December 6, 2013 at 3:25 am
Am I correct in thinking that sql is licensed per server and not per instance.
So if I have a VM with 4 instances then the 1 license will cover all the instances for this server.
December 6, 2013 at 3:52 am
Talib123 (12/6/2013)
Am I correct in thinking that sql is licensed per server and not per instance.So if I have a VM with 4 instances then the 1 license will cover all the instances for this server.
Be careful with this train of thought because although one license means you can have as many instances as you require, the new licensing requirements revolve around the amount of cores in the server.
December 6, 2013 at 7:12 am
Talib123 (12/6/2013)
Am I correct in thinking that sql is licensed per server and not per instance.So if I have a VM with 4 instances then the 1 license will cover all the instances for this server.
You have to license a minimum of 4 Cores, so thats 2 licenses as each license is for 2 cores. This is one approach.
Another approach is to license for the server, and then user cals - depending how many users you have, this may work out cheaper. But be careful with CALS, this is anybody who has direct, or indirect access to the data. So from logging into the sql instance directly, to seeing it via a report etc.
December 6, 2013 at 2:58 pm
per core licensing is for SQL 2012. In 2008 R2, per processor licensing is still used. The licensing depends on the amount of virtual cores allocated to the vm and the amount of cores per physical processor.
If your host has two quad-core processors and your vm has 8 virtual CPUs allocated, then you would need to buy two processor licenses. if your vm has four or less Virtual CPUs then you would only need to buy 1 processor license.
I also think the edition matters as well. If you have a standard license then I believe each instance needs a license, with enterprise you can have up to 4 instances, and data center allows for unlimited instances.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply