How Does SQL Server Licensing Work?
-
I am trying to get a quote on SQL Server 2014 for our upcoming Dynamics / GP 2013 upgrade. We are planning on virtualizing our SQL server at the same time we do the GP upgrade so wanted to see what costs would be if we went all out.
Well, they quoted me over $10,000 because we in theory have 50 users who directly (GP) or indirectly use SQL here. Is that how it normally works? We are currently on 2005 and I have a copy of SQL 2008 R2 ready if we need it.
I don't mind going with 2008 R2 to save money but thought the cost would be much lower for our needs to go ahead and get 2014.
-
You can do either Server + User/Device Cals or just license per core of the server with no cals. Not sure of the price advantage with either but I'm guessing with only 50 users the user cal option will be cheaper.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
You can do either Server + User/Device Cals or just license per core of the server with no cals. Not sure of the price advantage with either but I'm guessing with only 50 users the user cal option will be cheaper.
Since being in a solo shop, this is the first time I've had to price it out. Didn't realize how high it was. Doubt they will pay it now but come 2019 (when 2008 R2 goes out of support) we'll have to face it...
-
At 85 users it was cheaper to go socket based. Today though MS has changed it to cores, not sockets. Assuming you put this on a VMWare server (and there probably isn't any reason not to) you can purchase only what you will assign to the VM that is running your SQL server.
When licensing was per socket, it was $4500 a socket. I think (though I have no idea how much) it's lower for cores.
FYI, the same applies to SQL 2008 R2, either cores or sockets (not sure when MS made the licensing change).
Another note, You can assign the number of cores to a VM and only purchase that amount of licensing on a VM platform, if you go bare metal you can't, you must buy as my licenses as you have hardware, if you go the socket/core route.
-
Here's a great article that explains it
-
Commercial databases are insanely expensive. You'll find this cheaper than Oracle, Sybase or DB2. There is a reason why I think choosing SQL Server for SMB is a dangerous thing to do. Sure it starts off free to get you hooked but it is crazy once you have to pay.
Seems pretty silly when PostgreSQL is free.
-
sucks for some of us. client already uses a software package that requires SQL. wonder if scott's free DB would work in it's stead
-
Yep. Dynamics is an expensive solution sometimes a Necessary evil. one locality that I worked for used it pretty heavily for HR, Accounting, Finance, Payroll and Taxation/Fines/Permits. But the upgrade costs where pretty negligible compared to the amount we were paying per year for a support contact from the company that made the Dynamics integrations a lot of governments use.
-
Actually, it is cheaper to go to per core quite early.
It is licensed per two cores. And a single license is ~$3500.
Many SMB do not need more than two or four cores for the SQL instance as the load is simply not that heavy.
-
Note that a minimum of 4 core licences are needed. So $7,000. Still cheaper.
We're going through this at the moment for a Dynamics upgrade (NAV 2015). Per core is definitely much cheaper. However, it's important to note that this will only cover you for SQL Server on one server. That's fine if you will only ever use it for Dynamics. But it's common to find other applications needing (or can use) SQL Server, for example Sharepoint can. If you want other applications to use SQL Server, it's likely to be cheaper to go with a CAL licence, as the additional cost of an extra server licence is peanuts. To further complicate matters, your other applications may only need SQL Server Express. So per core is cheaper.
We currently run a Engineering Document Management systems that comes with it's own proprietary database. It supports SQL Server, and we may want to switch to SQL Server in the future for performance reasons. But we may not.
I basically need to look into my crystal ball and work out the probability that we may need SQL Server to run on another server in the next few years. If the answer is yes, I'll go CAL. If the answer is no, I'll go Core. I hate these kinds of decisions.
If you're interested, I'll probably go Core.
-
@Hubtech said:
sucks for some of us. client already uses a software package that requires SQL. wonder if scott's free DB would work in it's stead
Not for Dynamics. It's tied to SQL Server. Most non-Microsoft products give you the choice.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Note that a minimum of 4 core licences are needed. So $7,000. Still cheaper.
We're going through this at the moment for a Dynamics upgrade (NAV 2015). Per core is definitely much cheaper. However, it's important to note that this will only cover you for SQL Server on one server. That's fine if you will only ever use it for Dynamics. But it's common to find other applications needing (or can use) SQL Server, for example Sharepoint can. If you want other applications to use SQL Server, it's likely to be cheaper to go with a CAL licence, as the additional cost of an extra server licence is peanuts. To further complicate matters, your other applications may only need SQL Server Express. So per core is cheaper.
We currently run a Engineering Document Management systems that comes with it's own proprietary database. It supports SQL Server, and we may want to switch to SQL Server in the future for performance reasons. But we may not.
I basically need to look into my crystal ball and work out the probability that we may need SQL Server to run on another server in the next few years. If the answer is yes, I'll go CAL. If the answer is no, I'll go Core. I hate these kinds of decisions.
If you're interested, I'll probably go Core.
What does yours support other than SQL Server? For the licensing cost of SQL Server you can do an awful lot to speed up another product.
-
Oracle.
It's not just licencing costs to consider though. It's things like database administration costs.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Oracle.
It's not just licencing costs to consider though. It's things like database administration costs.
PostgreSQL is a drop in Oracle replacement. Anywhere that Oracle works, PostgreSQL should work.
-
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
PostgreSQL
Sure, but "works" and "supported" are not the same thing.
This is what I've often wondered.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
PostgreSQL
Sure, but "works" and "supported" are not the same thing.
Sucks if you have vendors that will only support expensive back ends. PostgreSQL is used by everyone today. From Wall St. To Heroku.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
PostgreSQL
Sure, but "works" and "supported" are not the same thing.
This is what I've often wondered.
PostgreSQL is heavily supported. But this is an app by app question. Does your specific app vendor provide your database support?
-
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Does your specific app vendor provide your database support?
No.
If not, why the concern? PostgreSQL is just as supported as any other enterprise database offering.
