October 27, 2003 at 3:08 pm
I'm trying to use one of the hosting services providers to host my Web site on a dedicated Windows 2000 server. Since I will be installing my own SQL on that machine, could some one tell me what is the minimum SQL 2000 License I need for my web site to work providing the following:
1. I'm using ASP.NET to connect to my SQL DB using only one user account at all the times.
2. My web server is the only machine that accesses the SQL Server. It reads the data by accessing the SP, process it, then forwards the data to the client IE in HTML Format.
I have read Microsoft "How to buy", but still confused about how many SQL users or client devices should I consider using the scenario above.
October 27, 2003 at 3:24 pm
Unless you know you're going to have X number of concurrent users, you're probably better off buying per processor.
The licensing is legal jargon, but it basically amounts to this: however many end users you are supporting, that's the number of CALs you need if you aren't buying per processor. If your users aren't directly connecting to SQL Server but are connecting through an application, that doesn't matter, even if the application is only using a single login. You're still supporting X number of concurrent users, so that's what you need to be licensed for. However, if you buy per processor (# of processors on the system), then you can have unlimited # of concurrent users.
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.truthsolutions.com/
Author: Start to Finish Guide to SQL Server Performance Monitoring
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
October 27, 2003 at 3:40 pm
quote:
Unless you know you're going to have X number of concurrent users, you're probably better off buying per processor.The licensing is legal jargon, but it basically amounts to this: however many end users you are supporting, that's the number of CALs you need if you aren't buying per processor. If your users aren't directly connecting to SQL Server but are connecting through an application, that doesn't matter, even if the application is only using a single login. You're still supporting X number of concurrent users, so that's what you need to be licensed for. However, if you buy per processor (# of processors on the system), then you can have unlimited # of concurrent users.
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.truthsolutions.com/
Author: Start to Finish Guide to SQL Server Performance Monitoring
Not "concurrent" but instead "cumulative" users (or devices). I.e., the total number of distinct users who ever use the application would be the number of CALs you would need to purchase, not the maximum number of concurrent users.
--Jonathan
--Jonathan
October 27, 2003 at 4:03 pm
Doh! I did write concurrent. Trying to do too many things. Jonathan is 100% correct (figured I'd better respond other than confuse you more).
If you choose to go the CAL route, you must have a CAL for each distinct user who will connect to SQL Server.
This is why Microsoft recommends the Per Processor route for SQL Servers servicing external applications (like an external web site).
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.truthsolutions.com/
Author: Start to Finish Guide to SQL Server Performance Monitoring
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
October 28, 2003 at 8:20 am
I guess I better start saving from now, but don't you think MS made it a gray area and confusing to developers. One question pops in my mind is, hypothetically, what about if I'm using Crystal Reports to read data from a SQL Server and generate reports to be distributed to all managers in my organization, would that require a processor license?
October 28, 2003 at 8:27 am
It is confusing. I haven't seem many straight-forward licensing agreements.
Internally, if you already have the CALs, then no, the per processor licensing may not be the best option. You can use a server license in that case. It really depends. However, if you don't already have the number of CALs you need and/or it's an unknown number of users, the per processor licensing usually works out best.
They give a bit of coverage of all this in their FAQ, but I agree it's enough to make your head spin. We have a guy dedicated to maintaining licensing in our organization (though that's not all he does) and this keeps the headache away from the developers (who have enough to do already).
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.truthsolutions.com/
Author: Start to Finish Guide to SQL Server Performance Monitoring
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
October 28, 2003 at 9:04 am
Any chance you can use MSDE?
I think the number of simultaneous connections is limited to 5 and it might be hobbled in other ways, but I don't think there's any licensing restriction on using MSDE in this way (anybody know otherwise?).
Of course it may be inadequate for the anticpated load of your site, but if you can busk it you could buy a nice car with the money you'ld save!
October 28, 2003 at 10:00 am
quote:
Any chance you can use MSDE?I think the number of simultaneous connections is limited to 5 and it might be hobbled in other ways, but I don't think there's any licensing restriction on using MSDE in this way (anybody know otherwise?).
Of course it may be inadequate for the anticpated load of your site, but if you can busk it you could buy a nice car with the money you'ld save!
MSDE actually does not have a connection limit, but instead will slow down ("throttle") queries when more than five batch loads are running concurrently. You are however limited by database size (2GB) and processors (2) supported.
--Jonathan
--Jonathan
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply