overcaffeinated

Thanks for your input!

In my All Systems collection, currently there are 1937 computers. I would not expect that number to grow very rapidly for us. The troubleshooting aspect is what worries me about having the 2 DBs on the same instance. Since SQL is by no means my strong suit, if we ran into performance issues in the future, I imagine it would be very difficult to pinpoint them. But let's just assume for now that we have to go with external SQL since that's how every other SQL server in our company operates, and since it's already built. But I am just looking for a solid reason from a member of the community here to recommend to my DBA that we go with separate instances for the two databases, if one exists.

Is it not recommended only from a speed perspective? They are both virtualized on vSphere with a 10 Gbit link. I'm not concerned about throughput, but maybe there are other reasons? Our SCCM 2007 has been running with a "remote" SQL instance for years and is very fast. Thanks!

Hey everyone, especially Niall, thank you so much for this community. It's been a great help! I am standing up a new SCCM 2012 R2 server and am setting it up with the plan to deploy SUS updates from SCCM (currently using a standalone WSUS server in our environment). We are running the SQL server DB for SCCM on its own server, using the default instance. I have not installed the SUS role yet on the new SCCM server. My DBA is asking me if it's OK for the SCCM and WSUS databases to share the same instance. My instinct tells me I shouldn't, but the DBA says it that if it were possible, it would save a lot of maintenance overhead. Any SCCM/SQL gurus willing to weigh in on this? I found one link on TechNet that seemed to suggest best practices for this: use the default instance for SCCM, and a named instance for WSUS. But is it necessary? Or recommended just because it's easier to determine resource utilization? Thanks everyone!