multiple instances on one virtual server

In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
Thanks!
No. Each virtual server can host exactly one instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Robert Kinesta" <RobertKinesta@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D02ECF04-7BC1-41B5-B35D-88D938E28FCC@.microsoft.com...
> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!
|||Hi,
Yes you can do that.
It is called a Multiple-Instance cluster. A Multile-Instance cluster
supports upto four nodes and supports 16 instances (1 default and 15 named or
16 named). This implementation requires extensive planning as each virtual
server requires its own disk resources that can not be shared by other
instances.
Hth
DeeJay Puar
MCDBA
"Robert Kinesta" wrote:

> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!

multiple instances on one virtual server

In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
Thanks!No. Each virtual server can host exactly one instance.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Robert Kinesta" <RobertKinesta@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D02ECF04-7BC1-41B5-B35D-88D938E28FCC@.microsoft.com...
> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!|||Hi,
Yes you can do that.
It is called a Multiple-Instance cluster. A Multile-Instance cluster
supports upto four nodes and supports 16 instances (1 default and 15 named o
r
16 named). This implementation requires extensive planning as each virtual
server requires its own disk resources that can not be shared by other
instances.
Hth
DeeJay Puar
MCDBA
"Robert Kinesta" wrote:

> In a failover cluster is there any way at all that more than one named SQL
> Server instance can exist on a virtual server?
> Thanks!

Multiple instances in SQL Cluster

Hi All,
I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is having
a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
instances with two nodes?
Thanks a lot,
VM
you can have up to 16 instances installed but even by adding the 3rd you
have to be careful that if a node fails the the remaining Node has enough
memory to run all instances. See Memory Configuration section below
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
cheers,
Andy.
"VM" <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AAC5F30B-B27B-489E-9311-DD9E18F169D0@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is
> having
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one
> instance
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more
> than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can
> have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than
> two
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM
|||> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after you
have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Cluster
Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. In a
cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. For
SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instances
by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
Linchi
"VM" wrote:

> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is having
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM
|||Linchi and Andy,
Thankyou so much for your replies. Not it makes more sense to me.
Warm regards,
VM
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
> and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
> context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after you
> have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
> use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Cluster
> Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
> okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. In a
> cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. For
> SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
> SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
> In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instances
> by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
> SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
> Linchi
> "VM" wrote:

Multiple instances in SQL Cluster

Hi All,
I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is havin
g
a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instance
and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than
one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can have
upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two
instances with two nodes?
Thanks a lot,
VMyou can have up to 16 instances installed but even by adding the 3rd you
have to be careful that if a node fails the the remaining Node has enough
memory to run all instances. See Memory Configuration section below
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...n/failclus.mspx
cheers,
Andy.
"VM" <VM@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AAC5F30B-B27B-489E-9311-DD9E18F169D0@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is
> having
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one
> instance
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more
> than
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can
> have
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than
> two
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM|||> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more than">
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can hav
e
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than two[/vbcol
]
That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after you
have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Cluster
Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. In
a
cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. For
SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instances
by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
Linchi
"VM" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi All,
> I have joined a company recently. They are having mutiple servers of SQL
> Server 2000. And one of them is a two node SQL server cluster. It is hav
ing
> a Active/Active configuration. That means on one node we have one instanc
e
> and other have the second instance with failover on to each other. I am
> planning to install a third instance on that cluster.
> But I am totally confused at online help that says, I cannot have more tha
n
> one instance per server in a cluster, at the same time it says -we can hav
e
> upto 16 servers in cluster. What does it mean? Can't I have more than tw
o
> instances with two nodes?
> Thanks a lot,
> VM|||Linchi and Andy,
Thankyou so much for your replies. Not it makes more sense to me.
Warm regards,
VM
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> That means you can have one SQL instance per virtual server in a cluster,
> and a cluster cna have multiple virtual servers. A virtual server in this
> context refers to an IP address and its related network name, and after yo
u
> have installed the SQL instance, that IP and network name will be what you
> use to connect to the SQL instance. If you examine the cluster using Clust
er
> Administrator, each virtual server is wrapped up in a resource group. It's
> okay to have multiple IPs and network names for the same virtual server. I
n a
> cluster, you can have multiple virtual servers in their separate groups. F
or
> SQL2000, Microsoft supports up to 16 such cluster resource groups (i.e. 16
> SQL virtual servers), each of which supports a separate SQL instance.
> In theory, each cluster virtual server could support multiple SQL instance
s
> by identifying the SQL instances with different ports. But that is not how
> SQL2000 is actually implemented by Microsoft in a Windows cluster.
> Linchi
> "VM" wrote:
>

Multiple installations of SqlServer on same server.

Hi all,
Can anyone advise on installing multiple versions of
SqlServer 2000 (ver 8) on the same server whilst
maintaining the integrity of previous installations of
SqlServer ?
Thanks in advance.
jTHere are no integrity issues involving multiple instances on the same box,
one instance is independent of the other, with one exception... - they both
will compete for memory. So unless you will be running only one at a time, I
would advise you to set max memory for each instance, assigning the
appropriate memory, so the instances do not compete in this regard...
"jimA" <jima@.pt.lu> wrote in message
news:075a01c35cc1$b7c0df60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> Can anyone advise on installing multiple versions of
> SqlServer 2000 (ver 8) on the same server whilst
> maintaining the integrity of previous installations of
> SqlServer ?
> Thanks in advance.
> j|||You can install multiple instance of SQL 2000 on the same server. Each
is independent and can be at different service pack levels. Only the
tools are shared.
It's generally best to deploy a single instance unless you have a
specific reason to do otherwise, such as special security isolation
requirements or independent test environments. See the Books Online
<architec.chm::/8_ar_cs_5upf.htm> for recommendations. Also note that
licensing restrictions vary by edition.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
--
SQL FAQ links (courtesy Neil Pike):
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com/faq
--
"jimA" <jima@.pt.lu> wrote in message
news:075a01c35cc1$b7c0df60$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> Can anyone advise on installing multiple versions of
> SqlServer 2000 (ver 8) on the same server whilst
> maintaining the integrity of previous installations of
> SqlServer ?
> Thanks in advance.
> j|||Guys,
Many thanks, your comments were much appreciated.
j
>--Original Message--
>Hi all,
>Can anyone advise on installing multiple versions of
>SqlServer 2000 (ver 8) on the same server whilst
>maintaining the integrity of previous installations of
>SqlServer ?
>Thanks in advance.
>j
>.
>

Multiple Filegroups

Hi experts,

I'm new to SQLServer 2000 and would like some advice on filegroups.

Is there any advantage to seperate the filegroups for different type of data.

For example:

Data_1 for tables
Index_1 for Indexes
Audit_1 for Audit tables

The files for these filegroups would be placed on RAID Disk.

Thanks for any suggestions.Any comments?

I need to know whether there are any performance gain in seperating types of data in different filegroups or is it just good enough to set it to a default secondary filegroup for user data objects.

Please comment.|||Hi,
you can save a lot of system time if you are able to store smart your tables, indexes, ....
This is part from SQL books:

Placing Tables on Filegroups

A table can be created on a specific filegroup rather than the default filegroup. If the filegroup comprises multiple files spread across various physical disks, each with its own disk controller, then queries for data from the table will be spread across the disks, thereby improving performance. The same effect can be accomplished by creating a single file on a RAID (redundant array of independent disks) level 0, 1, or 5 device.

If the computer has multiple processors, Microsoft? SQL Server? 2000 can perform parallel scans of the data. Multiple parallel scans can be executed for a single table regardless of the number of files that are in its filegroup. Additionally, any text, ntext, or image columns within a table can be created on a filegroup other than the one that contains the base table.

Eventually, there is a saturation point when there are too many outstanding I/O's causing bottlenecks in the disk I/O subsystem. These bottlenecks can be identified by using Windows NT? Performance Monitor to monitor the PhysicalDisk object and Disk Queue Length counter. If the Disk Queue Length counter is greater than three, consider spreading the file across more disk drives. For more information, see Monitoring Disk Activity.

It is advantageous to get as much data spread across as many physical drives as possible in order to improve throughput through parallel data access. To spread data evenly across all disks, you can place a single file across striped disks or maintain each disk separately and place a file on each disk.

I hope it will help you. It's very good text.
Bye

|||No, there is no appreciable gain. Filegroups are mainly for ease of administration across multiple volumes, not performance.sql

Multiple backups happening

I had some problems configuring a backup of a sql server. The problem
was access rights to the network share. Now when I resolved it, my SQL
server is backing itself twice on the same share with two different
file names. There is a great possibility of my trying to configure the
SQL backup more than once since it failed the first few times.
Now I suspect that I did configured the backup more than once and as a
result it is backing itself twice.
Now is there a way I can view and delete all the backups configured for
a single database.
The problem may be something very different from what I feel becuase I
am very very new to SQL and its properties.
Thanks in advance
GauravYou can Enterprise Manager and Go to Management -> Sql Server Agent
->Jobs. You will find a list of all the jobs(includes backup). you
can delete the job from there. Hope your problem gets resolved|||Check out your maintenance plans and your SQL Server agent jobs.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Gaurav" <gaurav081@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146664173.026249.251370@.y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I had some problems configuring a backup of a sql server. The problem
> was access rights to the network share. Now when I resolved it, my SQL
> server is backing itself twice on the same share with two different
> file names. There is a great possibility of my trying to configure the
> SQL backup more than once since it failed the first few times.
> Now I suspect that I did configured the backup more than once and as a
> result it is backing itself twice.
> Now is there a way I can view and delete all the backups configured for
> a single database.
> The problem may be something very different from what I feel becuase I
> am very very new to SQL and its properties.
> Thanks in advance
> Gaurav
>