Is using a named instance better over using a default instance?

If you were asked to install SQL 2005 on a machine, would u install a default instance or a named one? And why would u choose one over the other? Also, r there any issues with using a default instance?

Thank you for all your help.

Named instances allow for somewhat better server management -the names could reflect the SQL version. In an enviroment with lots of servers, various migration projects in play, and future upgrades, a simple way to know about the server is quite valuable.

For example:

Instance Name: LON_ACCT_Std05
Instance Name: NYC_HR_Ent05
Instance Name: DEN_INV_Exp05
Instance Name: LAX_ORD_Dev00

|||In addition, there is only one default instance on a machine. If you want to install multiple instances of SQL Server including 2000 and 2005, the rest should be named instances. Otherwise, setup will complain.|||

The other thing to think about is that the default instance name, MSSQLSERVER, is merely the defaul "named instance". No difference at all, but as pointed out, naming them allows you to describe them a bit.

Thanks,
Sam Lester (MSFT)

Is there necessary remove named instance alias after...

Hi,
I was told by someone that after install clustering SQL Server 2000 named
instance, it must remove that before installation made the alias. Is that
necessary? What if I leave the alias named instance in the server?
Thanks!
-Chen
Hi Chen,
I hope I'm understanding your question correctly.
It seems that you have installed a SQL 2000 Named Instance on a Windows
2003 Cluster. This requires an alias using Named Pipes for setup to run
properly.
Your question appears to be, do you have to remove it?
Technically, no, you don't have to remove the alias. However, cluster, sql
agent, and other local applications will continue to connect to SQL using
Named Pipes. There isn't an issue with this, but if you have an
application that specifically needs to use TCP, you will want to remove the
alias, or at least change it to TCP.
Hope that helps!
Donna Lambert
Microsoft PSS
SQL Server Support

Is there any function to check the named tag is exist or not?

Is there any function to check the named tag is exist or not?Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:30:40 +0200
References: <OedTiS4vHHA.3508@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>
Lines: 1
Reply-To: Martin.Honnen@.gmx.de
Organization: Liberty Development
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Geck
o/20060910 SeaMonkey/1.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <OedTiS4vHHA.3508@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: i577ADC0F.versanet.de 87.122.220.15
Xref: leafnode.mcse.ms microsoft.public.sqlserver.xml:2208
ABC wrote:
> Is there any function to check the named tag is exist or not?
Like this, using the method 'exist' of the xml data type:
DECLARE @.x xml;
SET @.x = '<root><foo></foo></root>';
SELECT @.x.exist('//bar') AS barTest, @.x.exist('//foo') AS fooTest;
If that is not what you are looking for then explain in more detail what
you want to achieve.
Martin Honnen -- MVP XML
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/

Is there any advantage for creating a default instance vs. a named

Hello, DBA outthere.
I understand that SQL Server 2000 allows 1 default instance and up to 15
named instances per server. I believe the default instance needs to be
created first.
Is there any reason to have more than 1 instance per server? Does having
more than one instance affect the overall SQL server performance? SQL
2000 server also allows server alias if users to have different server
naming.
I usually create named instance for new installation instead of letting
the SQL setup create the default instance. I had some run-ins with using
named instance. Some not-so-well-prepared application setups looks into
the registry for default instance
(HKL\Software\Microsoft\MSSQLServer\MSSQLServer). If whatever they looks
for is not there, the application will fail. Developers need to take
into account that as SQL Server allows DBA to create either default or
named instance or both.
In any event, give share your thoughts on using default or named instance.
Thanks.
JJ.Hi
Having multiple instances will stretch your resources more. You may want to
create multiple instances if you have a packaged application that require
specific settings or maybe because of issues of security.
I don't think you have to create the default instance first although I have
never tried doing otherwise!
John
"John Joe" <yukondba@.hotmail-lessspam.com> wrote in message
news:%234L5alHiEHA.592@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hello, DBA outthere.
> I understand that SQL Server 2000 allows 1 default instance and up to 15
> named instances per server. I believe the default instance needs to be
> created first.
> Is there any reason to have more than 1 instance per server? Does having
> more than one instance affect the overall SQL server performance? SQL
> 2000 server also allows server alias if users to have different server
> naming.
> I usually create named instance for new installation instead of letting
> the SQL setup create the default instance. I had some run-ins with using
> named instance. Some not-so-well-prepared application setups looks into
> the registry for default instance
> (HKL\Software\Microsoft\MSSQLServer\MSSQLServer). If whatever they looks
> for is not there, the application will fail. Developers need to take
> into account that as SQL Server allows DBA to create either default or
> named instance or both.
> In any event, give share your thoughts on using default or named instance.
> Thanks.
> JJ.