Multiple instacnes?

Hi,
I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
databases (all well under 1GB in size).
Running SQL 2005.
we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
read/write, and have medium usage..
Regards
Craig
Craig
> does this have any performance impact? is there a preferred method?
Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
you want to separate databases?
Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
instance , you know....

> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
business logic and requirement

> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
You can put them on READ ONLY file group
"Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I'm looking for recommendations more than anything...
> I have a quad core 8GB ram DB server (2003), currently running around 80
> databases (all well under 1GB in size).
> Running SQL 2005.
> we will soon be wanting to add several more databases.
> So my question really is should I keep all databases on the same instance?
> or create a separate instance on the same server? does this have any
> performance impact? is there a preferred method?
> Also is there a recommended amount of databases per instance? I.e can I
> easily put 200 DBs on the same instance?
> Most of the databases are for read only access - but around 20 have
> read/write, and have medium usage..
> Regards
> Craig
|||> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
That may be true. But if you get to a very large number, your GUI tools may
not be as fast you like. Of course, it's not an issue if you don't care about
GUI.
Linchi
"Uri Dimant" wrote:

> Craig
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
>
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why would
> you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requirement? It is much easier to maintain them on single
> instance , you know....
our main reason for possibly using separate instances would be that in the
future we may have several databases for applications we host on the same
server - in which case we would either need to uniquely name them or put
them on a different instance...
"Uri Dimant" <urid@.iscar.co.il> wrote in message
news:ufG6dThcIHA.5208@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Craig
> Sure it does. Each instance consumes memory and another resources. Why
> would you want to separate databases?
> Is it business requierement? It is much easier to maintain them on
> single instance , you know....
>
> There is no recommended amount of db perinstance , it depends on you
> business logic and requirement
>
> You can put them on READ ONLY file group
>
>
> "Craig Parsons" <craig@.Soutron.com> wrote in message
> news:4FB0D5DF-55D5-4879-854B-41BC425971E4@.microsoft.com...
>