Hi,

I recently set up an SQL 2005 server with just one instance. I'm happy with
the performance of this new server during testing. It will run about 10
databases who's sizes are in the range of hundreds of tables with tens of
thousands of rows, with hundreds of users (in other words, not that big).
The file sizes of each database are under 5Gb each.

It was suggested I should split the databases over two instances, but I
don't know if this is a good idea:

1. The instances could compete for resources, processor, memory etc?
2. Some of these databases interact, so surely they're better to be on the
same instance?

--
Gerry Hickman
London (UK)

Gerry,

Two instances of SQL Server running on a single machine requires more
resources, not fewer, and yes they will compete for those resources. So, I
would not recommend this as a performance improvement.

Also, if databases interact, they will interact more efficiently if they are
on the same instance. 50 GB is not a lot of data any more, certainly not
enough.

RLF

"Gerry Hickman" <gerry666uk@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23xcIYBJ0IHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I recently set up an SQL 2005 server with just one instance. I'm happy
> with the performance of this new server during testing. It will run about
> 10 databases who's sizes are in the range of hundreds of tables with tens
> of thousands of rows, with hundreds of users (in other words, not that
> big). The file sizes of each database are under 5Gb each.
>
> It was suggested I should split the databases over two instances, but I
> don't know if this is a good idea:
>
> 1. The instances could compete for resources, processor, memory etc?
> 2. Some of these databases interact, so surely they're better to be on the
> same instance?
>
> --
> Gerry Hickman
> London (UK)

10 50GB databases can be easily accommodated in one SQL instance. Some of our
SQL instances routinely handle 30~50 databases with no issue. Both of your
points are valid.

Linchi

"Gerry Hickman" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recently set up an SQL 2005 server with just one instance. I'm happy with
> the performance of this new server during testing. It will run about 10
> databases who's sizes are in the range of hundreds of tables with tens of
> thousands of rows, with hundreds of users (in other words, not that big).
> The file sizes of each database are under 5Gb each.
>
> It was suggested I should split the databases over two instances, but I
> don't know if this is a good idea:
>
> 1. The instances could compete for resources, processor, memory etc?
> 2. Some of these databases interact, so surely they're better to be on the
> same instance?
>
> --
> Gerry Hickman
> London (UK)
>
>

Hi,

Thanks for the comments, this is ful.

"Russell Fields" <russellfields@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23RcT0KJ0IHA.4416@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Gerry,
>
> Two instances of SQL Server running on a single machine requires more
> resources, not fewer, and yes they will compete for those resources. So,
> I would not recommend this as a performance improvement.
>
> Also, if databases interact, they will interact more efficiently if they
> are on the same instance. 50 GB is not a lot of data any more, certainly
> not enough.
>
> RLF
>
> "Gerry Hickman" <gerry666uk@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23xcIYBJ0IHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I recently set up an SQL 2005 server with just one instance. I'm happy
>> with the performance of this new server during testing. It will run about
>> 10 databases who's sizes are in the range of hundreds of tables with tens
>> of thousands of rows, with hundreds of users (in other words, not that
>> big). The file sizes of each database are under 5Gb each.
>>
>> It was suggested I should split the databases over two instances, but I
>> don't know if this is a good idea:
>>
>> 1. The instances could compete for resources, processor, memory etc?
>> 2. Some of these databases interact, so surely they're better to be on
>> the same instance?
>>
>> --
>> Gerry Hickman
>> London (UK)
>
>