October 22, 2007 at 6:26 am
I tried to delete my last post so I hope this isn't a double..
I have been told that in order to use SQL server on my website I need to buy the per processor license as the client license would not work? I run a small site and that processor license is very steep... I want to be legit, but ouch 😉
Any suggestions?
I am pretty sure my hosting company had it set up on a client basis.. and now i am trying to bring it in house on a server of own from dell.
All help is appreciated, thanks!
October 22, 2007 at 11:52 am
As I recall from Microsoft's "Holy Book of Licensing" ( )- the divine rule reads this way:
- SQL CAL's are NOT concurrent-use CAL's. That means you'd need to have CAL's for user separate user accessing your site.
- MS defines SQL users as anyone connecting "directly" (e.g. via SSMS) or "indirectly" (e.g. through a web site, even if the web site is connecting in via a service account).
- In the case when you have a site that is "open to the public", the number of "users" is not derivable/fixed, so the only license model that "works" is the by-processor model. Note - that's "By Processor running SQL", so if you have 4 procs in the server, and dedicate one to running the OS and leave the others for SQL - that's 3 per proc licenses).
So - if you're running a "public site", then the answer you got is unfortunately "correct" technically. If on the other hand - you're using this for something more restricted (like - something like an extranet, accessible only by a specific population like your employees), you CAN use user CAL's, since you know specifically who is connecting and who will ever connect.
Of course - if it REALLY is a small site, and can live inside of the constraints of SQL Express, there's no licensing (SQL-wise) for that. (I know - not much consolation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
October 22, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Holy ouch batman...
so if I did use the CAL approach it would actually run slower aka 1 query at a time?
11k for SQL seems retardingly steep...
Was liscensing always this way? aka should I maybe use sql 2000?
October 22, 2007 at 1:25 pm
In either case, performance will be based on however many procs you "give" to SQL server. being licensed for a few user CAL's will not affect performance on the server per se. It's just that you can't "legally" dedicate 4 procs to processing SQL when you only "paid" for one (this ONLY applies in the processor model).
They made the restrictions a little clearer, and the price point went up per license, but the licensing model hasn't substantially changed since 2000. Your catch is - I don't think you can buy SQL 2000 licenses these days (you'd have to buy 2005 licenses, and use the "downgrade option"). And if you're going to pay 2005 prices - you might as well get the new features thrown in.
Price is ugly - no doubt about that.
Keep in mind the operative word up there was LEGALLY. Enforcement is not something I will comment on (I'll let you draw your own picture)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
October 22, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Thank you very much Matt,
I really didn't wanna convert everything to mysql 😉
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply