Multiple instances SQL server 2000 - destination folders

Can someone clarify for me, if I were to install 2 named instances of
SQL server 2000, whether I must define 2 different destination folders
for the program files ?
Or can I leave the Program Files destination folder the same for both
instances [c:\program files\Microsoft SQL Server] ?
I am separating the data files in their own data file destination
directory [d:\...\microsoft sql server\data\name_of_instance1 and
d:\...\microsoft sql server\data\name_of_instance2
And also, will I need to run service packs for each named instance
separately ?Yes, specify a different installation folder. There will be some shared
components though.
You have to install service packs/security patches/hot fixes for each
instance separately.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Citizen" <citizen_NOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hu8ie014lns9k5lrcgldb8erth0i2c0rn7@.4ax.com...
Can someone clarify for me, if I were to install 2 named instances of
SQL server 2000, whether I must define 2 different destination folders
for the program files ?
Or can I leave the Program Files destination folder the same for both
instances [c:\program files\Microsoft SQL Server] ?
I am separating the data files in their own data file destination
directory [d:\...\microsoft sql server\data\name_of_instance1 and
d:\...\microsoft sql server\data\name_of_instance2
And also, will I need to run service packs for each named instance
separately ?|||just specify the \Program files\Microsoft SQL Server will be enough , it
will create a directory below there called MSSQL$<INSTANCEName> (default
will go in MSSQL).
re Service Packs , yes you need to apply seperately for each instance,
although certain components asre common across instances - ie MDAC and Full
Text Search
cheers
Andy
"Citizen" <citizen_NOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hu8ie014lns9k5lrcgldb8erth0i2c0rn7@.4ax.com...
> Can someone clarify for me, if I were to install 2 named instances of
> SQL server 2000, whether I must define 2 different destination folders
> for the program files ?
> Or can I leave the Program Files destination folder the same for both
> instances [c:\program files\Microsoft SQL Server] ?
> I am separating the data files in their own data file destination
> directory [d:\...\microsoft sql server\data\name_of_instance1 and
> d:\...\microsoft sql server\data\name_of_instance2
> And also, will I need to run service packs for each named instance
> separately ?|||Okay, Andy's response is precise, for your first question :-)
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Narayana Vyas Kondreddi" <answer_me@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OGyegcnYEHA.2456@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Yes, specify a different installation folder. There will be some shared
components though.
You have to install service packs/security patches/hot fixes for each
instance separately.
--
HTH,
Vyas, MVP (SQL Server)
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/
Is .NET important for a database professional?
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/poll.htm
"Citizen" <citizen_NOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hu8ie014lns9k5lrcgldb8erth0i2c0rn7@.4ax.com...
Can someone clarify for me, if I were to install 2 named instances of
SQL server 2000, whether I must define 2 different destination folders
for the program files ?
Or can I leave the Program Files destination folder the same for both
instances [c:\program files\Microsoft SQL Server] ?
I am separating the data files in their own data file destination
directory [d:\...\microsoft sql server\data\name_of_instance1 and
d:\...\microsoft sql server\data\name_of_instance2
And also, will I need to run service packs for each named instance
separately ?|||On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 11:03:05 +0100, "Andy Ball"
<andy.ball@.remove4spam_greenfell.com> wrote:
>just specify the \Program files\Microsoft SQL Server will be enough , it
>will create a directory below there called MSSQL$<INSTANCEName> (default
>will go in MSSQL).
>re Service Packs , yes you need to apply seperately for each instance,
>although certain components asre common across instances - ie MDAC and Full
>Text Search
>cheers
>Andy
>
That's correct! Thanks for such a fast reply. I just finished checking
it on a test server! SQL server handles this just fine.sql

Multiple instances ready for Production prime-time?

Hello,

Is the multiple instances capability of SQL2K mature enough for a
Production system?

We're looking at upgrading our hardware but the proposed solution
calls for consolidating two currently separate SQL Server's onto one
machine with two CPU's.

Of the current two servers, one is for OLTP (~800Mb) and the other for
reporting (some ad-hoc, some canned queries, 2-3Gb). We purge the OLTP
db nightly and archive the purged data in the reporting server where
it stays for a couple of months before getting purged from there.

Maybe I'm being overly cautious here but the OLTP system is especially
time-sensitive. If anything causes it to slow down significantly we
lose $$$.

Thanks,

Martin V.mvirta@.olgc.on.ca (Martin V.) wrote in message news:<6542479.0401131417.51f0734a@.posting.google.com>...
> Hello,
> Is the multiple instances capability of SQL2K mature enough for a
> Production system?
> We're looking at upgrading our hardware but the proposed solution
> calls for consolidating two currently separate SQL Server's onto one
> machine with two CPU's.
> Of the current two servers, one is for OLTP (~800Mb) and the other for
> reporting (some ad-hoc, some canned queries, 2-3Gb). We purge the OLTP
> db nightly and archive the purged data in the reporting server where
> it stays for a couple of months before getting purged from there.
> Maybe I'm being overly cautious here but the OLTP system is especially
> time-sensitive. If anything causes it to slow down significantly we
> lose $$$.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin V.

I must admit that I've never used multiple instances for production,
but I would also be wary of this proposed approach. The two instances
will always be competing for system resources at some level - while
you can assign each to a CPU, and also limit the memory avilable to
each instance, if there is a usage 'spike' in the OLTP system, it may
be that there are no spare system resources to respond. In addition,
if the two instances use the same I/O subsystem, then long-running
queries on the OLAP side may slow down OLTP access to the disks.

Personally, I see the value of instances in situations where you need
to test something like a new replication topology but you don't have a
whole bunch of physical servers. In this case, multiple instances are
a good way to verify that the functionality works, although it's not
easy to test performance in a meaningful way without an accurate
physical system.

In any event, you should really test the proposed configuration to get
a proper answer, and especially under stress or limit conditions.

Simon

Multiple Instances Question

We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances. I've told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary there are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge number of servers with databases that have different requirements. Interesting to hear some comments about the subject!?Hi Folke,
apart from a bit of wasted space caused throug multiple server-engines i
dont see any problems doing so.
Micha
"Folke" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8B57E51F-1A7F-4D2C-83F2-2B01F915DADC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances.
I've told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary
there are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge
number of servers with databases that have different requirements.
Interesting to hear some comments about the subject!?|||It's best to run a single instance on a server unless you have a specific
reason to do otherwise. This will make the best use of available hardware
resources. Consolidating many databases onto a single instance is possible
as long as you don't have conflicting application requirements like
different default instance collations.
See the Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_cs_5upf.htm> for some guidelines.
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Folke" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B57E51F-1A7F-4D2C-83F2-2B01F915DADC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances.
I've told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary
there are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge
number of servers with databases that have different requirements.
Interesting to hear some comments about the subject!?

Multiple Instances Question

We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances. I've told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary there are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge number of servers with databases t
hat have different requirements. Interesting to hear some comments about the subject!?
Hi Folke,
apart from a bit of wasted space caused throug multiple server-engines i
dont see any problems doing so.
Micha
"Folke" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8B57E51F-1A7F-4D2C-83F2-2B01F915DADC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances.
I've told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary
there are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge
number of servers with databases that have different requirements.
Interesting to hear some comments about the subject!?
|||It's best to run a single instance on a server unless you have a specific
reason to do otherwise. This will make the best use of available hardware
resources. Consolidating many databases onto a single instance is possible
as long as you don't have conflicting application requirements like
different default instance collations.
See the Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_cs_5upf.htm> for some guidelines.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Folke" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B57E51F-1A7F-4D2C-83F2-2B01F915DADC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances.
I've told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary
there are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge
number of servers with databases that have different requirements.
Interesting to hear some comments about the subject!?

Multiple Instances Question

We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances. I'
ve told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary th
ere are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge number
of servers with databases t
hat have different requirements. Interesting to hear some comments about the
subject!?Hi Folke,
apart from a bit of wasted space caused throug multiple server-engines i
dont see any problems doing so.
Micha
"Folke" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8B57E51F-1A7F-4D2C-83F2-2B01F915DADC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances.
I've told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary
there are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge
number of servers with databases that have different requirements.
Interesting to hear some comments about the subject!?|||It's best to run a single instance on a server unless you have a specific
reason to do otherwise. This will make the best use of available hardware
resources. Consolidating many databases onto a single instance is possible
as long as you don't have conflicting application requirements like
different default instance collations.
See the Books Online <architec.chm::/8_ar_cs_5upf.htm> for some guidelines.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Folke" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8B57E51F-1A7F-4D2C-83F2-2B01F915DADC@.microsoft.com...
> We have a customer that refuses to accept the idea of multiple instances.
I've told them that there are no hidden problems with this. On the contrary
there are a number of advantages if you're going to consolidate a huge
number of servers with databases that have different requirements.
Interesting to hear some comments about the subject!?

Multiple Instances on the same virtual server?

Is this possible?
I would like to have 2 instances on my virtual SQL 2005 cluster,
listening on different ports.
For example, if my virtual hostname is HOSTNAME123 can I have one
instance on HOSTNAME123, port 1433 and the second instance on
HOSTNAME123, port 1432?
Or does each clustered instance need its own, distinct hostname?
Thanks in advance.
No, not with SQL2005 (or SQL7/2000). Each clustered SQL instance must have
its own network name (i.e. its own virtual server name).
Linchi
"brimoore@.state.pa.us" wrote:

> Is this possible?
> I would like to have 2 instances on my virtual SQL 2005 cluster,
> listening on different ports.
> For example, if my virtual hostname is HOSTNAME123 can I have one
> instance on HOSTNAME123, port 1433 and the second instance on
> HOSTNAME123, port 1432?
> Or does each clustered instance need its own, distinct hostname?
> Thanks in advance.
>
|||Thanks for your response.
Linchi Shea wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, not with SQL2005 (or SQL7/2000). Each clustered SQL instance must have
> its own network name (i.e. its own virtual server name).
> Linchi
> "brimoore@.state.pa.us" wrote:
|||I dont think Linchi has correct information here.
Without having tested this, SQL 2005 supports Volume Mount Points(VMP). So,
you can install numerous instances on one VirtualServerName. They need to
have unique IP and Instance Name.
Am I off here or is this VMP only supported on non-clustered installations?
VMP should help the driveletter saturations problems that large installations
experienced during SQL2000.
Any thoughts on this?
"Linchi Shea" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, not with SQL2005 (or SQL7/2000). Each clustered SQL instance must have
> its own network name (i.e. its own virtual server name).
> Linchi
> "brimoore@.state.pa.us" wrote:
|||Linchi is correct, you need a separate clustered group and network name for
every instance.
Now onto the VMP issue. I think you are confusing disks with names now. Yes,
SQL2005 supports VMP. The support is for any type of SQL install, clustered
or not.
Cheers,
Rodney R. Fournier
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training
ClusterHelp.com is a Microsoft Certified Gold Partner
"ipconfig2" <ipconfig2@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DF86C624-8B4F-4FB6-9F44-B301D7EE8BA6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I dont think Linchi has correct information here.
> Without having tested this, SQL 2005 supports Volume Mount Points(VMP).
> So,
> you can install numerous instances on one VirtualServerName. They need to
> have unique IP and Instance Name.
> Am I off here or is this VMP only supported on non-clustered
> installations?
> VMP should help the driveletter saturations problems that large
> installations
> experienced during SQL2000.
> Any thoughts on this?
> "Linchi Shea" wrote:
sql

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!