August 28, 2007 at 3:32 am
Hi
I am so headache about what my company wants to deploy the new server.
Basically, we want to buy a high performance server (4*quad-core cpu, 16G mem with large SAN disk), the box will be used to host multiple virtual servers and each run a sql 2005 instance, OR single OS, multiple SQL instance, do each instance need a license if use SQL STD version? Steve Jones mentioned in another thread said Enterprise version support unlimited instance if buy per cpu license. but i'm not sure whether this apply to SQL 2005.
We want to minimize license cost. Any input or suggestion is very appreciated.
Thanks,
Jack
August 28, 2007 at 4:28 am
Jack,
if you use a per CPU license when it makes no difference how many instances you have. If you use a per user/CAL license, when the users/CALs for all instances need to be added up. For more info about the licensing models see here http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.mspx
Markus
[font="Verdana"]Markus Bohse[/font]
August 28, 2007 at 4:31 am
Even though you might find it from the first link, just to make sure the link about licensing multiple instances is here http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/multipleinstances.mspx
Markus
[font="Verdana"]Markus Bohse[/font]
August 28, 2007 at 9:57 am
...true as long as the instances are running in the same instance of the OS. It's by "virtual" CPU (so if it's running in a VM situation, it's per CPU/VM). That one gets a little sticky.
Licensing question being explored more fully over here: http://qa.sqlservercentral.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?forumid=65&messageid=14568#bm394379
Of course - some might argue the wisdom or running SQL Server in a VM scenario (I never really came across a scenario where it really made sense to do that...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
August 28, 2007 at 10:05 am
...meaning - VM's work well when there are peaks and valleys of activity in each of the instances, so that the resources can bounce back and forth. SQL servers (well - at least mine do) tend to take as many resources as you will give them, and keep them busy a LOT. In which case you would have to dedicate specific resources with specific amounts to each instance (which you can already do in a multi-instance single OS setup).
The only real advantage I've seen is that you can restart each instance separately. Of course you might need to weigh that against paying (4 x 5K) for the single OS versus (4 x 5K) x 4 instances (for a 4 VM scenario)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply