SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

Creating SQL 2005 instances in a cluster

I’m pretty new to SQL 2005 and was wondering why would I choose to use various named instances for my different applications vs using the default instance with multiple databases? I understand that you can configure each instance as if it was a separate installation in terms of different authentication types, etc. I’m building a cluster right now and am trying to decide if I should do named instances for my various databases. Or am I way off on why I’d want to use them? Clustering the instances complicates things from what I’m reading. Each instance needs its own LUN on the SAN? Except for the quorum drive? Any help and direction on clearing this up would be greatly appreciated!!

To make each application sql server independent…
And it depends on how your applications are configured… If you are planning to use single server with multiple databases then use 64 bit instead of 32 bit otherwise you encounter VAS (MemToLeave) memory issue… SQL doesn’t care how many LUNs and how it is configured…
SQL only sees them as drives when you present the LUNs… http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/64bitconsolidation.mspx
MohammedU.
Moderator
SQL-Server-Performance.com All postings are provided â€œAS ISâ€ with no warranties for accuracy.

Thanks for your input. Each instance needs its own drive,correct? If so, then it would need a separate LUN or I’d have to use mount points? I wouldn’t want to create partitions, correct? Also you mentioned that separate instances would be more secure…is there a white paper, etc that would outline explain the security benefits of separate instances? I’m having a hard time finding information about the pros and cons of using separate instances and a cluster is a requirement in my environment, so I need to configure it as such. Thanks again!

]]>