I have two servers. On the first server I want to put two dbs and on to the
second second server I want to put the third db.
The dbs on the first server will be queried from 600 users. The high
performance is an important goal, and the high data availability, also.
I think to install two SQL Server instances on the first server and other
two SQL Server instances on the second server.
On the first SQL instance of the first server I want to put the first two
dbs and on the second SQL instance the third db. In the same manner, I want
to use the SQL instances in the second server. Is it correct?
Now, do I create a cluster with two nodes or two cluster with two nodes, in
respect with performance and availability?
Thanks

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote:

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote:

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote:

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote:

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote:

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote:

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote:

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote:

You have three databases, and for some reason you want to place two of them
in one instance and the 3rd one in another instance. So you need two
instances in total, but you seem to be suggesting four instances. There is no
need for the other two instances.

If I were you, I'd first try the simplest option: one SQL instance in a
two-node cluster, and put all three databases in that instance.

If there is a strong reason you can't have all three databases sharing an
instance, I'd create two SQL instances in a two-node cluster.

If there is a performance problem with the databases and/or instances
sharing a server, have a two-node cluster for each instance.

Linchi

"Pasquale" wrote: