Tech Off Thread

47 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

SQL Server CAL licensing question

Back to Forum: Tech Off
  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    In theory, another argument is that SQL Server CALs are for Client Applications or actual SQL Server Logins (I understand Microsoft explicitly said this isn't the case). Most people just get Per-processor licenses, which aren't that expensive, something like £2,000 for Standard Ed.

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    W3bbo wrote:
    In theory, another argument is that SQL Server CALs are for Client Applications or actual SQL Server Logins (I understand Microsoft explicitly said this isn't the case). Most people just get Per-processor licenses, which aren't that expensive, something like £2,000 for Standard Ed.


    Correct - multiplexing of any type is stricltly prohibited. Therefore, if you were working on CAL basis you would need a license for each desk using your application. For an internal corporate web app with a small number of users this might be feasible but of course for a public website, you can forget it. Its per-processor licensing for you.

  • User profile image
    Another_​Darren

    I thought you had to have a 'per processor' licence for the SQL Server and a 'device' licence for each IIS/asp.net server accessing it.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Another_Darren wrote:
    I thought you had to have a 'per processor' licence for the SQL Server and a 'device' licence for each IIS/asp.net server accessing it.


    No, it's:

    Windows Server:
    Per-User or Per-Connection

    SQL Server:
    Per-Processor or Per-User

    Terminal Server
    Per-User or Per-Device

    I don't know about Exchange though

  • User profile image
    semantica

    I was on the horn with MS Licensing for almost an hour figuring out how to license SQL Server for a simple web application.  Basically you need a CAL for every user that is accessing information from your SQL Server Db.  As you can imagine, it ends up being much cheaper to go the per-processor route. 

    If you SQLEXPRESS is too hobbled for you (performance wise), you will have to shout for one or more processor licenses.  As I see it we have 2 choices if we want to use SQL Server in our web-apps:

    1. Use SQLEXPRESS and suffer a performance hit; cost: nothing

    2. Use SLQServer 2005 and get way more features than you need for a simple web app but get reasonable performance; cost: too much

    Of course there is a 3rd choice.... dare I say it.... go with MySQL or Postgres (which runs natively on Windows now).  This is what we have been forced to do since all of our clients are in developing countries.  If you have the money and need all features of SQL Server 2005 then its well worth the cost. 

    WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS A BAREBONES SQLSERVER WITH NO PERFORMANCE GOVERNERS SPECIFICALLY FOR WEB APPLICATIONS!!!

    I personally will keep pushing SQL Server to those that can afford it because it is quite simply the best database engine out there.  I would just like to see its market share increase dramatically especially in the developing world.  After all, that is an untapped market with huge potential.

    FYI - I just held a workshop in South America where representatives from 14 government agencies and one University attended.  Number of them using SQL Server: 0, number using MySQL: 15.  You see, labour is cheap, software is expensive.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Does anyone have any idea how the DB2 licensing compares to SQL Server - in terms of cost?

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    semantica wrote:
    WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS A BAREBONES SQLSERVER WITH NO PERFORMANCE GOVERNERS SPECIFICALLY FOR WEB APPLICATIONS!!!


    I don't know, SQL Server per-processor licensing isn't that expensive.

    $2,000 for a whole server, that could service 200+ web-application's database needs, that's only $20/application

    The server would need to be on its own machine to make the most use of the license, but that's probably better than running it all on localhost.

    If they were going to make a "SQL Server 2005 Web-Application Edition" it would have be licensed on a per-site basis, since each site might use one, possibly two databases, you can finance it out at about $2.50/database to be cost-effective versus SQL Server 2005 Standard.

    Actually, that's how SQL Server should be licensed anyway, on a per-database basis, rather than aribtrary per-user or per-processor basi.

  • User profile image
    semantica

    The performance is actually quite good.  But it only utilizes one processor and up to 1Gig of RAM.  Hardly enough for any decent site.

  • User profile image
    semantica

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    semantica wrote: WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS A BAREBONES SQLSERVER WITH NO PERFORMANCE GOVERNERS SPECIFICALLY FOR WEB APPLICATIONS!!!


    I don't know, SQL Server per-processor licensing isn't that expensive.

    $2,000 for a whole server, that could service 200+ web-application's database needs, that's only $20/application

    The server would need to be on its own machine to make the most use of the license, but that's probably better than running it all on localhost.

    If they were going to make a "SQL Server 2005 Web-Application Edition" it would have be licensed on a per-site basis, since each site might use one, possibly two databases, you can finance it out at about $2.50/database to be cost-effective versus SQL Server 2005 Standard.

    Actually, that's how SQL Server should be licensed anyway, on a per-database basis, rather than aribtrary per-user or per-processor basi.


    Here are the costs as posted on the SQL Server web site:

    SQL Server 2005 Pricing Comparison: Retail versus Example Pricing
      Processor License   Server plus User/Device CALs  
      Retail Pricing* Example Pricing** Retail Pricing* Example Pricing**

    Express Edition

    Free

    Free

    Free

    Free

    Workgroup Edition

    $3,899

    $3,700

    $739 with 5 Workgroup CALs

    $730 with 5 group Workgroup CALs
    $146 per additional Workgroup CAL

    Standard Edition

    $5,999

    $5,737

    $1,849 with 5 CALs

    $885 per Server
    $162 per CAL

    Enterprise Edition

    $24,999

    $23,911

    $13,969 with 25 CALs

    $8,487 per Server
    $162 per CAL


  • User profile image
    MB

    semantica wrote:
    I was on the horn with MS Licensing for almost an hour figuring out how to license SQL Server for a simple web application.  Basically you need a CAL for every user that is accessing information from your SQL Server Db.


    In a typical IIS-SQL scenario... there are only 2 users that access the database...

    1. User  (your typical website reader)
    2. Admin (your typical website admin)

    Your site might vary with a few more specific user types, but basically, it's your asp application which controls the request to SQL, not the requests to IIS... as the IIS users have no idea they need an SQL connection.

    Of course... a whole bunch of people access IIS... but it's up to you to detirmine how you manage the IIS-->SQL thing.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    MB wrote:
    

    In a typical IIS-SQL scenario... there are only 2 users that access the database...

    1. User  (your typical website reader)
    2. Admin (your typical website admin)


    Nice try, but you're mixing up "users" and "logins". That's not how its licensed. The licensing still needs a CAL per "each distinct device or user to the multiplexing or pooling software or hardware frontend"

    If you have an internet based application per CPU licensing is pretty much the only way to go (unless you know you will have <25 users for the lifetime of the product)

  • User profile image
    Tensor

    semantica wrote:
    WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS A BAREBONES SQLSERVER WITH NO PERFORMANCE GOVERNERS SPECIFICALLY FOR WEB APPLICATIONS!!!


    Errr, what would you have them strip out?




    semantica wrote:

    FYI - I just held a workshop in South America where representatives from 14 government agencies and one University attended.  Number of them using SQL Server: 0, number using MySQL: 15.  You see, labour is cheap, software is expensive.



    I allways wonder wht, whenthe talk turns to database servers, the only "free"one hat gets talked about is MySQL. Has PostgreSQL completely dropped off peoples radar? IMHO its miles better...

  • User profile image
    MB

    blowdart wrote:
    
    MB wrote: 

    In a typical IIS-SQL scenario... there are only 2 users that access the database...

    1. User  (your typical website reader)
    2. Admin (your typical website admin)


    Nice try, but you're mixing up "users" and "logins". That's not how its licensed. The licensing still needs a CAL per "each distinct device or user to the multiplexing or pooling software or hardware frontend"

    If you have an internet based application per CPU licensing is pretty much the only way to go (unless you know you will have <25 users for the lifetime of the product)


    No, I'm not mixing them up... I fully understand the difference.

    The point is... what constitutes a distinct device and/or user ?? MS are extremely fuzzy on this one, and seem to take the line, it's whatever gets us the most money.

    I think that MS is on a hiding to nothing with this one... as you can structure this argument however you like, depending on which side of the money tree you are on.

    e.g. I have a setup where all the requests to the IIS server (which accesses the SQL server) all have the same IP address... just different port numbers... because they are being routed through an external gateway, that is not under my control.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    MB wrote:
    
    The point is... what constitutes a distinct device and/or user ?? MS are extremely fuzzy on this one, and seem to take the line, it's whatever gets us the most money.

    e.g. I have a setup where all the requests to the IIS server (which accesses the SQL server) all have the same IP address... just different port numbers... because they are being routed through an external gateway, that is not under my control.


    What exactly is so fuzzy? You're attempting to play semantic games. The licensing rules are quite clear, even for IIS setups. An IIS box is a multiplexing server, and so, if you head down CAL, you need a license for each user or each device accessing IIS which causes IIS to access the SQL server.

    Why on earth would have different port numbers and the same IP address make a difference to this? It's about client accesses, not about IPs. And none of this is new either.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Tensor wrote:
    
    semantica wrote:WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS A BAREBONES SQLSERVER WITH NO PERFORMANCE GOVERNERS SPECIFICALLY FOR WEB APPLICATIONS!!!


    Errr, what would you have them strip out?


    I was hoping for a return to the "honor system"

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.