Necessity.....

Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
SQL 2K.
Thanks,
Smith
I have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
environment to have its own box.
"Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Installing multiple instances of SQL Server is really good.
> Some one can tell me when exactly those situations arises.
> SQL 2K.
> Thanks,
> Smith
>
|||What is the necessity of having three instances of SQL Server on one box?
You create all the USER databases in one instance only. What we are gaining
by doing that approach? What is that we are missing by not going to multiple
instances?
Thanks,
Smith
"ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
news:eqxS2AMiFHA.1444@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have 6 production environments. I have two test boxes, each with 3
> instances of SQL. Same with staging. Just too costly for each test/ stage
> environment to have its own box.
>
> "Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OLToO%23LiFHA.3656@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||For example, staging is supposed to be a mirror(or as close as possible) of
production. Not even close if only on 1 instance.
"Branden Smith" <BradSmith@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23xthHdMiFHA.2644@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> What is the necessity of having three instances of SQL Server on one box?
> You create all the USER databases in one instance only. What we are
> gaining
> by doing that approach? What is that we are missing by not going to
> multiple
> instances?
> Thanks,
> Smith
>
> "ChrisR" <noemail@.bla.com> wrote in message
> news:eqxS2AMiFHA.1444@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>