November 7, 2007 at 5:25 am
Folks,
just wondering what to do regarding licensing in cases where one is required to operate a cold-standby server as a DR solution. The situation gets very complicated when your live site is running SQL2K (which is not covered by the Dec2005 PUR and therefore does not benefit from the licensing relaxations for virtual environments made in October 2005).
Then there's the wording of some of the licensing documentation, which allows for use on a "temporary failover" server ... if this was intended to cover the passive node of a cluster, then it does not explicitly state this, and could be interpreted as including cold-standby servers -- you temporarily fail over to it (albeit manually) in the event of a disaster.
If MS insist on e.g. per-processor licenses for each DR SQL2K server, then I can see a lot of DR plans never getting off the ground! So what are you folks doing?
November 7, 2007 at 7:37 am
John - I tend to agree that there are lots of grey areas in the licensing documentation (on purpose I suspect, with the hope that orgs will err on the side of caution and possibly "license more" than is appropriate). This might help a bit with your question:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/activepassive.mspx
I would recommend moving to SQL2005 licensing (even if you choose to use the "downgrade" option of actually installing/running SQL2K), so that you don't need to worry about virtualization rules. It's cheaper in many cases as well (just pay the upgrade on the license, and leave everything alone).
So the big question in my mind usually boils down to: is the server ever active SQL Server-wise OUTSIDE of the mirroring/clustering, etc... If the SQL Server install is being used at all, then it's an ACTIVE install which then requires a license.
Examples:
- Active/passive cluster: one node is active at one time, so you license one node.
- N/M clusters (N actives/M passives). Since you would likely spread your instance across as many servers, license for N servers.
- Mirroring (as described in MS document above). If used ONLY for backup node, then no license otherwise - required.
So - it all depends on how you have the cold-standby, and what you might be using it for outside of its DR functions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
November 7, 2007 at 7:44 am
Thanks, Matt. Unfortunately we will have to install SQL2K on the DR either way because the live system is tied to that version at the moment, even though only SQL2K5 licenses are currently available. The DR system would be actually powered down under normal circumstances, apart from maintenance (applying updates) and a bi-annual DR test, in which a copy of the live data would be loaded (a data refresh and test of the restore process at the DR site).
November 7, 2007 at 8:11 am
That's my point - by purchasing or upgrading to the 2005 licensing (even if you USE SQL2K), you skip over all of the nastiness having to do with virtualization that 2000 didn't deal with. Meaning you're technically allowed to follow the 2005 licensing rules that way, even if the reality is that you are RUNNING SQL 2000.
That's the "downgrade right".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
November 7, 2007 at 9:56 am
Let's take the simple case where we have a fully licensed server (OS and per-processor SQL 2000 licenses), we clone the live server onto a second identical server, and then leave the cloned server powered down at our DR site.
Does the clone need additional MS licenses purchased?
It would be my contention based on the July 2005 PUR (which is the last one that covers SQL2K) that the cloned server is in fact a "temporary failover" server. Nowhere in the PUR does it require the "temporary failover" to be a node of a cluster! Thus, I contend that there is no requirement to purchase any additional licenses, as the right to use the software in this manner is already granted by the July 2005 PUR.
November 7, 2007 at 10:08 am
Agreed. No qualifiers, etc... It's a passive node - period, so no extra licensing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply