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

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 )

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.

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.

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

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.

Edhy Rijo

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.

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.

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.

Edhy Rijo

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.