SQL single instance or multiple



  • What's your reasoning for one or the other? I know with some who choose multiple, they say it has more security and you can configure resources to be more granular per instance. Others say that is a waste of time and should be handled in one instance for more simple management.

    Thoughts?



  • My personal preference is single instance. It uncomplicates a lot of things.



  • It depends. One or multiple will always be determined on as as-needed basis, just like any other decision in IT.

    The one thing I just don't get is multiple instances offering more security. Seems like that's just more root passwords to go after than offering any sort of added security. Unless they're giving all users access to all databases on a server, to which I'd say stop, now.


  • Service Provider

    The SMB almost never needs multiple SQL Server instances. Saying it is for security means that there are jsut bad software developers in the loop that did not write their applicaiotn to use appropriate permissions.



  • @JaredBusch said in SQL single instance or multiple:

    The SMB almost never needs multiple SQL Server instances. Saying it is for security means that there are jsut bad software developers in the loop that did not write their applicaiotn to use appropriate permissions.

    One thing I've been told is people who don't understand multiple instances, want them. Those who do know about them, don't want the hassle.



  • @BBigford said in SQL single instance or multiple:

    @JaredBusch said in SQL single instance or multiple:

    The SMB almost never needs multiple SQL Server instances. Saying it is for security means that there are jsut bad software developers in the loop that did not write their applicaiotn to use appropriate permissions.

    One thing I've been told is people who don't understand multiple instances, want them. Those who do know about them, don't want the hassle.

    Seems legit.



  • @BBigford

    Does multiple also include Primary and Slave option, cause using MySQL setting that up is very easy, and you can keep the slave as replica.


  • Service Provider

    @BBigford said in SQL single instance or multiple:

    What's your reasoning for one or the other? I know with some who choose multiple, they say it has more security and you can configure resources to be more granular per instance. Others say that is a waste of time and should be handled in one instance for more simple management.

    Thoughts?

    If it creates more security, then SQL Server is a major issue and you need to replace it. Sounds like FUD. I hear this a lot from Windows people - they believe in the product so much that they won't use anything else, but don't trust it at all. Which makes me question their judgment. What aspect of it was so important that they use it at all believing it to be so insecure that it can't be trusted?


  • Service Provider

    @travisdh1 said in SQL single instance or multiple:

    It depends. One or multiple will always be determined on as as-needed basis, just like any other decision in IT.

    This is correct. It's all circumstantial. This is where a trained DBA is a good idea, these are the kinds of things that they should be determining for you.


  • Service Provider

    @BBigford said in SQL single instance or multiple:

    @JaredBusch said in SQL single instance or multiple:

    The SMB almost never needs multiple SQL Server instances. Saying it is for security means that there are jsut bad software developers in the loop that did not write their applicaiotn to use appropriate permissions.

    One thing I've been told is people who don't understand multiple instances, want them. Those who do know about them, don't want the hassle.

    Generally true. Sometimes you need different versions, and then it can make sense.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.