New answers tagged

3

This isn't a full/distinct answer so much as a detailed explanation of why I favor @Remus's answer, specifically the VM recommendation, that is too long for a comment and not in any way communicated by my upvote of said answer. I worked at a company that had a very similar environment: Federated Farm approach where there was a single data model used on 18 ...


5

A single SQL Server instance knows how to manage its memory, CPU and IO in the most optimal way. Two (or more) SQL Server instances cannot cooperate to coordinate usage of shared resources. On this grounds, a single instance is more performant than more instances. If you split into 2 (or more) instances, then it would be required to partition the resources ...


0

You aren't at any hard database limit per instance. When you have a lot of databases in an instance two things quickly run out; max worker threads and the Agent subsystem but both are easily increased. Another limitation that occurs is when one database goes nuts and starts churning pages of others out of the buffer pool. The biggest reasons for separate ...


0

As long as the CPU, disk, and I/O levels do not max out for a given instance, you are in the safe zone. Static content that is not accessed regularly does not affect the normal performance of SQL Server. There are security and compliance checks per instance to secure database services, and each server needs regular software patches. Also it is a best ...



Top 50 recent answers are included