August 22, 2008 at 8:08 am
Thayal Muhunthan (8/21/2008)
Maximum we have 1500 users, might use 2/3 applications connecting to different DBs on the same SQL server.
As soon as there is more than 1 app then you'd better have another instance. Some day app #2 is going to have a patch or upgrade that tries to overwrite app #1's master.mystoredproc with its own (or some similar collision). And then it'll be a day or more of downtime fixing it while the apps are both offline. Are your business partners cool with a full day of downtime while you scramble to design and set up independent instances? Or will they scream while the business loses a day of revenue or whatever it is these apps do?
August 22, 2008 at 8:31 am
Question on CAL licences again ?
If we have 3 users accessing the SQL server using an third party application, do we calculate 3 or 1 CAL ?
More clearly, lets say, we have an library application using SQL server as backend DB and there are 3 users adding, deleting books etc. DO we licence SQL server by 1 library app or 3 users access SQL via the librarythat libray app ?
Cheers
August 22, 2008 at 8:38 am
By the number of users. Even if you use an application server with only 20 connections from the app server to the database server, you have to count the number of users that could potentially hit the application server.
😎
August 22, 2008 at 8:56 am
I think that your hardware configurations for your disk drives are insufficent for what you are planning. 2 146gb drives in Raid 1 gives you only 146gb for working with. You can have a 20gb C drive for the os and plan on losing about 10% for interals due to raid config requirements. that leaves around 100gb for logs and data. it would be better to have logs on the raid 1 drives and data on a raid 5. You cannot do that with only 2 drives.
August 22, 2008 at 9:09 am
Many people said I will not habe 1+0 (or 10) with jusy only 2 disks.
This my network guy's suggestions, but I will see other alternatives.
FOr SQL data, logs, tempDB, I have SAN disk. I will only have OS on the 140Gb drive.
I am strugling with SQL licence requirments for SQL server. we have mixture of 2000 (20) and 2005 (5) server.
I am thinking of CAL or per processor, but I dont know how to get the count of users ?
|Cheers
Thayal
August 22, 2008 at 9:21 am
Thayal Muhunthan (8/22/2008)
Question on CAL licences again ?If we have 3 users accessing the SQL server using an third party application, do we calculate 3 or 1 CAL ?
More clearly, lets say, we have an library application using SQL server as backend DB and there are 3 users adding, deleting books etc. DO we licence SQL server by 1 library app or 3 users access SQL via the librarythat libray app ?
Cheers
you need CALs for total number of users no matter if they go through an application. this is why they have CPU licenses. no one can calculate the number of internet users so you buy a CPU license and that's it
August 22, 2008 at 9:43 am
Thayal Muhunthan (8/22/2008)
FOr SQL data, logs, tempDB, I have SAN disk.
if the RAID 10 storage for all this is SAN based then thats a different situation all together. 146 GB for OS is a little overkill, smaller disks would have been better (36 or 72GB).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
August 22, 2008 at 10:15 am
SQL Noob (8/22/2008)
Thayal Muhunthan (8/22/2008)
Question on CAL licences again ?If we have 3 users accessing the SQL server using an third party application, do we calculate 3 or 1 CAL ?
More clearly, lets say, we have an library application using SQL server as backend DB and there are 3 users adding, deleting books etc. DO we licence SQL server by 1 library app or 3 users access SQL via the librarythat libray app ?
Cheers
you need CALs for total number of users no matter if they go through an application. this is why they have CPU licenses. no one can calculate the number of internet users so you buy a CPU license and that's it
Yes, if you are hosting a database that is serving data to internet users, it is difficult (if not impossible) to count the number of users that are accessing the data on the server. In this case the per processor licensing is the way to go. The OP has not indicated if this is an internet facing application. If it is an internal application used only by employees, then knowing how many users will be accessing the data on the servers should be easily obtained.
What applications are being used by what depeartments, and who in each of the departments are using those applications? If you are consolidating all the databases onto a single server, you may not have the resources to support all the users and the applications, but with 1500 users hitting one database server, then in this case the per processor licensing is the most economical regardless of edition (SE, EE) used on the server. As I said earlier, 1500 CALs will cost you $243,000 USD (MSRP) plus the server license. Going per processor based on your current configuration would be $11,998 USD (MSRP) SE or $49,998 USD (MSRP) EE.
😎
Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply