Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm installing a new instance of SQL 2005 on an existing cluster. From what I've read, I should be able to install that new instance on the same cluster name with a new instance name. Same IP, different port, same server name.

But instead, the setup is only allowing me to create a brand new sql virtual server name, new IP.

Is having two sql groups on the same cluster with the same virtual server name and IP, just different port and instance name possible?


share|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

No. Think about it.

On failover, do you want both instances to go? By failover, it does not mean failure but any event that needs the virtual instance to be running on another node.

What about the resources owned by an instance? Assuming that one fails over, do you want it to take the disks of the other instance with it too?

It makes no sense to have mutiple instances per virtual server. It's a recipe for disaster.

share|improve this answer
Each instance has its own dedicated LUNs. does that change anything? – Jason Kleban Sep 13 '09 at 19:20
@Jason: no. The virtual server owns the resources. This means all LUNs on that IP address – gbn Sep 13 '09 at 19:39

No, each instance needs its own IP address and network name.

And at least one of them needs to be a named instance.

share|improve this answer

Each instance needs its own LUNs, network name, IP address, and resource group.

This is so that each instance is failed over independently from the others instances.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.