September 23, 2010 at 10:28 am
We were planning on doing a 4 node SQL VMWare cluster, and putting a ton of under utilized SQL Server in house and vendor instances on them, and possibly replace one of our MS Windows/SQL clusters as well.
My question is with the new licensing for SQL 2008 R2, it sounds like I need Datacenter edition at $50K+ a CPU, so well over $200K a box. This project will not happen at these costs... Do I have my figures right? What are other people doing in lieu of this? I had management talked into the costs of Enterprise Edition, this won't happen at Datacenter. If anything they will push back and look at increasing our current Oracle in replace of SQL Server... Is there a cost savings calculator out there for this???
Thanks
Jeff
September 23, 2010 at 12:50 pm
SQL Server 2008 R2 allows unlimited virtualization.
You should be fine.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/enterprise.aspx
September 23, 2010 at 1:30 pm
jerry-621596 (9/23/2010)
SQL Server 2008 R2 allows unlimited virtualization.You should be fine.
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/enterprise.aspx
The link provided above is for SQL Server 2008 Enterprise, NOT for SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition. This is one thing Microsoft screwed up when publishing the information. The links don't specify which edition of SQL Server 2008 you are on.
Reference this link for Enterprise features with R2 edition:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/B/6/7B65BDD8-9D5E-42A5-A8AA-AD61FD8265E2/SQLServer2008R2EditionsDatasheet.pdf (Check the table at the very end of the document.)
Enterprise edition only allows for 4 guest OS system environments. You will have to get Datacenter edition in order to unlimited.
You can also reference these links:
http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/11/sql-server-2008-r2-pricing-and-feature-changes/[/url]
Shawn Melton
Twitter: @wsmelton
Blog: wsmelton.github.com
Github: wsmelton
September 23, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Got this link to a PDF datasheet as well from a PASS VC meeting, hosted by Denny Cherry:
Has licensing information in it in more detail.
Shawn Melton
Twitter: @wsmelton
Blog: wsmelton.github.com
Github: wsmelton
September 24, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Thanks all, this is now too costly of a solution, miffed at why they did this, besides the obvious, more income. Might have to look into moving some of these off of SQL Server... I know I can move some to Express, didn't make sense before, but might now.
Interested on what people are thinking or doing as ways around this? I would have to run the numbers, but it might be cheaper to run a VM w/1 dedicated processor and use/buy SQL Standard Edition, especially since I have tons of these licenses already in different versions... Maybe buy a big machine and buy Enterprise and load it up.
September 24, 2010 at 4:45 pm
jeff.lonn (9/24/2010)
Thanks all, this is now too costly of a solution, miffed at why they did this, besides the obvious, more income. Might have to look into moving some of these off of SQL Server... I know I can move some to Express, didn't make sense before, but might now.Interested on what people are thinking or doing as ways around this? I would have to run the numbers, but it might be cheaper to run a VM w/1 dedicated processor and use/buy SQL Standard Edition, especially since I have tons of these licenses already in different versions... Maybe buy a big machine and buy Enterprise and load it up.
Microsoft is capitalizing on the virtualization craze that alot of companies are moving too.
Most people bought up SQL Server 2008 (R1) Edition when they found this out, prior to not being able to anymore. Something you could ask your license vendor, that I don't know if MS has this in fine print anymore, but you used to be able to drop down a version. Meaning if I bought SQL Server 2008 license but could not run on it I was allowed to install SQL Server 2005 under that license agreement.
Don't know if that works exactly the same anymore with SQL 2008 R2 coming out.
Shawn Melton
Twitter: @wsmelton
Blog: wsmelton.github.com
Github: wsmelton
September 24, 2010 at 8:36 pm
jeff.lonn (9/24/2010)
Thanks all, this is now too costly of a solution, miffed at why they did this, besides the obvious, more income. Might have to look into moving some of these off of SQL Server... I know I can move some to Express, didn't make sense before, but might now.Interested on what people are thinking or doing as ways around this? I would have to run the numbers, but it might be cheaper to run a VM w/1 dedicated processor and use/buy SQL Standard Edition, especially since I have tons of these licenses already in different versions... Maybe buy a big machine and buy Enterprise and load it up.
Each SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise license allows 4 VMs to run SQL Server, and each VM can run 25 instances. So one license gets you 100 separate instances, just sharing 4 VMs. That doesn't seem too bad. (I suspect that Microsoft is expecting people to use multiple instances more than separate VMs for each DB/application. I think in most cases it ends up using your resources more efficiently.)
How many instances do you need to support?
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply