances. I don't understand why having the need to shut down an app means you have to do anything special in SQL Server. Shutting down an app should be a feature of the application, not stopping the SQL Server.

 

For More Information

Dig Deeper on Microsoft SQL Server Installation

Have a question for an expert?

Please add a title for your question

Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.

You will be able to add details on the next page.

Start the conversation

Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

-ADS BY GOOGLE

SearchBusinessAnalytics

SearchDataCenter

SearchDataManagement

SearchAWS

SearchOracle

SearchContentManagement

SearchWindowsServer

Close