I have an instance of SQL 2005 on one server that is a database server for
sharepoint databases and application databases. I was wondering if it
possible or even if its a "best practice/recommended" to run the application
databases under a different SQL 05 instance on the same server. Would there
be any performance issues in doing this? Should I not bother and just get
another server? Any suggestions or recommendations is appreciated.

I can't think of any real advantages over keeping them both on the same box,
except:

(a) it would be easier to, say, configure memory and/or processor affinity
to favor one server in terms of resources.
(b) you could take one "server" offline without affecting the other (e.g.
rolling service pack, upgrades, etc.)

Otherwise, they are just sharing one box and slightly fewer resources as
there is overhead for each running instance, SQL Server Agent, etc. And you
still have the same dependency on hardware, connectivity etc. If one goes
down, they both go down.

If you split them across different servers, it could be wasteful if, say,
one server idles at 10% CPU and the other uses 25-40%. (There isn't an easy
way to give one server resources that the other one isn't using.)




"CSharpcoder" <csharpcoder@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0EtyWStIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have an instance of SQL 2005 on one server that is a database server for
>sharepoint databases and application databases. I was wondering if it
>possible or even if its a "best practice/recommended" to run the
>application databases under a different SQL 05 instance on the same server.
>Would there be any performance issues in doing this? Should I not bother
>and just get another server? Any suggestions or recommendations is
>appreciated.
>
>
>

Ok, thanks for you input.

"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uPSDagStIHA.1436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I can't think of any real advantages over keeping them both on the same
>box, except:
>
> (a) it would be easier to, say, configure memory and/or processor affinity
> to favor one server in terms of resources.
> (b) you could take one "server" offline without affecting the other (e.g.
> rolling service pack, upgrades, etc.)
>
> Otherwise, they are just sharing one box and slightly fewer resources as
> there is overhead for each running instance, SQL Server Agent, etc. And
> you still have the same dependency on hardware, connectivity etc. If one
> goes down, they both go down.
>
> If you split them across different servers, it could be wasteful if, say,
> one server idles at 10% CPU and the other uses 25-40%. (There isn't an
> easy way to give one server resources that the other one isn't using.)
>
>
>
>
> "CSharpcoder" <csharpcoder@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e0EtyWStIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I have an instance of SQL 2005 on one server that is a database server for
>>sharepoint databases and application databases. I was wondering if it
>>possible or even if its a "best practice/recommended" to run the
>>application databases under a different SQL 05 instance on the same
>>server. Would there be any performance issues in doing this? Should I not
>>bother and just get another server? Any suggestions or recommendations is
>>appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Hello!

Installing two different instances of SQL Server on the same server would
not have any benefit in terms of performance unless you configure those
instances' memory settings differently. For example, let's assume you have
totally 8GB of RAM in your server. If you set up the max server memory
setting for your SqlInstanceA as 2GB and if you assign 5GB of memory to your
SqlInstanceB, then your databases in the SqlInstanceB would take advantage
of this seperation in terms of memory.

Installing two different instances of SQL Server also would have security
and other setting benefits, however your point is only performance I
believe? So, if you'd set the memory limits the same for your instances,
then nothing would change in terms of performance.

Whether you need another SQL Server server or an upgrade for your current
SQL Server depends on the workload of your Sharepoint application and the
workload on your other user databases.

--
Ekrem Önsoy



"CSharpcoder" <csharpcoder@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0EtyWStIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have an instance of SQL 2005 on one server that is a database server for
>sharepoint databases and application databases. I was wondering if it
>possible or even if its a "best practice/recommended" to run the
>application databases under a different SQL 05 instance on the same server.
>Would there be any performance issues in doing this? Should I not bother
>and just get another server? Any suggestions or recommendations is
>appreciated.
>
>
>

Sorry mate, I saw your answer after posting mine.

--
Ekrem Önsoy



"Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uPSDagStIHA.1436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I can't think of any real advantages over keeping them both on the same
>box, except:
>
> (a) it would be easier to, say, configure memory and/or processor affinity
> to favor one server in terms of resources.
> (b) you could take one "server" offline without affecting the other (e.g.
> rolling service pack, upgrades, etc.)
>
> Otherwise, they are just sharing one box and slightly fewer resources as
> there is overhead for each running instance, SQL Server Agent, etc. And
> you still have the same dependency on hardware, connectivity etc. If one
> goes down, they both go down.
>
> If you split them across different servers, it could be wasteful if, say,
> one server idles at 10% CPU and the other uses 25-40%. (There isn't an
> easy way to give one server resources that the other one isn't using.)
>
>
>
>
> "CSharpcoder" <csharpcoder@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e0EtyWStIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I have an instance of SQL 2005 on one server that is a database server for
>>sharepoint databases and application databases. I was wondering if it
>>possible or even if its a "best practice/recommended" to run the
>>application databases under a different SQL 05 instance on the same
>>server. Would there be any performance issues in doing this? Should I not
>>bother and just get another server? Any suggestions or recommendations is
>>appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

> Sorry mate, I saw your answer after posting mine.

No worries! Happens to me all the time (in both directions).