Josh Condie – With the Release Candidate for SQL Server 2012 now available it is now more important than ever that Microsoft effectively communicate the significant licensing changes that are coming with the new release. Below is the best, concise summary that I have seen.
SQL Server 2012 will be released in 3 main editions:
The main editions are now offered in a consistent, tiered model which creates greater consistency across editions, features and licensing. Enterprise Edition will include all features available in SQL Server 2012. The Business Intelligence Edition will include premium BI features as well as all of the Standard Edition features.
Server and Client Access License (CAL) Licensing:
Individual Virtual Machines
One more reason to take a long hard look at open source DB's
Note sure if this posted the first time, so I'm trying again:
1) If I have more hardware than I "need", for resiliency purposes, (n+1 VM hosts) do I need to licence the cores of the "+1" host even though it will basically never be used to execute a VM running SQL?
2) How about if I have 10 hosts (each with 2 x 8-core CPUs), running 400 VMs, only 50 of which are running SQL?
Do I need to licence 10 * 2 * 8 = 160 cores? Even though I could quite happily run all 50 SQL VMs on just one or two hosts (say 2 * 2 * 8 = 32 cores) - massive cost difference. If the new licensing model means that I would need 160 cores then in practice this is not feasible and means I have to turn off dynamic movement of SQL VMs, which is really bad - or hive off some hosts to ONLY run SQL on, which hurts my non-SQL workload as the n+1 hosts required for SQL will be running fairly idle whilst the remainder running all the non-SQL stuff are busy. Neither option seems good to me, can you explain how my environment fits in with the SQL licensing please?
I have to agree, this was the last straw and we moved from sql2008r2 to mysql enterprise.
Why no CAL for enterprise edition? We are a small company (<50 people) with only internal apps. We use partitioning and were looking to use active standby and column compression.
sqlserver 2012 EE is 20x cost of sqlserver 2008 r2 EE.
Ridiculous. You buy core licences in packs of two but have to licence at least four even if you only have one? Who comes up with this nonsense? Microsoft licensing is IMPOSSIBLE to follow correctly.
I think the key is this
•Core licenses will be priced at ¼ the cost of a SQL Server 2008 R2 (EE/SE) processor license.
they are assuming a quad core CPU per server. so the cost is the same as SQL server 2008 on single server?
at least that's what I think it says
This licensing model is absolutely impossible to follow correctly. As far as I can understand it (which isn't very much), this hinders our ability to virtualize SQL in a cost effective manner. We run Cisco UCS blades and ESXi. If we allow the SQL VMs to migrate between hosts, we would have to pay massive amounts of money to license per core because we have no less than 12 cores per host times 24 hosts. That is a massive amount of money for a handful of SQL Enterprise VMs.
For Virtual you have two options -
1. License the physical machine completely with Enterprise and run an unlimited number of SQL VM's on the machine
2. License each VM individually with a minimum of 4 cores per VM
I would assume most small and medium companies would choose option 2
@jfh76 If you are running hex-core (6 core) machines then buying two four-packs would be over licensing your server. This is why they had to do it in two-core packs.
Typical M$ licensing non sense. They make people who have only one sql server and 100 users to pay £20000 for their database software, it is atrocious.