Post reply

SQL 2000 Standy License

  • July 25, 2007 at 7:14 am

    #175431

    Hi Guys,

    I need to install sql server 2000 on a machine for DR purposes. The machine is the same spec as production. In the past i have NOT licensed the DR SQL Server as it has no databases and no usage. I have to admit I based this on common sense and the odd online comment, but after querying our reseller they agreed.

    However I have moved to a new company and another reseller audited the sql server licenses and insisted unused DR machines were licensed the same, as you can imagine this is quite costly for per processor licenses.

    Tony Rogerson has provided information (from microsoft) that proves my position from a 2005 point of view but he only suggests the same is true for 2000 (i could have missed it though).

    http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson/archive/2006/08/15/947.aspx

    Can anyone point me in the right direction before

    a) my new company wastes more money on licenses it doesn't need

    b) i get fired for not ensuring our sql servers are correctly licensed

    Thanks

    Chris

  • July 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

    #722380

    My reading of the processor license is that it is non-transferrable from the processor(s) installed on the motherboard. Which would mean that if you had to use a DR machine, you cannot transfer the license from your now defunct primary server to the DR backup system.

    While this sounds onerou$ and expen$ive, if you are using a quad processor chip, that counts as a single processor for licensing, not 4!

    in contrast, CALs come with a lower price per server, but cost per connection to the server (each user requires a CAL, be it a person or an unattended system). This implies that, for web-based applications, you need to have a processor license because you cannot easily count the required number of CALs (unless you have a very clever way of using an intermediary, single box which requires a single license).

    However, if you have a DR machine, that does not have SQL Server loaded on it all the time (how long does it take to install SS2k?), then you would not need the license until you 'activate' the machine. But remember - if you use a different processor, the license is NOT transferrable. What if you pulled the processor chips out and placed them in another motherboard? I'm not sure whether the license is by processor only, or processor motherboard combination.

    One could take the position that if you had copied the SS2k install program files to the DR machine, but did not execute the program, you have not installed the program and no license fee is due.

  • July 25, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    #722397

    My understanding of both SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005 is that if you have an active/passive cluster or primary/mirror (2k5) that you only have to license the active instance/server.  If you go to an active/active cluster or use database snapshots on a mirror to provide reporting, then both need to be licensed.

    I would liken it to a book, you can only use one or the other at a time, not both.  I would contact Microsoft for clarification just to be safe.

  • July 26, 2007 at 8:48 am

    #722595

    I agree with Lynn. And a reseller audit is somewhat suspect as you know they want to sell you more product. When in doubt call MS. I was completly boggled by sharepoint licensing and they answered my questions in writing - so there was no doubt.

  • July 26, 2007 at 9:13 am

    #722604

    Yes, this.  And you have to move it back within 30 days of a failover.

    http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/activepassive.mspx

     

     

  • July 26, 2007 at 9:36 am

    #722614

    For SQL 2000 the answer is here http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part2/c0461.mspx?mfr=true

    "All Active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, with either Processor Licenses or Server Licenses. However, if a server is strictly Passive, and works only when an Active server has failed, no additional licenses are needed for that Passive server. The exception to this is if the failover cluster is licensed under Processor License, and the number of processors on the Passive server exceeds the number of processors on the Active server. In this case, additional Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the Passive computer. "

     

  • July 26, 2007 at 9:41 am

    #722617

    Thanks bnordberg, thats just what I was looking for!

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply