Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
DB Engine
SQL ServerMSDESQL Server CE
Services
Analysis (Data Mining)Analysis (OLAP)DTSIntegration ServicesNotification ServicesReporting Services
Programming
CLRConnectivitySQLXML
Other Technologies
ClusteringEnglish QueryFull-Text SearchReplicationService Broker
General
Data WarehousingPerformanceSecuritySetupSQL Server ToolsOther SQL Server Topics
DirectoryUser Groups
Related Topics
MS AccessOther DB ProductsMS Server Products.NET DevelopmentVB DevelopmentJava DevelopmentMore Topics ...

SQL Server Forum / Other Technologies / Clustering / February 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Two named instances. Why ?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rubens Luque Sanches Junior - 25 Feb 2005 23:24 GMT
What is the better to use in active/active SQL 2000 cluster ?

1 Default instance and  1 named instance

or 2 Named Instances ?

There are any advantages or disadvantages ?

thanks a lot !
Rubens
Geoff N. Hiten - 26 Feb 2005 02:28 GMT
Personally, I prefer all named instances.  It makes explaining connection
strings to the dev team a much simpler task since they all look alike.

Signature

Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com

I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org

> What is the better to use in active/active SQL 2000 cluster ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> thanks a lot !
> Rubens
Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\) - 26 Feb 2005 14:03 GMT
Hi

It also makes it "harder" to connect to the wrong instance. You have to know
which instance you are connecting to. Those drop table scripts that people
like to use tend to cause havoc when they run it against the wrong instance.

Regards
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike@epprecht.net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

> Personally, I prefer all named instances.  It makes explaining connection
> strings to the dev team a much simpler task since they all look alike.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> > thanks a lot !
> > Rubens
Mike Hodgson - 27 Feb 2005 22:27 GMT
I agree with Mike & Geoff.  All my clustered SQL instances have always
been named instances.  Technically there are no disadvantages I can
think of to having both instances being named instances and the
advantages are basically in the category of "less confusing".

--
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com

Mike Epprecht (SQL MVP) wrote:

>Hi
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
>  
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.