Cost is out the roof! Is there a better solution

We are installing a Active/Passive cluster for our servers. We want to make
sure that we don't go down. We are looking at installing an SQL cluster, but
I'm being told that because we want to also open out database up to out
Extranet for our customers that we are going to need a per processor
license. The server has dual Xeon so the price is going to be times 2. For
a total of $54,000!!!!! We only have about 50 users inside the company and
have a total of about 2 people accessing the extranet at a time, but was
told that MS said that the license isn't concurrent therefore we have a
total of about 500 customers. Any better solution for the number of users
we are going to have? There is NO WAY that I can justify $54,000 plus
hardware.
I think you are leaving out some detail here. Reading between the lines I think you are saying that there are approx 50 internal users and 450 external users (of which only 2 will be accessing SQL Server at any one time). Therefore MS are saying you have
500 users. This is correct (if I've made the correct assumptions). In this scenario it is better to go for a per-processor license.
However, if you really only have 52 (individual) users then you could go for a per-seat or per-device license.
But the best advice is to sit down with your MS sales rep in your area and discuss the matter (they really are the best people to analyse your situation and find the most cost-effective solution for you).
|||Nope. That is the way the license works. Those 2 people on the extranet
require you to move to a per processor licensing model. If you didn't have
those 2 on the extranet, then you could simply use CALs inside your company.
What I would do is VERY carefully read the precise definition for CALs since
it specifies employees, contractors, partners, etc. The 2 people on your
extranet may very well be able to be classified within that group in which
case you would simply need CALs for them.
As always, all licensing related information is provided based upon my
understanding. It in no way is intended to be a recommendation for
licensing and any licensing decisions are the sole responsibility of the
party running the software.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com
|||Just wanted to drop by and put a few pointers for you and your company.
a) BEST OPTION - Please contact MS Sales and Licensing Experts at 1 800
426 9400 Monday through Friday 6:00 AM to 5:30 PM PST. They are the experts
on this and would work with you on getting the best deal for your company.
b) If you are aware of your MS Area Sales Rep, please contact him and have
a chat with him. He will also be able to provide you with the right deal
for your company.
c) You might also want to visit MS Website and contact the reseller in your
area.
Please explore these options as per your understanding and comfort level.
Newsgroup might not be the right place to get an answer on this. Hope this
helps.
Sanchan [MSFT]
sanchans@.online.microsoft.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||You may want to consider replicating the data to a lesser server for your
extranet customers, perhaps even two. Those could run Standard edition and
your customers could hit those if all they're doing is reading. Updating
would be a bit trickier as you'd have to look at merge replication.
They are correct that per seat licenses are not concurrent licenses. For
that, you're looking at per processor. However, I think you'll find that 2
single proc standard licenses might drop the price somewhat.
Of course, as others have said, check with your MS rep for more assistance.
-Pete
"M.Siler" <John.Doe@.NoSpam.com> wrote:

> We are installing a Active/Passive cluster for our servers. We want to make
> sure that we don't go down. We are looking at installing an SQL cluster, but
> I'm being told that because we want to also open out database up to out
> Extranet for our customers that we are going to need a per processor
> license. The server has dual Xeon so the price is going to be times 2. For
> a total of $54,000!!!!! We only have about 50 users inside the company and
> have a total of about 2 people accessing the extranet at a time, but was
> told that MS said that the license isn't concurrent therefore we have a
> total of about 500 customers. Any better solution for the number of users
> we are going to have? There is NO WAY that I can justify $54,000 plus
> hardware.
>
|||If you are going to replicate the data and allow updates on the subscriber,
merge isn't the only option. You can also use transactional with queued,
transactional with immediate updating, and bi-directional transactional.
The differences between the options are significant, but each will
accomplish the basic principle.
Mike
Principal Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
"More than just Training"
SQL Server MVP
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com
http://www.mssqlserver.com