Can I Install SQL Express on SBS 2008 Std.?

I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by default 
for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to use this copy 
of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to connect to the 
database from one of my desktops in my network. When creating a System DSN 
to make the connection it returns server not found or permission denied. I'm 
using windows authentication for the DNS. I am able to manage the SQL 
instance when logged into the server itself but not remotely from the 
desktop.

Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?

The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.

thanks 


0
Bob
3/22/2010 7:17:25 PM
windows.server.sbs 1975 articles. 0 followers. Follow

13 Replies
540 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 18

Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add your 
own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.

-Cliff


"Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to use 
> this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to 
> connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not found 
> or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the DNS. I am 
> able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server itself but not 
> remotely from the desktop.
>
> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>
> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>
> thanks
> 
0
Cliff
3/22/2010 7:20:45 PM
OK,. I was thinking of doing that but wasn't sure if it would mess up the 
default sbsmonitoring service.

thanks

bob
"Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>
> -Cliff
>
>
> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to use 
>> this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to 
>> connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not found 
>> or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the DNS. I am 
>> able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server itself but 
>> not remotely from the desktop.
>>
>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>
>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>
>> thanks
>> 


0
Bob
3/22/2010 8:35:56 PM
Nope it's fine cliff is correct
In addition you might want to use the SQL Manager tool
and TWEAK the Usage of Memory of SQL
it runs away just like it did with SBS2003
Russ

-- 
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
Question or Second Opinion - www.PersonalITConsultant.com
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com
Twitter http://www.twitter.com/SBITSdotBiz

"Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
news:O5E7J9fyKHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> OK,. I was thinking of doing that but wasn't sure if it would mess up the 
> default sbsmonitoring service.
>
> thanks
>
> bob
> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
>> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
>> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>>
>> -Cliff
>>
>>
>> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
>> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to use 
>>> this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to 
>>> connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not found 
>>> or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the DNS. I am 
>>> able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server itself but 
>>> not remotely from the desktop.
>>>
>>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>>
>>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>
> 
0
Russ
3/22/2010 11:06:41 PM
On 3/22/2010 1:35 PM, Bob Smedley wrote:
> OK,. I was thinking of doing that but wasn't sure if it would mess up the
> default sbsmonitoring service.
>
>
An additional instance will not mess up an existing instance. However, 
please remember that you will need to setup independent backup 
procedures for your new instance.

SQL Express 2008 is easy to add and easy to manage with SQL management 
studio. Consider giving it a descriptive instance name to make it easier 
to find. It is possible to have both SQL 2005 and 2008 co-exist on the 
same server.
-- 
Leonid S. Knyshov
Crashproof Solutions
510-282-1008
Twitter: @wiseleo
http://crashproofsolutions.com
Microsoft Small Business Specialist
Try Exchange Online http://bit.ly/free-exchange-trial
Please vote "helpful" if I helped you :)
0
Leonid
3/22/2010 11:07:42 PM
But by installing a second instance aren't you increasing the total memory 
that SQL Server will take? Isn't it more memory efficient to utilise the 
existing instance and create a new database inside it?
-- 
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian


"Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>
> -Cliff
>
>
> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to use 
>> this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to 
>> connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not found 
>> or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the DNS. I am 
>> able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server itself but 
>> not remotely from the desktop.
>>
>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>
>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>
>> thanks
>> 

0
Brian
3/23/2010 9:47:56 AM
"Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by default 
>for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to use this copy 
>of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to connect to the 
>database from one of my desktops in my network. When creating a System DSN 
>to make the connection it returns server not found or permission denied. 
>I'm using windows authentication for the DNS. I am able to manage the SQL 
>instance when logged into the server itself but not remotely from the 
>desktop.

The error you are seeing is typical of what you would get if you had the 
wrong instance name ("server not found") OR if there were permissions issues 
with you connecting to it ("permission denied").

> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?

I'm using Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Express on my SBS box. I 
forget whether it came pre-installed or whether I had to download and 
install it separatly - I think it was install with SBS but I'm not entirely 
confident over that. When connecting there the "server name" is 
server-name\SBSMONITORING where "server-name" is the name of my server. If 
you get "server not found" when you try to connect then I suspect you are 
using the wrong name. If you get permission denied then its just that, that 
the account you are using doesn't have permissions to connect. If you 
connect using SQL Server Managent Studio then you can view under 
"Security\Logins" who has permissions to login and properties for each will 
show you which database they can connect to etc.

If you go this approach then do create your own database and don't reuse the 
SBSMonitoring one.

I don't use SQL Server on my SBS box, but I don't see any technical reasons 
why can't use the same database instance (SBSMONITORING) provided you create 
your own database within that instance.

Its also worth looking at the "SQL Server 2005 Surface Area Configuration" 
tool, as that shows that for SBSMONITORING it is set (the default) to local 
connections only - which might be your problem.

I don't know whether there might be any licensing issues here - I'm sure I 
recall some discussions in the past about this.
-- 
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

0
Brian
3/23/2010 11:25:38 AM
Yes, but to keep things simple IMO just create a new instance.
It's not like you are going to have that many on a SBS2008 server anyway
If so you'd want to build a server just for it IMO
You can always Add more Memory or Tweak the SQL usage.
(This is one reason why I also like dual Proc servers, flexibility in 
future)
Russ

-- 
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
Question or Second Opinion - www.PersonalITConsultant.com
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com
Twitter http://www.twitter.com/SBITSdotBiz

"Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message 
news:OIukv3myKHA.5940@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> But by installing a second instance aren't you increasing the total memory 
> that SQL Server will take? Isn't it more memory efficient to utilise the 
> existing instance and create a new database inside it?
> -- 
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>
>
> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
>> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
>> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>>
>> -Cliff
>>
>>
>> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
>> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to use 
>>> this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to 
>>> connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not found 
>>> or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the DNS. I am 
>>> able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server itself but 
>>> not remotely from the desktop.
>>>
>>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>>
>>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
> 
0
Russ
3/23/2010 8:21:07 PM
No.  SQL caches by default, so when data is accessed, SQL caches that data 
in memory for faster reads and writes.  Since the *DATA* causes more memory 
usage, it doesn't matter if that data is consolidated under one instance or 
spread out across 100...it'll still be cached and still take up memory.

Yes, there is *some* overhead for managing multiple instances, but the 
management overhead is comparatively small compared to the overall SQL usage 
patterns.

-Cliff


"Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message 
news:OIukv3myKHA.5940@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> But by installing a second instance aren't you increasing the total memory 
> that SQL Server will take? Isn't it more memory efficient to utilise the 
> existing instance and create a new database inside it?
> -- 
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>
>
> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
>> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
>> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>>
>> -Cliff
>>
>>
>> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
>> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to use 
>>> this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to 
>>> connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not found 
>>> or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the DNS. I am 
>>> able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server itself but 
>>> not remotely from the desktop.
>>>
>>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>>
>>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
> 
0
Cliff
3/23/2010 8:38:19 PM
LOL Cliff
you said No, then Yes
Which is it ?
Just teasing you :)
Russ

-- 
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
Question or Second Opinion - www.PersonalITConsultant.com
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com
Twitter http://www.twitter.com/SBITSdotBiz

"Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:356389F6-0869-4197-8A70-01F39B317C07@microsoft.com...
> No.  SQL caches by default, so when data is accessed, SQL caches that data 
> in memory for faster reads and writes.  Since the *DATA* causes more 
> memory usage, it doesn't matter if that data is consolidated under one 
> instance or spread out across 100...it'll still be cached and still take 
> up memory.
>
> Yes, there is *some* overhead for managing multiple instances, but the 
> management overhead is comparatively small compared to the overall SQL 
> usage patterns.
>
> -Cliff
>
>
> "Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message 
> news:OIukv3myKHA.5940@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> But by installing a second instance aren't you increasing the total 
>> memory that SQL Server will take? Isn't it more memory efficient to 
>> utilise the existing instance and create a new database inside it?
>> -- 
>> Brian Cryer
>> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>>
>>
>> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
>>> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
>>> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>>>
>>> -Cliff
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>>>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to 
>>>> use this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to 
>>>> connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>>>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not 
>>>> found or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the 
>>>> DNS. I am able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server 
>>>> itself but not remotely from the desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>>>
>>>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>> 
0
Russ
3/24/2010 4:04:43 AM
Fair enough.  The no was a "practical" answer in that there is not a 
*significant* memeory usage difference between instances and databases. 
And, in fact, I'd argue that separate instances is better because some 
memory settings can only be set at the instance level, and the 4 gig limit 
is set at the instance level for SQL Express.

But the answer is "yes" on a technical level as there *is* overhead for 
managing separate instances.

So no *and* yes, depending on if we are discussing practical vs technical. 
And yes, I should've made that more explicitly clear.

-Cliff


"Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]" <russ@REMOVETHIS.sbits.biz> wrote in message 
news:88B7AC24-DF20-47A7-BC28-52AA5BC40268@microsoft.com...
> LOL Cliff
> you said No, then Yes
> Which is it ?
> Just teasing you :)
> Russ
>
> -- 
> Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
> MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
> Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
> Question or Second Opinion - www.PersonalITConsultant.com
> BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com
> Twitter http://www.twitter.com/SBITSdotBiz
>
> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:356389F6-0869-4197-8A70-01F39B317C07@microsoft.com...
>> No.  SQL caches by default, so when data is accessed, SQL caches that 
>> data in memory for faster reads and writes.  Since the *DATA* causes more 
>> memory usage, it doesn't matter if that data is consolidated under one 
>> instance or spread out across 100...it'll still be cached and still take 
>> up memory.
>>
>> Yes, there is *some* overhead for managing multiple instances, but the 
>> management overhead is comparatively small compared to the overall SQL 
>> usage patterns.
>>
>> -Cliff
>>
>>
>> "Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message 
>> news:OIukv3myKHA.5940@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> But by installing a second instance aren't you increasing the total 
>>> memory that SQL Server will take? Isn't it more memory efficient to 
>>> utilise the existing instance and create a new database inside it?
>>> -- 
>>> Brian Cryer
>>> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
>>>> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
>>>> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>>>>
>>>> -Cliff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
>>>> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>>>>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to 
>>>>> use this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able 
>>>>> to connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>>>>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not 
>>>>> found or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the 
>>>>> DNS. I am able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server 
>>>>> itself but not remotely from the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>>
>>> 
0
Cliff
3/24/2010 5:54:27 AM
that's why my answer was the yes but
the but was my no :)

Russ

-- 
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
Question or Second Opinion - www.PersonalITConsultant.com
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com
Twitter http://www.twitter.com/SBITSdotBiz

"Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:FFEC3E26-D854-4569-BB1B-5C29571B23B2@microsoft.com...
> Fair enough.  The no was a "practical" answer in that there is not a 
> *significant* memeory usage difference between instances and databases. 
> And, in fact, I'd argue that separate instances is better because some 
> memory settings can only be set at the instance level, and the 4 gig limit 
> is set at the instance level for SQL Express.
>
> But the answer is "yes" on a technical level as there *is* overhead for 
> managing separate instances.
>
> So no *and* yes, depending on if we are discussing practical vs technical. 
> And yes, I should've made that more explicitly clear.
>
> -Cliff
>
>
> "Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]" <russ@REMOVETHIS.sbits.biz> wrote in message 
> news:88B7AC24-DF20-47A7-BC28-52AA5BC40268@microsoft.com...
>> LOL Cliff
>> you said No, then Yes
>> Which is it ?
>> Just teasing you :)
>> Russ
>>
>> -- 
>> Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
>> MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
>> Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
>> Question or Second Opinion - www.PersonalITConsultant.com
>> BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com
>> Twitter http://www.twitter.com/SBITSdotBiz
>>
>> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:356389F6-0869-4197-8A70-01F39B317C07@microsoft.com...
>>> No.  SQL caches by default, so when data is accessed, SQL caches that 
>>> data in memory for faster reads and writes.  Since the *DATA* causes 
>>> more memory usage, it doesn't matter if that data is consolidated under 
>>> one instance or spread out across 100...it'll still be cached and still 
>>> take up memory.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is *some* overhead for managing multiple instances, but the 
>>> management overhead is comparatively small compared to the overall SQL 
>>> usage patterns.
>>>
>>> -Cliff
>>>
>>>
>>> "Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message 
>>> news:OIukv3myKHA.5940@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> But by installing a second instance aren't you increasing the total 
>>>> memory that SQL Server will take? Isn't it more memory efficient to 
>>>> utilise the existing instance and create a new database inside it?
>>>> -- 
>>>> Brian Cryer
>>>> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating 
>>>>> another database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from 
>>>>> attempting to add your own tables and data to the existing SBS 
>>>>> internal instance.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Cliff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>>>>>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to 
>>>>>> use this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able 
>>>>>> to connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. 
>>>>>> When creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server 
>>>>>> not found or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for 
>>>>>> the DNS. I am able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the 
>>>>>> server itself but not remotely from the desktop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>
>>>> 
0
Russ
3/24/2010 11:16:16 AM
I agree about the management overhead being small, but that's not my 
concern.

Each instance will cache data independently. So both will consume memory up 
to whatever limit they are configured to.

This might be easier illustrated with numbers, so if for example we take 
your statement "... it doesn't matter if that data is consolidated under one 
instance or spread out across 100...". If each instance were configured to 
use (cache) say 256MB (out of the box its more), then under one instance it 
will consume 256MB RAM but if its across 100 instances then 100x256MB = 25GB 
(if my math is right). This isn't quite the case because I think there is 
some memory management logic built in so that SQL Server won't allocate or 
will release memory when system memory becomes exhausted. But we all know 
how performance suffers when you don't have enough RAM. Do you see what I 
mean?

In any event, installing a second instance will increase the total memory 
that is used by SQL Server(s) so there will be less for other things such as 
Exchange. So from a memory management perspective it is more efficient to 
have a single SQL Server instance than to have multiple instances.

Looking through archives the issue of single vs multiple instances is one 
which does crop up every now and then. There are reasons for going with 
multiple instances - security being the most commonly quoted reason, and 
whilst memory utilisation does seem to be the dominant reason in favour of 
using a single instance I've seen other things quoted (such as tempdb 
utilisation). The following might be of interest (but are by no means 
one-sided):

http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/single-instance-vs-multiple-instances/
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/ssqanet/archive/2008/05/15/sql-server-multiple-instances-and-resource-utilization-best-practices.aspx
http://microsoft.newsgroups.archived.at/public.sqlserver.setup/200806/08063020542.html
http://microsoft.newsgroups.archived.at/public.sqlserver.setup/200607/06071313237.html

If memory and performance are a concern then a single instance is the way to 
go - but if you've got more than enough RAM and/or performance isn't an 
issue then this is no longer compelling reason to go with a single instance. 
If security is an issue (or like Russ you consider it simpler or easier to 
manage) then go with multiple instances.
-- 
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian


"Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:356389F6-0869-4197-8A70-01F39B317C07@microsoft.com...
> No.  SQL caches by default, so when data is accessed, SQL caches that data 
> in memory for faster reads and writes.  Since the *DATA* causes more 
> memory usage, it doesn't matter if that data is consolidated under one 
> instance or spread out across 100...it'll still be cached and still take 
> up memory.
>
> Yes, there is *some* overhead for managing multiple instances, but the 
> management overhead is comparatively small compared to the overall SQL 
> usage patterns.
>
> -Cliff
>
>
> "Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message 
> news:OIukv3myKHA.5940@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> But by installing a second instance aren't you increasing the total 
>> memory that SQL Server will take? Isn't it more memory efficient to 
>> utilise the existing instance and create a new database inside it?
>> -- 
>> Brian Cryer
>> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>>
>>
>> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
>>> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
>>> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>>>
>>> -Cliff
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>>>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to 
>>>> use this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able to 
>>>> connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>>>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not 
>>>> found or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the 
>>>> DNS. I am able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server 
>>>> itself but not remotely from the desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>>>
>>>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>>>
>>>> thanks

0
Brian
3/24/2010 12:05:01 PM
Keep in mind that the articles you linked to are:

1) Primarily dealing with SQL Server, not SQL Server Express.  There is a 
*significant* difference between two database instances using two different 
tempdb files when these databases have millions of records spanning hundreds 
of gigs getting accessed hundreds of times *per second* and....well...*any* 
database in an SBS network.

2) Some of the responses in those articles are written by old-school SQL 
Server users.  There was a time when SQL server was the poor little brother 
of the other databases and did suffer some serious optimization issues.  It 
lagged significantly behind Oracle *and* IBM's DB2 in this regard.  This 
hasn't been the case for many years, but like anybody in technology, some 
old knowledge still lingers and people try to apply old rules to areas they 
no longer apply to.  Windows 7 does *not* have a 640k memory barrier... 
;)

In my (not so) humble opinion, messing with the SBSMonitoring instance is 
like messign with the default SBS group policies.  You can do it if you 
*REALLY* know what you are doing, but by and large, I'd *strongly* encourage 
creating new group policies and separate database instances.  It is 
exceedingly rare that the latter will get you into irreversible trouble, and 
even more rare that there is a legitimate benefit to the former.

....food for thought.

Thanks,

-Cliff


"Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message 
news:#uWj9o0yKHA.2436@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I agree about the management overhead being small, but that's not my 
> concern.
>
> Each instance will cache data independently. So both will consume memory 
> up to whatever limit they are configured to.
>
> This might be easier illustrated with numbers, so if for example we take 
> your statement "... it doesn't matter if that data is consolidated under 
> one instance or spread out across 100...". If each instance were 
> configured to use (cache) say 256MB (out of the box its more), then under 
> one instance it will consume 256MB RAM but if its across 100 instances 
> then 100x256MB = 25GB (if my math is right). This isn't quite the case 
> because I think there is some memory management logic built in so that SQL 
> Server won't allocate or will release memory when system memory becomes 
> exhausted. But we all know how performance suffers when you don't have 
> enough RAM. Do you see what I mean?
>
> In any event, installing a second instance will increase the total memory 
> that is used by SQL Server(s) so there will be less for other things such 
> as Exchange. So from a memory management perspective it is more efficient 
> to have a single SQL Server instance than to have multiple instances.
>
> Looking through archives the issue of single vs multiple instances is one 
> which does crop up every now and then. There are reasons for going with 
> multiple instances - security being the most commonly quoted reason, and 
> whilst memory utilisation does seem to be the dominant reason in favour of 
> using a single instance I've seen other things quoted (such as tempdb 
> utilisation). The following might be of interest (but are by no means 
> one-sided):
>
> http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/sql-server/single-instance-vs-multiple-instances/
> http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/ssqanet/archive/2008/05/15/sql-server-multiple-instances-and-resource-utilization-best-practices.aspx
> http://microsoft.newsgroups.archived.at/public.sqlserver.setup/200806/08063020542.html
> http://microsoft.newsgroups.archived.at/public.sqlserver.setup/200607/06071313237.html
>
> If memory and performance are a concern then a single instance is the way 
> to go - but if you've got more than enough RAM and/or performance isn't an 
> issue then this is no longer compelling reason to go with a single 
> instance. If security is an issue (or like Russ you consider it simpler or 
> easier to manage) then go with multiple instances.
> -- 
> Brian Cryer
> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>
>
> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:356389F6-0869-4197-8A70-01F39B317C07@microsoft.com...
>> No.  SQL caches by default, so when data is accessed, SQL caches that 
>> data in memory for faster reads and writes.  Since the *DATA* causes more 
>> memory usage, it doesn't matter if that data is consolidated under one 
>> instance or spread out across 100...it'll still be cached and still take 
>> up memory.
>>
>> Yes, there is *some* overhead for managing multiple instances, but the 
>> management overhead is comparatively small compared to the overall SQL 
>> usage patterns.
>>
>> -Cliff
>>
>>
>> "Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message 
>> news:OIukv3myKHA.5940@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> But by installing a second instance aren't you increasing the total 
>>> memory that SQL Server will take? Isn't it more memory efficient to 
>>> utilise the existing instance and create a new database inside it?
>>> -- 
>>> Brian Cryer
>>> www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:e%238UQTfyKHA.4156@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Download and run the SQL Express installer.  You'll be creating another 
>>>> database instance. I'd *strongly* discourage you from attempting to add 
>>>> your own tables and data to the existing SBS internal instance.
>>>>
>>>> -Cliff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bob Smedley" <rsmedley@bobsmedley.net> wrote in message 
>>>> news:OydCQRfyKHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>> I have a standard version of SBS 2008 (64-bit). SQL is installed by 
>>>>> default for SBSMonitoring and other services. I'd like to be able to 
>>>>> use this copy of SQL to host one of my own tables. I need to be able 
>>>>> to connect to the database from one of my desktops in my network. When 
>>>>> creating a System DSN to make the connection it returns server not 
>>>>> found or permission denied. I'm using windows authentication for the 
>>>>> DNS. I am able to manage the SQL instance when logged into the server 
>>>>> itself but not remotely from the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is not possible or am I doing something wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> The version of SQl shown in the Add/Remove shows 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
> 
0
Cliff
3/24/2010 7:23:23 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Can't see 401(k) contribiltion total
I've set up a 401(k)accont. I transfer contribiltions to this 401(k)account from each paycheck. When I go to the 401 (k) account view, it shows all the informations such as transections and the account vallue ect., EXCEPT the total contribiltion. I want to know not only what my 401(k) vallue is, but how much money I have contribilt total or over a period of time as well. I find no place to see it. Anybody can help? I'm using Money2002 and 2004 Trial Verstion. Thanks a lot! ...

How can I print a selection in Outlook 2003?
How can I print just a selection of an email in Outlook 2003? The printer driver window is different from the one that comes up in Outlook Express. Thank you! You can do this for HTML formatted messages. Highlight your text, File-> Print... and select to print only the selection -- Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook] www.howto-outlook.com Tips of the month: -What do the Outlook Icons Mean? -Create an Office 2003 CD slipstreamed with Service Pack 1 ----- "Murphie" <Murphie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:92F39B50-B877-408A-AAA7-DF350B1D72ED@microsoft.com....

outlook express
Anyone know if there is anyway to recover emails, folders, contacts, etc... if you re-installed a new copy of xp over 2000 but didn't use the upgrade feature. That is to say, all of my 2000 OE doesn't appear when I open OE in the newly installed XP environment. Does the old info get stored in some file I can link to xp oe? This newsgroup is for support of Outlook 97, 98, 2000 & 2002 from the Office family for Windows PCs. For Outlook Express (OE) support try posting in one of these newsgroups: microsoft.public.inetexplorer.ie4.outlookexpress for OE 4.x microsoft.public.wi...

error: OBE-15502 Can only have 16000 per document
Hi, I tried to export data from oracle query builder to Excel sheet, got a error message: OBE-15502 Can only have 16000 per document Is there any way i can get more records(over 16000 or unlimited) in one sheet? thanks. -- JJ ...

Can different editions of Publisher be used together?
If my son uses Publisher 2003 on a school computer, downloads his work to a flash drive, brings it home to edit on Publisher 2007, will he then be able to take the edited work back to the school computer to be used, or will it not be compatible? Stateparent wrote: > If my son uses Publisher 2003 on a school computer, downloads his work to a > flash drive, brings it home to edit on Publisher 2007, will he then be able > to take the edited work back to the school computer to be used, or will it > not be compatible? Publisher 2003 and 2007 share a common file format, so the sc...

Can't send/receive
anyone have a situation where all of sudden they can't send new messages or receive anything? I get a message when I click on "accounts" that says 'fatal error in outlook unable to complete operation" ...

Can not Customize Leads View
Hi I have tried to customize the Leads view, I tried to add a view and add some columns to it. The view is shown however I see only the name column. When I go back to the View customization, I see the columns I added. Published your customizations??? -- ---------------------- regards, Ilya Milshtein MBS Master, MBSCP, MCP Softline International www.softline.ru "alsap" wrote: > Hi I have tried to customize the Leads view, I tried to add a view and add > some columns to it. > The view is shown however I see only the name column. > When I go back to the View customi...

Can I change the "Applied Task Update Requests and Errors" view?
I really like this view in PWA 2007, but I would like to replace one column with another. Is this view customizeable? Randy -- Bad news, my friend. This view is not customizable, nor is the view shown in the Task Updates customizable (which many users wish it was). Hope this help. -- Dale A. Howard [MVP] VP of Educational Services msProjectExperts http://www.msprojectexperts.com http://www.projectserverexperts.com "We write the books on Project Server" "Randy Schmid" <RandySchmid@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:72FA34B5-...

Should be an easy but I can not figure it out!!
I have a text box where the user enters a date and it is assigned to variable txtDate. How to I convert that to the serial number of the date? Thanks for the help IIRC, you can use DATEVAL(String) to get the serial date. -- HTH, Barb Reinhardt "VinceW" wrote: > I have a text box where the user enters a date and it is assigned to variable > txtDate. How to I convert that to the serial number of the date? > > Thanks for the help Barb, Thanks for the quick reply, however I get the error "Sub or Function not defined" when trying...

Bulk attachments
I have a very long list of Images in a single folder that I want to attach to seperate fields in a table/form. Each record contains two images, which are named like this: W:\Foldername\Micromap Run 001 A.bmp =(1st record) W:\Foldername\Micromap Run 001 B.bmp =(1st record) W:\Foldername\Micromap Run 002 A.bmp =(2nd record) W:\Foldername\Micromap Run 002 B.bmp =(2nd record) W:\Foldername\Micromap Run 003 A.bmp =(3rd record) W:\Foldername\Micromap Run 003 B.bmp =(3rd record) and so on... Image A goes to field A Image B goes to field B Is there a way of doing this au...

can't uninstall exchange from cluster nodes
hi our client has several exchange clusters, and one of them is being retired. we have removed the exchange resources and the EVS and the server no longer appears in the organization and everything else there seems to be ok. we can't seem to uninstall exchange from either of the nodes. setup will start saying it's loading components then terminates with no error; happens on both nodes. both nodes are exchange 2003 sp1 on windows 2003. i did find the setup log; here is what it says, hope someone can shed some light on this (company info replaced with < >): [19:47:23] *...

Can't delete email #2
I'm am trying to help a friend who is using Outlook Express on W98, I cannot delete any messages from her in box. She has over 500 in there, which may be part of the problem. Any suggestions? Desperate! Mark Mark Ryan <m.ryan@earthlink.com> wrote: > I'm am trying to help a friend who is using Outlook Express > on W98, I cannot delete any messages from her in box. She > has over 500 in there, which may be part of the problem. > Any suggestions? The first suggestion is to ask in an Outlok Express newsgroup. The second suggestion is to delete Deleted Items.dbx and ...

Need to import contacts from Outlook to Outlook Express
I have a freind having trouble with email on the road and she needs to start using Outlook Express rather than Outlook. How do you import Contacts from OUtlook into Outlook Express. Thanks in advance Hi Donnie, please search the *.wab file on your computer after that FILE | IMPORT | Adressbook -- Ich habe nichts gemacht, gestern gings noch! Bitte in den Newsgroup antworten damit jeder etwas davon hat. Bravestar@Datenschutzministerium.de "Donnie" <ymivey@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:uR0#ZZBcEHA.2352@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > I have a freind having trouble w...

Can Not Reply To Emails
Running Windows 7 Professional with latest version of WLM. I get email messages I can not reply to. The reply button is grayed out. For now I am forwarding them to my WinXP computer and then replying from that computer with OE6. Anybody have any ideas? -- <Bill> Brought to you from Anchorage, Alaska. The most obvious reason for not having an active Reply button is not having a mail account set up. --=20 Gary VanderMolen, Microsoft MVP (Mail) http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/profile/vandermolen "Bill Bradshaw" <bradshaw@gci.net>...

How can I rename a database table?
Hi I am working on a project that uses the MFC CDatabase and CRecordset classes to handle its interfacing with an Access database. It is necessary for the software to rename a table within existing user databases to ensure that they are valid for use with the new version of the software. As a result of my limited database and MFC knowledge I am having difficulty finding a way of renaming the table. I have tried using the following: try { theDataBase.ExecuteSQL( "RENAME oldTableName TO newTableName"); } catch( CDBException* e) { e->m_strError; } However, it results in th...

What is the quickest way to get an xml based dataset to add entries to SQL Server?
Because there is no 'datareader' involved, what is the most efficient way to get an XML based dataset to be added to an SQL server dataset? I would hate to have to create a new SQL connection and iterate through making "executenonquery" for each row in the dataset. That seems horribly in-efficient. I know of no other way to get an xml based dataset to push data to the database though. Any pointers? Thanks for any pointers, Peter Robbins Freelance Programmer C#/PHP "MurdockSE" <murdock@nc.rr.com> wrote in message news:1153922058.675709.165630@h48g2000cwc.go...

Cannot install lame mp3 on vista x64
Hi, Somebody gave me advice to do: 1. Opening up a command prompt by typing "cmd" in the run box and pressing Ctrl+Shift+Enter (to run as Administrator). 2. Changing directories to sysWOW64 ("cd C:\windows\syswow64") 3. Typing the following (example_path replaced with the actual path to the extracted files), then hit enter: rundll32.exe setupapi.dll,InstallHinfSection DefaultInstall 0 c:\Temp_Folder_Path\codecXXX.inf I did everything and it was looking that it was installed but still in my VirtualDub this codec doesn't exist. Can someo...

how can I restore unsaved changes in excel #2
...

Can (or how can) I do this
Hello, My Access application tracks an employee's progress through a process similar to hiring. There are 5 steps in the process. I track 4 of the steps by counting the number of times a value appears in a date field for that step. The count is then displayed and used in a calculation. The 5th step is more complicated. The 5th step needs to determine if the employee has verified that he can access all the applications that he should have access to. My process tracking table has the first 4 dates. The application access info comes from a different table. This process trackin...

Can Not Connect to Exchange Server after Mailbox Move
I have 2 exchange servers. While logged into the domain, and at the location, I can log into the email system just fine. While remote VPN in, I can not access the server. I can ping the server, I can see all shares, and I can even access the printer and print from the exchange server. But I can not get to it with email. Any Ideas? Oh.. both exchange 5.5, both in the same site. Exchange Admin shows both sites just fine. is there a firewall with rules configured, in between the users vpn connection and the internal network? kmelillo@gmail.com wrote: > Oh.. both exchange 5.5, bot...

Can not archive
I get the message "Error while archiving folder "Deleted Items" in store "mailbox-user name." Some items could not be copied. They were either moved or deleted, or access was denied. This only happend recently and only occurs with the deleted items. I can archive send and the inbox without a problem. Any suggestions? Thanks ...

It is possible to install some programs from 2003 with some from 2
I have a student/home edition of Office 2007 and I'd like to install Access from Office 2003. Would that work? Yes, ensure you do a custom install, selecting only Access; however the MS advice is to install earlier component first, update then install later version, but you should be ok "Paul Blay" <PaulBlay@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:8B549DE7-5E88-4498-BD63-58063A211923@microsoft.com... > I have a student/home edition of Office 2007 and I'd like to install > Access > from Office 2003. Would that work? Thank you! ...

can'not set or connect to an email account
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01CAAC2C.BBDF6A00 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0011_01CAAC2C.BBDF9110" ------=_NextPart_001_0011_01CAAC2C.BBDF9110 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am triying to set an email account.I am vodafone mobile customer.Some = settings bloking my access to email service.I am not a professinal = computer user,following the the instractions but no luck.Can you help = me? Thank you. ------=_Nex...

Where can I download this type of db example?
Hi, I'm working in Access 2003. Where can I download a (free) Access database example that shows how to implement forms and queries for tables that break down many-to-many relationships with a link table? I understand normalization and I believe my structure is 3rd order normalized. I need to figure out how to input data into the tables and have them linked together automatically by a query (or, if necessary, VB code). In other words, a database that has tblParents (1->oo) tblParent_Child_LINK (1->oo) tblChildren where (1->oo) means One-to-many, if it wasn't c...

Can you convert picture into Visio?
Is there a way to convert picture into Visio format? If so, how? It would depend on what format the picture was in. For most cases, this is not an easy task. John... Visio MVP "tbae" wrote: > Is there a way to convert picture into Visio format? If so, how? ...