By Ger Cannoll - 4/15/2010
I have a potential customer who has a server , and will be running a distributed application on each of the reps laptops.
There are about 15 reps, who will be running the application , disconnected, and then uploading data to the server
Sql express is not an option as Database sze is over 4 Gigs.
Does anybody know the licensing situaution in this case.... e.g. Do I need to purchase 15 server licenses at about $1800 each for each of the Reps laptops ?
I had a look at the MS pricing site but it gave no example of this situation
|
By Charles R Hankey - 4/16/2010
I'll let someone more current on the licensing address that - used to be you could license per concurrent user - but it is worth considering the idea that the ES is seen by SQL as a single connection (if I understand Microfour correctly )
Just wanted to open discussion on that approach (for my own benefit as well )
|
By Ger Cannoll - 4/16/2010
Hi Charles.The issue with this partcualr set up is that there will be about 15 reps completely disconnected from the server. My main question is , do they need a MS Sql Server license for each pc. They will have an Order Entry type app on a laptop. They cannot rely on connetivity, as some of the locations they are selling into are in rural areas and cannot be gauaranteed to have connectibity to the server , and they need the app on the pc to take the order. SQL express is not an option either because some of the database sizes they ae accessing are over the 4 gig limit.
|
By Charles R Hankey - 4/16/2010
I understand the question, my thought the ES would let them access the data from anyplace they could get an internet connection - no VPN necessary - and the SQL Server would only be talking to the ES - so there would be only one user.
|
By Ger Cannoll - 4/16/2010
The problem is that we cannot depend on a connection to the internet...so that rules ES out as a connection is required I presume. Bottom line is a version of SQL Server will need to be on each laptop and I am wondering do they need a full server license (as in c $1800) rather than a Cal License (as in $180) for each laptop
|
By Edhy Rijo - 4/16/2010
Hi Gerard,
Your needs are another reason why we need SF tools to support for MySQL and/or VistaDB databases.
I have read the MS-SQL licensing stuff and it is designed to be complicated. Your approach of having the database server on each laptop is not very common and could be complicated, then you will need to do some sort of synchronization or replication to get new transactions.
I your case you need a light database engine for your off site laptops then handle the synchronization. MySQL would be just perfect for your scenario and if you prefer to work with MS-SQL in the main office, then VistaDB could be the solution since they claim to be 100% compatible with MS-SQL.
P.S.
I have not used VistaDB at all, just read their literature on their site. Still I believe MySQL could do just better since it is a proven database capable of handling millions of records.
|
By Charles R Hankey - 4/16/2010
Sorry, I really did misunderstand the question. But even working disconnected, do they need over 4gb of data in one DB on their laptop? And since you have to sync it up anyway, could you have disconnected app use smaller SQL Express DBs or is one table over 4gb? Since SF will let you use multiple connections in the app, you might be able to get around it that way, having one DB that handles their data entry current stuff and the others that have the "lookup" or research info they may need while disconnected.
|
By Larry Caylor - 4/16/2010
Microsoft licensing can get complicated but there are basically two ways SQL Server may be licensed. One is by processor. When licensed by processor there is no limit on the number of users that may access the server. Unlike Oracle which licenses by core, SQL is licensed by processor socket so a quad core cpu still counts as a single processor. However processing licensing can get expensive, around $24,000 per processor for SQL Enterprise.The other license model is to purchase a server license for each server and a client access license (CAL) for each user that will access the server. Under server licensing you can have as many processors as the edition of SQL Server you are using supports. The licensing gets more complicated when you mix in virtual servers or a server that supports and Internet application. Which model is best for you depends on how many servers and users you need to support. In my shop we run SQL Enterprise on five different servers with 600 users. All of our servers are multi-core and multi-processor. One of the reasons we use multiple servers is that in addtion to running business application we also do data warehousing. For us it turned out that that lowest cost licensing model was to purchase a license for each server and a CAL for each user. If we could consolidate everything on to a sinble box, processor licensing might be a better choice. We also use Strataframe ES. Under the terms of MS licensing, the ES server acts as a concentrator, presenting multiple ES users as a single user to SQL. Although there is only a single SQL user, a SQL CAL is required for each user that accesses the SQL box via the ES server. You can't get away with a single CAL. If the SQL box was licensed by processor, you could have an unlimited number of ES users. In Gerard's case it sounds like he needs an acutal server on each laptop which requires either a processor license or server license with a CAL. If I were in this situation I'd first try to use SQL Express by splitting my database into multiple databases to get around the 4GB per database limit. If that wasn't possible I'd look at SQL Workgroup edition with one server license and one SQL CAL for each laptop.
|
By Edhy Rijo - 4/16/2010
Hi Charles,
I recently have a customer who reaches the 4GB limits in MS-SQL-EXPRESS and let me tell you it is just ugly. Once this limit is reached you cannot even insert any new records to the database.
I believe that Gerard's database needed in the laptop to handle the new transactions is over 4GB limit and even with your idea of probably having several tables in different database and SF will perfectly handle that situation, it could be a royal pain to maintain the data structure logic in separate databases, doable but wierd 
SF full support is what is needed to overcome this and many other real situation outside the MS-SQL word. Please don't get me wrong I love MS-SQL and the full support from SF, but the economy and market in US is not at its best and having other good databases like MySQL could be the only solid alternative to MS-SQL-EXPRESS.
|
By Dustin Taylor - 4/16/2010
Larry is dead on regarding the licensing details. In regards to your situation, it sounds as though a single CAL license on each laptop would be sufficient as you only have a single user per laptop, with a per socket license a viable option on your server (we use SQL Server Workgroup Edition on a per socket license for the larger clinics in our medical app.)For the individual laptops, I would echo Larry and Charle's comments in seeing if you can get the distributed DB below the 4 GB limit for each individual user, as that would simplify the situation dramatically.
|
By Ger Cannoll - 4/16/2010
Wow..this is turning out to be a very interesting thread..thanks for all contributions.I would add that this customer, although an existing customer, the reps app has not been signed off on yet, so to some degree, a bit theoretical. However, I do have to give the guy figures, and though the main app on the notebook wont go above 4 gigs, they do want to be able to access company wide information which easily could go over the 4 Gigs. I need to have the figures, if we start off with Sql Express, and then end up with Edhy's scenario where the database goes over 4 gigs one day....we'll all be in a dilly of a pickle then !!!! The next day.... the company may need to fork out 15 X $1,800 = $27,000...not a pretty picture Is there another database out there which is truly 100% comapatbale with Sql Server......if it was 100% compatable , should it not then be a matter of changing a connection string and bobs your uncle ??..The App or Sf should not even be aware of a change if it is truly 100% compaible ??
|
By Keith Chisarik - 4/16/2010
I use SF with MySQL, I had to write my own MySQLDataSourceItem but it works fine and has been for several years, although the application is a simple website application.I also wrote a custom DataSourceItem to work with SQL Compact, not that this is a solution here but illustrates that with a little work you can make SF work with what you want. The only trouble I ever had using SF with using a database other than SQL Server was with DB2, which I dont suggest anyone try unless you have a DB2 DBA around. So there are options, but I am pretty sure Trent posted that MySQL support was to be added soon in SF !!??
|
By Edhy Rijo - 4/16/2010
Keith Chisarik (04/16/2010)
I use SF with MySQL, I had to write my own MySQLDataSourceItem but it works fine and has been for several years, although the application is a simple website application.
Hi Keith,
The application which I would like to use MySQL is a smart client and currently its VFP version is installed at more than 100 customers and the majority with a very low end hardware, some will even have Windows 2000 with 256 MB RAM. It is just impossible for me to even try to install a SF version with MS-SQL Express on that kind of hardware and the reality is that this particular application is sold in a range of US$500.00 - US$650.00 and this kind of customers will only replace the hardware if it is broken. So in reality I have to keep the application in VFP for now until I find a way to use SF applications under this kind of environment.
Also I will need the DDT functionality in order to update MySQL structures at the customers site when releasing updates, if you know a way for me to do this with MySQL or VistaDB please let me know so I can start testing.
Keith Chisarik (04/16/2010)
So there are options, but I am pretty sure Trent posted that MySQL support was to be added soon in SF !!??
Yes, the question is when will that happen? AFAIK I am not aware of an SF roadmap posted for us to plan ahead for upcoming updates.
|
By Russell Scott Brown - 4/16/2010
We definitely need VistaDB support!I have the same requirement. Lots of remote users who usually cannot access the server while doing audits at a client location. VFP has worked fine for me so far but SQL Express is too big and overkill with updates and security headaches, etc., if you have too many road warriors/laptop users like I do. I'm going to start checking into using VistaDB with SF starting the first week in May (I'm traveling the next 2 weeks). They offer a free 30 day trial and it is only $450 for the professional version anyway so very reasonable. The combination of SF and VistaDB would be perfect I think. Anyway, a $450 investment in VistaDB could save a fortune in SQL Service CALs.
|
By Russell Scott Brown - 4/16/2010
I also forgot to mention that I checked into licensing MySQL Embedded DB and found that it was cost prohibitive. It was about $20,000 upfront just to get 100 licenses. The price per license starts dropping after that but they don't offer any pay per license as you go along so that killed it for me.If you distribute it with a commercial application you have to have a license. If you give your application away free then there is no problem. Other than that though MySQL Embedded DB looked very good but I'm going to give VistaDB a try mainly for financial reasons. I'm hoping others will jump on VistaDB too once I start using it the first week in May. VistaDB would for well without SF too of course but I want to us SF for everything if possible.
|
By Russell Scott Brown - 4/16/2010
Interesting comparison: VistaDB vs. SQL Server Expresshttp://www.vistadb.net/compare/sql-server-express.aspx
|
By Edhy Rijo - 4/16/2010
Hi Russ,
I will be testing VistaDB pretty soon too. In the next week or two I will be upgrading to Window 7 64bits, VS2010 and after moving my SF projects to VS2010 I will focus on VistaDB since I have the need to move the VFP application to SF and so far VistaDB looks like the best candidate for this application, even though I also have a couple of customers with several branch offices in which the same application will have to use MS-SQL Express or whatever version they need, so in this application I must be able to switch databases and still I am not clear how that could be accomplish in SF? Would I have to create a business object per target database?
|
By Russell Scott Brown - 4/17/2010
Sounds like you will definitely get to VistaDB before I do it sounds like. I'm pretty excited about it. I am also interested in MySQL for sure. I'm not sure about having a BO for each database, VistaDB or MySQL. I would recommend contacting VistaDB and Jason via their forum (they have a free section for developers to ask question before buying). Also, I've sent e-mails directly to Jason at VistaDB and he has always gotton right back to me.
|
By Russell Scott Brown - 4/17/2010
I forgot to reply about the Windows 7 part and VS 2010 of your post. I've recently downloaded the beta of VS 2010 and Office 2010 but haven't even installed them yet. When I do it will be on a Sun Virtual Machine (http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads) I have setup with Windows 7, XP, Vista, etc. This avoids having to setup a separate PC or laptop and works surprisingly well. I've not had any problems.I haven't installed SF on the Virtual Box though. I just test the applications on it.
|