June 5, 2012 at 3:55 pm
I'm extremely new to licensing and am looking for some clarification/education. I spoke to my IT guy, who is not a SQL guy, about upgrading from SQL 2005 to 2012, and he gave me the quote below for Std.
$3,219 + User cal for each user ($1,419 per 5 users. or 1 socket-unlimited users for $9,829)
So here are my questions.
1. Which users count? What I mean here is, 90% of the users that hit my server connect through a website, which is connecting to the SQL Server using hardcoded credentials in the web.config. Do I have to count and keep up with the unique number of users connecting this way? Or is that account the only one counted in that user CAL?
2. Is this a yearly fee or one time fee?
June 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Bad_Karma (6/5/2012)
I'm extremely new to licensing and am looking for some clarification/education. I spoke to my IT guy, who is not a SQL guy, about upgrading from SQL 2005 to 2012, and he gave me the quote below for Std.$3,219 + User cal for each user ($1,419 per 5 users. or 1 socket-unlimited users for $9,829)
So here are my questions.
1. Which users count? What I mean here is, 90% of the users that hit my server connect through a website, which is connecting to the SQL Server using hardcoded credentials in the web.config. Do I have to count and keep up with the unique number of users connecting this way? Or is that account the only one counted in that user CAL?
2. Is this a yearly fee or one time fee?
1) Each user accessing the website is counted. If you have 100 users using the website, each user needs a CAL.
2) One time fee.
June 5, 2012 at 4:25 pm
My understanding was that, if the server is connecting to an internet web server ( as opposed to something internal) you can't use the CAL licensing model. You have to license by core.
And I think 2012 changed the model to a "per core" rather than a "per socket" license. My experience has been that licensing is a black art and is best done in conjunction with your MS rep.
You'll get a strong push for a volume license and software assurance agreement, but you'll have to evaluate those as it comes up.
June 5, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Well, he didn't say if the web server was internal or external, so it depends. You could possibly have an external website requiring authentication allowing you to restrict access to a specific set of users. When you get anonymous users hitting a site, then you really need to look at per-processor/per-core licensing.
June 7, 2012 at 7:03 am
I trust these guys, but you know what, don't listen to them. If you want answers on licensing, go to Microsoft. That's the single best source of information and it's the only source you can count on legally.
BTW, for what it's worth, if you talk to 3 different Microsoft people, you can get three different answers, but they're all from Microsoft. So write the person's name down that gives you the answer you like most & use that.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
June 7, 2012 at 7:32 am
Grant Fritchey (6/7/2012)
I trust these guys, but you know what, don't listen to them. If you want answers on licensing, go to Microsoft. That's the single best source of information and it's the only source you can count on legally.BTW, for what it's worth, if you talk to 3 different Microsoft people, you can get three different answers, but they're all from Microsoft. So write the person's name down that gives you the answer you like most & use that.
Grant, thank you. Normally I include such a disclaimer myself when posting answers to licensing questions. I was remiss on this one.
So, I will reinforce what has been said, for the best answer on this you need to contact Microsoft. My answer(s) on this are my own opinion and is not legally binding in any way.
June 7, 2012 at 8:15 am
Aww, now I can't call Microsoft and say "...but these people on SQL Server Central said YOU are wrong.." lol jk.
Thank you everyone. This seems to match everything I've managed glimpse over the years, especially the part about it being a black art lol. I'll of course be contacting Microsoft about this, I just try to go into these negotiations with more than a glimpse of what I need to know.
To clarify, the website is an outward facing website, but only my employees have logins. So I think this leans more towards the, "I know who my users are and therefore will need CALs for all of them". And since I have more than 30 known users, I'll have to go with the unlimited user route.
Thanks again!
June 7, 2012 at 8:21 am
Again, this is just my take on the whole mess:
You might be better off on a per-processor license. 2012, if I understand the licensing correctly, has a per-core license model instead of per-processor, but it's in groups of 4 cores per license, which matches most modern CPUs as per-processor. Most are 4-core, in other words.
Definitely ask about it, at least.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 7, 2012 at 8:29 am
GSquared (6/7/2012)
Again, this is just my take on the whole mess:You might be better off on a per-processor license. 2012, if I understand the licensing correctly, has a per-core license model instead of per-processor, but it's in groups of 4 cores per license, which matches most modern CPUs as per-processor. Most are 4-core, in other words.
Definitely ask about it, at least.
I think thats the confusing part, as reading the documentation, you have to purchase a minimum of 4 core licences per processor you have even if that processor has 1 or 2 cores, its not 1 core license covers 4 cores.
How to license
1. License all of the physical cores on the hardware
2. A minimum of 4 core licenses are required per physical processor
Physical Cores on CPU | Core Licenses Required
1 | 4
2 | 4
4 | 4
6 | 6
8 | 8
June 7, 2012 at 8:32 am
anthony.green (6/7/2012)
GSquared (6/7/2012)
Again, this is just my take on the whole mess:You might be better off on a per-processor license. 2012, if I understand the licensing correctly, has a per-core license model instead of per-processor, but it's in groups of 4 cores per license, which matches most modern CPUs as per-processor. Most are 4-core, in other words.
Definitely ask about it, at least.
I think thats the confusing part, as reading the documentation, you have to purchase a minimum of 4 core licences per processor you have even if that processor has 1 or 2 cores, its not 1 core license covers 4 cores.
How to license
1. License all of the physical cores on the hardware
2. A minimum of 4 core licenses are required per physical processor
Physical Cores on CPU | Core Licenses Required
1 | 4
2 | 4
4 | 4
6 | 6
8 | 8
That's how I'm reading it too. And it's written so only a lawyer could love it.
"You can buy per-core licenses, but you have to buy them in 4-packs, no matter how many actual cores you have." Why even have a price/core, when you can't buy it that way? But they do.
But if you just treat it as a per-processor license, and assume you might have to buy more than one if you have a processor with more than 4 cores, then it's easier to do the math on it. In my opinion. Which could easily be completely wrong.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 7, 2012 at 8:37 am
GSquared (6/7/2012)
anthony.green (6/7/2012)
GSquared (6/7/2012)
Again, this is just my take on the whole mess:You might be better off on a per-processor license. 2012, if I understand the licensing correctly, has a per-core license model instead of per-processor, but it's in groups of 4 cores per license, which matches most modern CPUs as per-processor. Most are 4-core, in other words.
Definitely ask about it, at least.
I think thats the confusing part, as reading the documentation, you have to purchase a minimum of 4 core licences per processor you have even if that processor has 1 or 2 cores, its not 1 core license covers 4 cores.
How to license
1. License all of the physical cores on the hardware
2. A minimum of 4 core licenses are required per physical processor
Physical Cores on CPU | Core Licenses Required
1 | 4
2 | 4
4 | 4
6 | 6
8 | 8
That's how I'm reading it too. And it's written so only a lawyer could love it.
"You can buy per-core licenses, but you have to buy them in 4-packs, no matter how many actual cores you have." Why even have a price/core, when you can't buy it that way? But they do.
But if you just treat it as a per-processor license, and assume you might have to buy more than one if you have a processor with more than 4 cores, then it's easier to do the math on it. In my opinion. Which could easily be completely wrong.
Buy them in 4-packs, unsure on that one, I was under the impression that after you have purchased the minimum 4 core licenses per chip you could by them in multiples of 1, so for a 6 core chip you would purchase 6 core licenses not 8
June 7, 2012 at 8:40 am
anthony.green (6/7/2012)
GSquared (6/7/2012)
anthony.green (6/7/2012)
GSquared (6/7/2012)
Again, this is just my take on the whole mess:You might be better off on a per-processor license. 2012, if I understand the licensing correctly, has a per-core license model instead of per-processor, but it's in groups of 4 cores per license, which matches most modern CPUs as per-processor. Most are 4-core, in other words.
Definitely ask about it, at least.
I think thats the confusing part, as reading the documentation, you have to purchase a minimum of 4 core licences per processor you have even if that processor has 1 or 2 cores, its not 1 core license covers 4 cores.
How to license
1. License all of the physical cores on the hardware
2. A minimum of 4 core licenses are required per physical processor
Physical Cores on CPU | Core Licenses Required
1 | 4
2 | 4
4 | 4
6 | 6
8 | 8
That's how I'm reading it too. And it's written so only a lawyer could love it.
"You can buy per-core licenses, but you have to buy them in 4-packs, no matter how many actual cores you have." Why even have a price/core, when you can't buy it that way? But they do.
But if you just treat it as a per-processor license, and assume you might have to buy more than one if you have a processor with more than 4 cores, then it's easier to do the math on it. In my opinion. Which could easily be completely wrong.
Buy them in 4-packs, unsure on that one, I was under the impression that after you have purchased the minimum 4 core licenses per chip you could by them in multiples of 1, so for a 6 core chip you would purchase 6 core licenses not 8
And all this drives me back to my point, it's a flipping nightmare. Contact Microsoft... several times.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
June 7, 2012 at 8:44 am
Grant Fritchey (6/7/2012)
And all this drives me back to my point, it's a flipping nightmare. Contact Microsoft... several times.
+1 to that, we worked with our reseller to become compliant back when just 2008 R2 was released and it caused a few headaches to say the least. Especially when I had spent so long getting the authorisation to purchase Enterprise licenses to cover the unlimited virtualisation rights, then they slap you with oh you need data centre.
June 7, 2012 at 8:45 am
Here's what Microsoft has to say.
Licensing by computing power - Core based licensing
With the release of SQL Server 2012, the licensing for computing power will be core-based.
Enterprise and Standard will be available under core-based licensing. Cored-based licenses will be sold in two-core packs. The Standard Edition will also be available as a Server+ CAL licensing option.
To license a physical server, you must license all the cores in the server, with a minimum of 4 core licenses required for each physical processor in the server.
from: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/get-sql-server/licensing.aspx
So you have to start with 4 per processor, then you can get them in multiples of 2 cores for processors with more than 4 cores.
Thus, if you have a 5-core processor (I don't think such a beast exists), you buy 6 core-licenses. If you have a 1-core processor, you buy 4 licenses (and ask management about upgrading your server to something built more recently than the late stone age). And so on.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
June 12, 2012 at 8:33 am
GSquared (6/7/2012)
So you have to start with 4 per processor, then you can get them in multiples of 2 cores for processors with more than 4 cores.
Thus, if you have a 5-core processor (I don't think such a beast exists), you buy 6 core-licenses. If you have a 1-core processor, you buy 4 licenses (and ask management about upgrading your server to something built more recently than the late stone age). And so on.
If you have the latest AMD (Bulldozer) processors there is a multiplier you can apply to reduce your licensed core count due to their CMT architecture. 😀
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply