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!

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 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 of Reporting Services - is it possible?

Hi there,

is it possible to host multiple Reporting-Webs and Reporting-Databases on a single Server?
What I want is to create two virtual directories

http://myserver/reports
http://myserver/reports_internal

and each web points to a different Database with different reports.

Best regards
Markus

Yes, this is supported and should work fine.|||

It would be very helpfull if you could tell me how this work!

Thanks
Markus

Multiple instances in a virtual server

We want to create another named instance of SQL Server 2000 (sp 3a) in a SQL
2000 active/active cluster virtual server. We are finding evidence in
several forums (including this one) that we cannot do that : we would need a
new virtual server with its own instance instead. (The problem is our
bespoke software supplier doesn't support that!) Does anybody have any
DEFINITE proof (eg. from Microsoft themselves) that this is the case?
Cheers,
Colin
From BOL. Topic header "Creating a Failover Cluster"
Last bulleted item. 'One Instance...
--SNIP
Elements of a Virtual Server
A virtual server contains:
a.. A combination of one or more disks in a Microsoft Cluster Service
(MSCS) cluster group.
Each MSCS cluster group can contain at most one virtual SQL Server.
b.. A network name for each virtual server. This network name is the
virtual server name.
c.. One or more IP addresses that are used to connect to each virtual
server.
d.. One instance of SQL Server 2000, including a SQL Server resource, a
SQL Server Agent resource, and a full-text resource.
If an administrator uninstalls the instance of SQL Server 2000 within a
virtual server, the virtual server, including all IP addresses and the
network name, is also removed from the MSCS cluster group
--SNIP
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Colin Bunting" <ColinBunting@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4F3951C7-E521-4FDB-95F0-4C07E2B380E0@.microsoft.com...
> We want to create another named instance of SQL Server 2000 (sp 3a) in a
SQL
> 2000 active/active cluster virtual server. We are finding evidence in
> several forums (including this one) that we cannot do that : we would
need a
> new virtual server with its own instance instead. (The problem is our
> bespoke software supplier doesn't support that!) Does anybody have any
> DEFINITE proof (eg. from Microsoft themselves) that this is the case?
> --
> Cheers,
> Colin
>

Multiple Instances

Iam planning to install multiple instances in active/active cluster.Will
there be ant problem if I use the same name for virtual server and the
instance name ?Any disadvantages?
Thanks
Ajuss
The virtual server name must be unique on the network and the instance
name must be unique on the cluster.
What you would normally get on a cluster with multiple SQL instances is
each instance having its own unique virtual server name and its own
unique instance name (only 1 instance on a cluster can be the default
instance but I'd recommend making them all named instances for
consistency and to avoid confusion). Like:
Instance 1: VSQL1\Inst1
Instance 2: VSQL2\Inst2
or
Instance 1: SQL20\Production
Instance 2: SQL21\Test
or something similar.
*mike hodgson*
http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
Ajuss wrote:

>Iam planning to install multiple instances in active/active cluster.Will
>there be ant problem if I use the same name for virtual server and the
>instance name ?Any disadvantages?
>Thanks
>Ajuss
>