It's certainly possible to accommodate multiple databases
in a single SQL instance exactly like it is when the
instance runs on a standalone server.
There are several factors to consider when trying to
decide whether to use one instance or two:
1. Can the databases live in the same instance? For
instance, if the two databases use different collations,
it's often better to put them into different instances
with the server collation default to the database
collation. Note that even though SQL2000 does support
multiple collations in an instance, your apps may not. You
need to evaluate mixing collations in an instance before
deciding whether it's a problem for your apps.
2. If you want to take full advantage of the processors on
both nodes, you should consider splitting the databases
into two instances and run each on a separate node.
However, depending on the performance profiles of your two
databases, this may not be optimal from a memory usage
perspective. For instance, if one of the database is
heavily used during the day while another one is heavily
used at night (memory-wise), it may be better to have them
in a single instance so that they can better utilize the
available physical memory. If you run them in two
instances on separate nodes, you have to cap their max
memory consumption to accommodate the failover situation
when both instances are on the same node.
Linchi
[quoted text, click to view] >-----Original Message-----
>Hello,
>
>We are setting up a 2 server active/passive SQL 2000 and
Windows 2000 Adv cluster, each server has 2 GB of memory.
Currently we have 2 databases with a third on the way. The
databases should be 20GB or less with decent read/write
activity. My question is, should we run a separate
instance for each db or just one instance? Is it even
possible to run one instance and have multiple DB's served
from a single virtual server? Any help would be
appreciated.
[quoted text, click to view] >
>Thanks,
>Todd
>.
