Hello ,
I have couple of questions on clustering as well as on hardware.
1) Is the license for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition ( Production) on
active/active and active/passive is same?
2) Is the license for sql server 2005 is socket based or processor based, is
there any differnce between them.
3) Do we have any figures for SQL Server 2005 performance on single socket
as well as dual socket servers ?
4) If we have a active/active cluster on single socket on quad core
processor , what will be the license as well as performance when compared to
the active/active on dual socket on quad processor?
Any input is appreciated?
Comments Inline
"IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:87B5B6CB-413D-4A12-A4D3-59CDAC0C569A@.microsoft.com...
> Hello ,
> I have couple of questions on clustering as well as on hardware.
> 1) Is the license for SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition ( Production) on
> active/active and active/passive is same?
Sort of. There is a single-instance or N+1 exception to normal licensing
requirements. If you have a node that is always a standby system, Then it
doesn't have to be licensed for SQL. Two nodes, one instance, one license.
Four nodes, three instances, three licenses.
Also, on two-node clusters, you might look into Standard Edition for
clustering. It's lots cheaper and it does support two-node clusters.
> 2) Is the license for sql server 2005 is socket based or processor based,
> is
> there any differnce between them.
Socket-based. This makes dual and quad core systems very price competitive
from a licensing standpoint.
> 3) Do we have any figures for SQL Server 2005 performance on single socket
> as well as dual socket servers ?
I generally don't trust benchmarks all that much. With SQL, the nature of
the load can vary so much between systems that finding a matching benchmark
is difficult if not impossible. Dual and quad socket systems are commodity
priced so I wouldn't go with a single-socket system except for the very
lowest application. Certainly not for a cluster.
> 4) If we have a active/active cluster on single socket on quad core
> processor , what will be the license as well as performance when compared
> to
> the active/active on dual socket on quad processor?
>
Assuming per-socket licensing, you would need one socket license for the
first and four licenses for the second. CAL licensing (assuming the usage
meets the requirements) would be one server license and N CALS for the first
or two server licenses and N CALs for the second. N being the number of
client users or devices.
> Any input is appreciated?
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
|||Thanks that was helpful....
Is there any KB or white paper describing the same for some documentation...
"Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
> Comments Inline
> "IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:87B5B6CB-413D-4A12-A4D3-59CDAC0C569A@.microsoft.com...
> Sort of. There is a single-instance or N+1 exception to normal licensing
> requirements. If you have a node that is always a standby system, Then it
> doesn't have to be licensed for SQL. Two nodes, one instance, one license.
> Four nodes, three instances, three licenses.
> Also, on two-node clusters, you might look into Standard Edition for
> clustering. It's lots cheaper and it does support two-node clusters.
> Socket-based. This makes dual and quad core systems very price competitive
> from a licensing standpoint.
> I generally don't trust benchmarks all that much. With SQL, the nature of
> the load can vary so much between systems that finding a matching benchmark
> is difficult if not impossible. Dual and quad socket systems are commodity
> priced so I wouldn't go with a single-socket system except for the very
> lowest application. Certainly not for a cluster.
> Assuming per-socket licensing, you would need one socket license for the
> first and four licenses for the second. CAL licensing (assuming the usage
> meets the requirements) would be one server license and N CALS for the first
> or two server licenses and N CALs for the second. N being the number of
> client users or devices.
>
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
|||Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Licensing
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx#EXE
The links to the white paper and FAQ are very useful
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"IT" <IT@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8848E76E-646D-4AA9-B7FD-7FCCA6D5DAFE@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks that was helpful....
> Is there any KB or white paper describing the same for some
> documentation...
> "Geoff N. Hiten" wrote:
Showing posts with label license. Show all posts
Showing posts with label license. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Client licensing
My apologies if this is the wrong newsgroup... I couldn't find the most
appropriate one.
Does a client access license allow a user to access any # of SQL Servers
deployed in my enterprise or do I need a CAL / user / server?
Thx.
Hi,
try following:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx#EEAA
Danijel Novak
"Drew" <nodirectemails@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23UodxSRBGHA.2912@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> My apologies if this is the wrong newsgroup... I couldn't find the most
> appropriate one.
> Does a client access license allow a user to access any # of SQL Servers
> deployed in my enterprise or do I need a CAL / user / server?
> Thx.
>
|||Thanks!
"Danijel Novak" <danijel.novak@.triera.net> wrote in message
news:ejmYUqTBGHA.3352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> try following:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx#EEAA
> --
> Danijel Novak
>
> "Drew" <nodirectemails@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UodxSRBGHA.2912@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
appropriate one.
Does a client access license allow a user to access any # of SQL Servers
deployed in my enterprise or do I need a CAL / user / server?
Thx.
Hi,
try following:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx#EEAA
Danijel Novak
"Drew" <nodirectemails@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23UodxSRBGHA.2912@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> My apologies if this is the wrong newsgroup... I couldn't find the most
> appropriate one.
> Does a client access license allow a user to access any # of SQL Servers
> deployed in my enterprise or do I need a CAL / user / server?
> Thx.
>
|||Thanks!
"Danijel Novak" <danijel.novak@.triera.net> wrote in message
news:ejmYUqTBGHA.3352@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> try following:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx#EEAA
> --
> Danijel Novak
>
> "Drew" <nodirectemails@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UodxSRBGHA.2912@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
Client Licensing
We are just about to upgrade our trial version of SQL 2005 to SQL 2005 std.
I underatand I need a license for the server and each client.
My query is I have 3 users which can also work from home as and when
required, will they be covered under the licences we use in the office or do
i need to purchase 3 more, these users will be using different machines at
home
thanksHello Leonard!
SQL Server is available under three licensing options:
â?¢ Per Processor Licensing Model. A Processor license is required for each
physical or virtual processor that is accessed by an operating system
environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any device or
user client access licenses (CALs).
â?¢ Server plus Device CALs Licensing Model. A Server license is required for
each operating system environment running an instance of SQL Server, as well
as a CAL for each client device that accesses a system running SQL Server.
â?¢ Server plus User CALs Licensing Model. A Server license is required for
each operating system environment running an instance of SQL Server, as well
as a CAL for each user who accesses a system running SQL Server.
So, If you buy User CALs for those 3 users then you do not need to buy extra
licenses for them.
However, I encourage you to contact to a local authorized license vendor to
get the most correct answer about this stuff.
You may have more info about licensing from the following link:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"Leonard" <Leonard@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01B44CCE-9F73-4880-B9CC-697C463DBBB0@.microsoft.com...
> We are just about to upgrade our trial version of SQL 2005 to SQL 2005
> std.
> I underatand I need a license for the server and each client.
> My query is I have 3 users which can also work from home as and when
> required, will they be covered under the licences we use in the office or
> do
> i need to purchase 3 more, these users will be using different machines at
> home
> thanks
I underatand I need a license for the server and each client.
My query is I have 3 users which can also work from home as and when
required, will they be covered under the licences we use in the office or do
i need to purchase 3 more, these users will be using different machines at
home
thanksHello Leonard!
SQL Server is available under three licensing options:
â?¢ Per Processor Licensing Model. A Processor license is required for each
physical or virtual processor that is accessed by an operating system
environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any device or
user client access licenses (CALs).
â?¢ Server plus Device CALs Licensing Model. A Server license is required for
each operating system environment running an instance of SQL Server, as well
as a CAL for each client device that accesses a system running SQL Server.
â?¢ Server plus User CALs Licensing Model. A Server license is required for
each operating system environment running an instance of SQL Server, as well
as a CAL for each user who accesses a system running SQL Server.
So, If you buy User CALs for those 3 users then you do not need to buy extra
licenses for them.
However, I encourage you to contact to a local authorized license vendor to
get the most correct answer about this stuff.
You may have more info about licensing from the following link:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx
Ekrem Ã?nsoy
"Leonard" <Leonard@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01B44CCE-9F73-4880-B9CC-697C463DBBB0@.microsoft.com...
> We are just about to upgrade our trial version of SQL 2005 to SQL 2005
> std.
> I underatand I need a license for the server and each client.
> My query is I have 3 users which can also work from home as and when
> required, will they be covered under the licences we use in the office or
> do
> i need to purchase 3 more, these users will be using different machines at
> home
> thanks
Client License Question - SQL and Server
If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
only one server is accepting connections at a time.
Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
both servers.
I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client box
but set them both to 50.
MS site doesn't specificly cover this
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
server is strictly passive.
<snip from ms site>
. Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either the
Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However, if
a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The only
exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
passive server.
thnks,
SherpaSherpa,
This sounds like an active/passive configuration in which the licensing from
the below snipit would apply. Having said that, I would probably follow up
with Microsoft directly on the licensing question and get an answer in email
for future reference if needed.
HTH
Jerry
"Sherpa" <1@.1.com> wrote in message
news:%23vIfPh7vFHA.3000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
> only one server is accepting connections at a time.
> Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
> both servers.
> I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client
> box
> but set them both to 50.
>
> MS site doesn't specificly cover this
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
> server is strictly passive.
> <snip from ms site>
> . Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
> computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
> passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
> active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either
> the
> Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However,
> if
> a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
> failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The
> only
> exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
> licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
> number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
> Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
> passive server.
>
>
> thnks,
> Sherpa
>|||If you are using server+CAL licensing then you just need a server licence
for each server plus a CAL for each client. You don't need to purchase
double the number of CALs.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Hello,
Since the question is a license issue, you may call the licensing team
directly at 1-800-426-9400 (select option 4), Monday through Friday, 6:00
A.M. to 5:30 P.M. (PST) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing
specialist in the United States and Canada.
Worldwide customers can use the Guide to Worldwide Microsoft Licensing
Sites <http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.asp>
to find contact information in their locations.
I hope the information is helpful.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
========================================
=============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
only one server is accepting connections at a time.
Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
both servers.
I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client box
but set them both to 50.
MS site doesn't specificly cover this
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
server is strictly passive.
<snip from ms site>
. Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either the
Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However, if
a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The only
exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
passive server.
thnks,
SherpaSherpa,
This sounds like an active/passive configuration in which the licensing from
the below snipit would apply. Having said that, I would probably follow up
with Microsoft directly on the licensing question and get an answer in email
for future reference if needed.
HTH
Jerry
"Sherpa" <1@.1.com> wrote in message
news:%23vIfPh7vFHA.3000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
> only one server is accepting connections at a time.
> Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
> both servers.
> I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client
> box
> but set them both to 50.
>
> MS site doesn't specificly cover this
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
> server is strictly passive.
> <snip from ms site>
> . Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
> computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
> passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
> active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either
> the
> Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However,
> if
> a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
> failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The
> only
> exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
> licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
> number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
> Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
> passive server.
>
>
> thnks,
> Sherpa
>|||If you are using server+CAL licensing then you just need a server licence
for each server plus a CAL for each client. You don't need to purchase
double the number of CALs.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Hello,
Since the question is a license issue, you may call the licensing team
directly at 1-800-426-9400 (select option 4), Monday through Friday, 6:00
A.M. to 5:30 P.M. (PST) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing
specialist in the United States and Canada.
Worldwide customers can use the Guide to Worldwide Microsoft Licensing
Sites <http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.asp>
to find contact information in their locations.
I hope the information is helpful.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
========================================
=============
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Client License Question - SQL and Server
If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
only one server is accepting connections at a time.
Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
both servers.
I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client box
but set them both to 50.
MS site doesn't specificly cover this
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
server is strictly passive.
<snip from ms site>
. Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either the
Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However, if
a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The only
exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
passive server.
thnks,
Sherpa
Sherpa,
This sounds like an active/passive configuration in which the licensing from
the below snipit would apply. Having said that, I would probably follow up
with Microsoft directly on the licensing question and get an answer in email
for future reference if needed.
HTH
Jerry
"Sherpa" <1@.1.com> wrote in message
news:%23vIfPh7vFHA.3000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
> only one server is accepting connections at a time.
> Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
> both servers.
> I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client
> box
> but set them both to 50.
>
> MS site doesn't specificly cover this
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
> server is strictly passive.
> <snip from ms site>
> . Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
> computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
> passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
> active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either
> the
> Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However,
> if
> a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
> failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The
> only
> exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
> licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
> number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
> Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
> passive server.
>
>
> thnks,
> Sherpa
>
|||If you are using server+CAL licensing then you just need a server licence
for each server plus a CAL for each client. You don't need to purchase
double the number of CALs.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Hello,
Since the question is a license issue, you may call the licensing team
directly at 1-800-426-9400 (select option 4), Monday through Friday, 6:00
A.M. to 5:30 P.M. (PST) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing
specialist in the United States and Canada.
Worldwide customers can use the Guide to Worldwide Microsoft Licensing
Sites <http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.asp>
to find contact information in their locations.
I hope the information is helpful.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ===
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
only one server is accepting connections at a time.
Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
both servers.
I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client box
but set them both to 50.
MS site doesn't specificly cover this
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
server is strictly passive.
<snip from ms site>
. Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either the
Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However, if
a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The only
exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
passive server.
thnks,
Sherpa
Sherpa,
This sounds like an active/passive configuration in which the licensing from
the below snipit would apply. Having said that, I would probably follow up
with Microsoft directly on the licensing question and get an answer in email
for future reference if needed.
HTH
Jerry
"Sherpa" <1@.1.com> wrote in message
news:%23vIfPh7vFHA.3000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
> only one server is accepting connections at a time.
> Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
> both servers.
> I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client
> box
> but set them both to 50.
>
> MS site doesn't specificly cover this
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
> server is strictly passive.
> <snip from ms site>
> . Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
> computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
> passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
> active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either
> the
> Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However,
> if
> a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
> failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The
> only
> exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
> licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
> number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
> Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
> passive server.
>
>
> thnks,
> Sherpa
>
|||If you are using server+CAL licensing then you just need a server licence
for each server plus a CAL for each client. You don't need to purchase
double the number of CALs.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Hello,
Since the question is a license issue, you may call the licensing team
directly at 1-800-426-9400 (select option 4), Monday through Friday, 6:00
A.M. to 5:30 P.M. (PST) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing
specialist in the United States and Canada.
Worldwide customers can use the Guide to Worldwide Microsoft Licensing
Sites <http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.asp>
to find contact information in their locations.
I hope the information is helpful.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ===
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Client License Question - SQL and Server
If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
only one server is accepting connections at a time.
Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
both servers.
I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client box
but set them both to 50.
thnks,
Sherpa
Hello,
I notice that you have posted the same question in our SQLServer newsgroup,
which I have already responded. Please check the answers there and if you
need any further assistance on this particular issue, please reply in that
thread. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ===
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
only one server is accepting connections at a time.
Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
both servers.
I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client box
but set them both to 50.
thnks,
Sherpa
Hello,
I notice that you have posted the same question in our SQLServer newsgroup,
which I have already responded. Please check the answers there and if you
need any further assistance on this particular issue, please reply in that
thread. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ===
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Client License Question - SQL and Server
If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
only one server is accepting connections at a time.
Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
both servers.
I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client box
but set them both to 50.
MS site doesn't specificly cover this
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
server is strictly passive.
<snip from ms site>
. Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either the
Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However, if
a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The only
exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
passive server.
thnks,
SherpaSherpa,
This sounds like an active/passive configuration in which the licensing from
the below snipit would apply. Having said that, I would probably follow up
with Microsoft directly on the licensing question and get an answer in email
for future reference if needed.
HTH
Jerry
"Sherpa" <1@.1.com> wrote in message
news:%23vIfPh7vFHA.3000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
> only one server is accepting connections at a time.
> Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
> both servers.
> I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client
> box
> but set them both to 50.
>
> MS site doesn't specificly cover this
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
> server is strictly passive.
> <snip from ms site>
> . Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
> computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
> passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
> active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either
> the
> Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However,
> if
> a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
> failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The
> only
> exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
> licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
> number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
> Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
> passive server.
>
>
> thnks,
> Sherpa
>|||If you are using server+CAL licensing then you just need a server licence
for each server plus a CAL for each client. You don't need to purchase
double the number of CALs.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Hello,
Since the question is a license issue, you may call the licensing team
directly at 1-800-426-9400 (select option 4), Monday through Friday, 6:00
A.M. to 5:30 P.M. (PST) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing
specialist in the United States and Canada.
Worldwide customers can use the Guide to Worldwide Microsoft Licensing
Sites <http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.asp>
to find contact information in their locations.
I hope the information is helpful.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
=====================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
only one server is accepting connections at a time.
Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
both servers.
I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client box
but set them both to 50.
MS site doesn't specificly cover this
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
server is strictly passive.
<snip from ms site>
. Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either the
Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However, if
a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The only
exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
passive server.
thnks,
SherpaSherpa,
This sounds like an active/passive configuration in which the licensing from
the below snipit would apply. Having said that, I would probably follow up
with Microsoft directly on the licensing question and get an answer in email
for future reference if needed.
HTH
Jerry
"Sherpa" <1@.1.com> wrote in message
news:%23vIfPh7vFHA.3000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> If I'm running a Legato Co-Standby or CA Brightstor failover setup, where
> only one server is accepting connections at a time.
> Do I need to purchase a full count of SQL and Server client licenses for
> both servers.
> I've heard that I can have for example; a fifty client and a zero client
> box
> but set them both to 50.
>
> MS site doesn't specificly cover this
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> I could say it's similar to an active/pasive cluster because the secon
> server is strictly passive.
> <snip from ms site>
> . Active/passive. In the active/passive configuration, one or more
> computers in the cluster do not regularly process information but rather
> passively wait to pick up the workload when an active server fails. All
> active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, according to either
> the
> Per Processor licensing model or the Server/CAL licensing model. However,
> if
> a server is strictly passive, working only while an active server has
> failed, no additional licenses are needed for that passive server. The
> only
> exception to this rule is if the cluster is licensed using Processor
> licenses and the number of processors on the passive server exceeds the
> number of processors on the active server. In these cases, additional
> Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the
> passive server.
>
>
> thnks,
> Sherpa
>|||If you are using server+CAL licensing then you just need a server licence
for each server plus a CAL for each client. You don't need to purchase
double the number of CALs.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Hello,
Since the question is a license issue, you may call the licensing team
directly at 1-800-426-9400 (select option 4), Monday through Friday, 6:00
A.M. to 5:30 P.M. (PST) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing
specialist in the United States and Canada.
Worldwide customers can use the Guide to Worldwide Microsoft Licensing
Sites <http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.asp>
to find contact information in their locations.
I hope the information is helpful.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
=====================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
=====================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Client license question
Hi all,
This is a question related to licensing...
Environment :
Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
SQLServerAccount/Password)
There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
the SQL Server.
There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
have several instances for each user...
Basically the external users will not have access to the
SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
end application...
How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
server/clients?
Best regards,
Alin V.
As I posted within .server:
Is the web server only serving up pages (and data) to a distinct, known set
of individuals (such as employees or partners that have access to the web
site)? If so, it is my understanding that you can probably go the user CAL
route.
Otherwise you will have to go the PER PROCESSOR route
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobu...rlicensing.asp
Keith
"Alin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2575401c4606b$b6f56840$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> This is a question related to licensing...
> Environment :
> Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
> Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
> Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
> 1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
> SQLServerAccount/Password)
> There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
> using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
> the SQL Server.
> There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
> Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
> have several instances for each user...
> Basically the external users will not have access to the
> SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
> end application...
> How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
> server/clients?
> Best regards,
> Alin V.
>
|||Alin,
I think that anyone interacting with the database from a client
computer, whether that interaction passes through an intermediary such
as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your anonymous user
requests are handled through transactions specifically for them against
the database, they need to be covered by either individual client
licenses or by a processor license on the web server. You should
probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I think the only
possible situation in which you can consider the web server to be the
sole client would be if the web server's interactions with the database
were independent of the anonymous users' interactions with the
webserver. This might be the case if the web server only served up a
collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL Server could supply
the information for these reports, but the users would only be able to
select which report they wanted to see, or request a report with some
sort of customization that could be handled by the web server alone. As
soon as the database is asked specific questions on behalf of someone,
that someone has become a client.
When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may be a zero-cost
solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web applications.
See http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.
Steve Kass
Drew University
Alin wrote:
>Hi all,
> This is a question related to licensing...
> Environment :
> Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
> Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
> Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
>1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
>SQLServerAccount/Password)
> There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
>using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
>the SQL Server.
> There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
>Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
>have several instances for each user...
> Basically the external users will not have access to the
>SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
>end application...
> How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
>server/clients?
>Best regards,
> Alin V.
>
>
|||A small correction - I should have said "processor license on Server 1,"
not "processor license on the web server
SK
Steve Kass wrote:
> Alin,
> I think that anyone interacting with the database from a client
> computer, whether that interaction passes through an intermediary such
> as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your anonymous
> user requests are handled through transactions specifically for them
> against the database, they need to be covered by either individual
> client licenses or by a processor license on the web server. You
> should probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I think
> the only possible situation in which you can consider the web server
> to be the sole client would be if the web server's interactions with
> the database were independent of the anonymous users' interactions
> with the webserver. This might be the case if the web server only
> served up a collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL Server
> could supply the information for these reports, but the users would
> only be able to select which report they wanted to see, or request a
> report with some sort of customization that could be handled by the
> web server alone. As soon as the database is asked specific questions
> on behalf of someone, that someone has become a client.
> When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may be a
> zero-cost solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web
> applications. See
> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> Alin wrote:
>
|||Thanks guys for your quick responses... from the License
Agreement I got the same feeling...
Best regards,
Alin V.
>--Original Message--
>Alin,
> I think that anyone interacting with the database from
a client
>computer, whether that interaction passes through an
intermediary such
>as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your
anonymous user
>requests are handled through transactions specifically
for them against
>the database, they need to be covered by either
individual client
>licenses or by a processor license on the web server.
You should
>probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I
think the only
>possible situation in which you can consider the web
server to be the
>sole client would be if the web server's interactions
with the database
>were independent of the anonymous users' interactions
with the
>webserver. This might be the case if the web server only
served up a
>collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL
Server could supply
>the information for these reports, but the users would
only be able to
>select which report they wanted to see, or request a
report with some
>sort of customization that could be handled by the web
server alone. As
>soon as the database is asked specific questions on
behalf of someone,
>that someone has become a client.
> When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may
be a zero-cost
>solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web
applications.
>See
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.[vbcol=seagreen]
>Steve Kass
>Drew University
>Alin wrote:
(Server[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
the
>.
>
This is a question related to licensing...
Environment :
Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
SQLServerAccount/Password)
There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
the SQL Server.
There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
have several instances for each user...
Basically the external users will not have access to the
SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
end application...
How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
server/clients?
Best regards,
Alin V.
As I posted within .server:
Is the web server only serving up pages (and data) to a distinct, known set
of individuals (such as employees or partners that have access to the web
site)? If so, it is my understanding that you can probably go the user CAL
route.
Otherwise you will have to go the PER PROCESSOR route
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobu...rlicensing.asp
Keith
"Alin" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2575401c4606b$b6f56840$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi all,
> This is a question related to licensing...
> Environment :
> Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
> Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
> Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
> 1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
> SQLServerAccount/Password)
> There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
> using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
> the SQL Server.
> There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
> Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
> have several instances for each user...
> Basically the external users will not have access to the
> SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
> end application...
> How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
> server/clients?
> Best regards,
> Alin V.
>
|||Alin,
I think that anyone interacting with the database from a client
computer, whether that interaction passes through an intermediary such
as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your anonymous user
requests are handled through transactions specifically for them against
the database, they need to be covered by either individual client
licenses or by a processor license on the web server. You should
probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I think the only
possible situation in which you can consider the web server to be the
sole client would be if the web server's interactions with the database
were independent of the anonymous users' interactions with the
webserver. This might be the case if the web server only served up a
collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL Server could supply
the information for these reports, but the users would only be able to
select which report they wanted to see, or request a report with some
sort of customization that could be handled by the web server alone. As
soon as the database is asked specific questions on behalf of someone,
that someone has become a client.
When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may be a zero-cost
solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web applications.
See http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.
Steve Kass
Drew University
Alin wrote:
>Hi all,
> This is a question related to licensing...
> Environment :
> Server 1 - Windows 2000/2003 with SQL Server 2000
> Server 2 - webserver (IIS/Apache/etc)
> Server 2 is connecting to the SQL Server database (Server
>1) using SQL Server authentication (i.e.
>SQLServerAccount/Password)
> There are multiple users connecting to the webserver
>using anonymous authentication to pull out some data from
>the SQL Server.
> There is going to be only one user connected to the SQL
>Server (which is 'SQLServerAccount') ... and is going to
>have several instances for each user...
> Basically the external users will not have access to the
>SQL Server database ... without using the webbased front-
>end application...
> How many licenses (SQL Server) do I need for the
>server/clients?
>Best regards,
> Alin V.
>
>
|||A small correction - I should have said "processor license on Server 1,"
not "processor license on the web server
SK
Steve Kass wrote:
> Alin,
> I think that anyone interacting with the database from a client
> computer, whether that interaction passes through an intermediary such
> as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your anonymous
> user requests are handled through transactions specifically for them
> against the database, they need to be covered by either individual
> client licenses or by a processor license on the web server. You
> should probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I think
> the only possible situation in which you can consider the web server
> to be the sole client would be if the web server's interactions with
> the database were independent of the anonymous users' interactions
> with the webserver. This might be the case if the web server only
> served up a collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL Server
> could supply the information for these reports, but the users would
> only be able to select which report they wanted to see, or request a
> report with some sort of customization that could be handled by the
> web server alone. As soon as the database is asked specific questions
> on behalf of someone, that someone has become a client.
> When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may be a
> zero-cost solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web
> applications. See
> http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.
> Steve Kass
> Drew University
> Alin wrote:
>
|||Thanks guys for your quick responses... from the License
Agreement I got the same feeling...
Best regards,
Alin V.
>--Original Message--
>Alin,
> I think that anyone interacting with the database from
a client
>computer, whether that interaction passes through an
intermediary such
>as a web server or not, is considered a client. If your
anonymous user
>requests are handled through transactions specifically
for them against
>the database, they need to be covered by either
individual client
>licenses or by a processor license on the web server.
You should
>probably contact Microsoft for an official answer, but I
think the only
>possible situation in which you can consider the web
server to be the
>sole client would be if the web server's interactions
with the database
>were independent of the anonymous users' interactions
with the
>webserver. This might be the case if the web server only
served up a
>collection of canned reports off the data. The SQL
Server could supply
>the information for these reports, but the users would
only be able to
>select which report they wanted to see, or request a
report with some
>sort of customization that could be handled by the web
server alone. As
>soon as the database is asked specific questions on
behalf of someone,
>that someone has become a client.
> When it's released, SQL Server 2005 Express Edition may
be a zero-cost
>solution as a back-end database for many kinds of Web
applications.
>See
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/sql/default.aspx.[vbcol=seagreen]
>Steve Kass
>Drew University
>Alin wrote:
(Server[vbcol=seagreen]
from[vbcol=seagreen]
the
>.
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)