Hey All,

I am buying a new database server for the Windows side of the business. It is going to be a Dell 2850 with dual Xeon processors. To Windows, this looks like four processors because of hyperthreading. This server is going to be running SQL Server 2000 on a db server that is the back-end for a web-based app. (i.e. Ownersite.com)

I've been looking at the MS licensing schemes for years now and I thought I knew what I needed (or wanted, actually)...a single processor license of SQL Server Standard Edition. (need DTS)

When I configured the Dell server online and added SQL Server (new feature to their configurator, would likely buy it elsewhere and save a couple grand) single processor license, I was told that I had to select the two processor license.

WTF!? I thought that SQL Server will use the number of processors available to it based on the license. Is that not the case? Do I really need a 2 processor license in a dual processor machine?

Oh...and I forgot to add. The architecture of the application...there is a front-end server running the web server and middleware...this connects this db server that will run SQL Server 2000, which is inside the firewall.

Does that mean that I could use the CAL version? I don't envision that it will ever need more than 5 connections...

 

This may help:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...rt2/c0461.mspx

I can call my MS licensing rep if you like, describe your situation and see what he says. Let me know if you want me to.

Jim.

Another link:

http://www.artsci.washington.edu/ser...s/SQL2KLic.pdf

If I'm reading it right it may be cheaper for you to buy a server license and CALs. You wont have many users right? Just the web front end and some access on the back end?

 

Uhg... that's a sticky spot Steve-o. I'm pretty sure you want go to the processor-license route. I would definitely call MS direct on this one to be sure.

And no, you can't just buy a single CPU lic for dual CPU machine... unless.. (ripped from MS site)

 

It's fairly simple as far as the processor thing goes. You have two physical processors, you need to processor licenses. Just because windows sees the Xeon's and P4s with HyperThreading as dual procs doesn't mean they actually are...you physically have two processors, not four. Now, however, if you use processor affinity and dedicate one and only one processor to SQL and Windows then you only need one, but that would defeat the purpose of the dual procs and the optimizations of SQL for multi-proc machines.

As far as 5 licenses, that's fairly low. By low, I mean low. They limit MSDE (Personal SQL) to 5 connections, everyone after that slows down tremendously...5 connections is nothing. Connection pooling built into .NET 1.1 SqlClient namespace by default using connection pooling of 20 connections I believe (Although this is configurable). Processor license(s) is really the way to go if possible...

 

That only holds true if he buys the Processor license. If you go the standard CAL route SQL Svr will handle up to 4 processors. If you have more than 4 you need the Enterprise Ed. But I'm pretty sure he's screwed and needs the CPU lics..

On a seperate note... I gotta ask - Why MS SQL?!

 

Not sure why he needs a ton of CALs. That is why, stictly speculating, if ne doesnt need many CALs, the processor route may actually cost more.

These prices arent the best but they are indicative of the pricing structure.

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard with 1 Processor License
$4,687.36

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Standard with 5 CAL
$1,389.72

w/ 10 CAL
$2,099.60

Depending upon how his setup is configured he may not need the unlimited users included with the processor license.

 

Very true and very probable. However, in most circumstances I've encountered, once someone gets a good DB server with a full SQL version, they use it much more extensively than they planned to use it, because they now have the hardware and db server to do so. We have ~25 users in house + our web applications and web services. I figured we'd never see more than 20 concurrent connections, however we AVERAGE around 48-50 and have maxed at around 115 because we've ended up using it for much, much more than we originally planned. We never planned to have our phone monitoring software, or Report Server, or Exchange Spam Filtering, or Bug Tracking, or Web Traffic Analyzer hooked into SQL, but we do. Good thing WE didn't go with CALs because that wouldn't have worked well. Then again, it wasn't my direct money to spend either but I like doing it right the first time. You're right though, if he will never do stuff like that, then CALs is definitely cheaper, to a point. Good luck with the MS licensing...it's a PITA sometimes...incredible they have people who are strictly tasked out to do licensing support/orders because it's so complex and retarded sometimes.

 

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

It looks like processor license is the way to go and perhaps buying a single processor server that can be expanded in the future.

Since someone asked...why Windows and SQL Server?

When I embarked on the development of Ownersite, neither Postgres nor MySQL had a rich enough feature set (stored procedures, DTS, transaction support) to even consider it for our model. Oracle is just too damn expensive to license and experienced developers command too much of a premium. And, based on my experience, it is hardware intensive, which equates to greater startup and maintenance costs.

While F150online runs on Linux, I don't buy into the anti-MS crap like some people do. Windows 2003 is very stable and can be just as secure as Linux if you keep on top of it. Try a fresh install of Red Hat 9 with no patches and see how secure it is.

Accountability is also an issue when building a company. I can call Microsoft or Macromedia directly and setup a service contract. Until recently, you really could not do that reliably with MySQL or PHP.

 

That's what I thought - another person driven away from Oracle due to cost. What a a sweet piece of software but your right - cha-ching! I had an Oracle backend that ingested about 2-3GB of raw data each day, with a cap of about 4TB. The Oracle consultants rocked and knew their chit but I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't footing that bill... their billing rates blew mine outta the water!

So did you ultimately consult with MS and confirm or just trust us goons?

 

goons + local reseller = conclusion

I spent about two and a half years writing web-based apps that used Oracle 8 as the db back-end. Great product, great support and great aftermarket. We (the company I worked for) had some serious multi-processor Solaris server horsepower behind the scenese. It was far more than we needed, but it was cool to have.

 

Good choice and good luck -- I've had almost nothing but positive experiences with Win2003 so far in our network. Our Exchange and SQL server have been ROCK SOLID, and they haven't been it's been external such as some screwed up drivers on our Exchange server that made the system run slow (new drivers fixed that) or a Dell hardware problem that shut down our DB server once ... nothing to do with Win2003 directly.