| Author |
 Topic  |
|
pdrg
Support Moderator
United Kingdom
2897 Posts |
 Posted - 07 November 2005 : 12:05:25
|
Hi all,
MS have just launched Visual Studio 2005, SQL Server 2005, BizTalk Server 2006 with an awesome firework display in Reading, UK.
Proper big, proper loud, proper pretty...now if you'd all be so kind as to go out and buy these products to pay for the fireworks we've just had, I'm sure Bill will be very grateful  |
|
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 12:34:47
|
| They finally released SQL Server 2005 huh? I thought it would be 2006 before they ever got it released. |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
 |
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 13:30:38
|
| Are we taking bets on when the first SP goes out? |
|
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
|
|
Podge
Support Moderator
Ireland
3776 Posts |
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 14:29:02
|
| SQL Server 2005 has some very neat features. I haven't the final version, but I do have the last Community Technology Preview and I'm very tempted to install it... |
Snitz 3.4 Readme | Like the support? Support Snitz too |
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 14:30:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by rurib
Does it really matter?
Not really. I've been reading enough on SQLServer 2005 to really start pushing our IS dept. to allow me to use the Express version on the web server. I've got a meeting with them on that and other issues comming up soon. Having it go "official" makes it easier to sell than "beta"
I've just noticed MS's penchant for releasing a SP or two shortly after a product is out of the box.... in the case of XP, before it ever got out of the box.
Given what I'm doing with the Online Testing stuff, fulltext search is a good thing. Especially when I'm restricted to MS products. |
Edited by - AnonJr on 07 November 2005 14:33:35 |
|
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 14:36:49
|
| Products with this degree of complexity, running in a miriad of different hardware environments... well I don't need to tell ya more, do I? It's not just an MS thing, though their cicles of beta testing, CTPs and such seems to be improving with time... |
Snitz 3.4 Readme | Like the support? Support Snitz too |
|
|
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 15:08:32
|
| I was /am looking into it for our organization mainly because of the replication and fail over things built in. I thought the pricing would be a lot better. To accomplish this we would need the Standard version but at $6,000 per CPU it would get spendy as we would have two dual CPU machines, one primary, one mirror, and a single CPU machine being the witness. Unless maybe I'm looking into it wrong and we would only need two CPU licences since theoretically only one machine at a time would be in production or handling connections and if a fail over occurred all connection handling would be swapped to the other machine and those two CPU's. |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 15:28:35
|
| Dual CPU or Dual core? I seem to remember that MS was going to count a dual core proc as a single CPU.... though they may have changed their mind. |
|
|
|
MarcelG
Retired Support Moderator
Netherlands
2625 Posts |
|
|
Podge
Support Moderator
Ireland
3776 Posts |
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 16:07:49
|
| Where's an MS Evangelist when you need one? (BTW, that is an actual job at MS. I was looking at what was available one day and saw it.) |
|
|
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 17:44:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Podge
My understanding of the Microsoft licencing means that a website visitor constitutes a user therefore sr_erick would need the Server / CPU Licence.
You are correct. This is how they count the CAL's. It's per visitor of the site, not per connection to the SQL server from the webserver. Since it's a client access licence, the actual client is the end user of the website. Anyways, we still consume on average, 50 or so CALs at any given time just from applications accessing the database internally, etc. so the per CPU based licencing is the way to go.
If anyone has any additional information on the licencing scheme and how many a person really needs to purchase, by all means let me know. |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 18:04:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by sr_erick
quote:
Originally posted by Podge
My understanding of the Microsoft licencing means that a website visitor constitutes a user therefore sr_erick would need the Server / CPU Licence.
You are correct. This is how they count the CAL's. It's per visitor of the site, not per connection to the SQL server from the webserver. Since it's a client access licence, the actual client is the end user of the website. Anyways, we still consume on average, 50 or so CALs at any given time just from applications accessing the database internally, etc. so the per CPU based licencing is the way to go.
If anyone has any additional information on the licencing scheme and how many a person really needs to purchase, by all means let me know.
That is not correct SQL licensing is per client connection to the sql server, the sql server knows nothing about website visitors nor does it care, it only knows about client connections, you would need a CAL for each open connection. |
|
|
|
sr_erick
Senior Member
USA
1318 Posts |
Posted - 07 November 2005 : 18:37:27
|
Ah, I have found the answer to my question on the FAQ site for SQL server: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx#EWC
quote:
Q. How does licensing work for computers that run SQL Server 2005 in failover scenarios?
A. Failover support, where servers are clustered together and set to pick up processing duties if one computer should fail, is now available in Workgroup, Standard, and Enterprise editions of SQL Server 2005. Under each of these editions, keeping a passive server for failover purposes does not require a license as long as the passive server has the same or fewer processors than the active server (under the per processor scenario). For details on which failover methods are available under each edition, visit the SQL Server 2005 Features Comparison page.
Huwr, I'm not 100% sure if you are correct. A client is an end user accessing the SQL server via the webserver or so I've assumed this from past experience. To SQL server it doesn't show up as using up a seperate CAL but Microsoft considers every use of the website a client that is accessing that SQL server. I'm still confused though. Can anyone pick this apart? Maybe it will clear up the CAL multiple users per device or single user on multiplel devices.
quote:
Q. What is the difference between device client access licenses (CALs) and user CALs?
A. A device CAL allows any number of users to gain access to licensed server software from a particular device. A user CAL lets a particular user gain access to licensed server software from any number of devices. In other words, a user CAL covers a particular user's access to the server software from work computers and laptops, as well as from home computers, handheld computers, Internet kiosks, and other devices. A device CAL covers access by multiple users to server software from a single, shared device.
Perhaps you are refering to device CALs over User CALs. In this case, the device being the webserver. |
Erick
Snowmobile Fanatics
|
Edited by - sr_erick on 07 November 2005 18:42:34 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
