Dual core or Dual processor with sql 2005

Madmrcopper · 3 Aug 2006 at 12:47

We are looking at setting up a MS CRM 3 in house for about 100 users. Now the question is can we get away with running a dual core server or will we need to get a dual processor server. Just the cost is significaly less for a single processor license.

Otacon · 3 Aug 2006 at 12:49

Go Dual Core. The extra cost really isnt worth it.

Wyvern971 · 3 Aug 2006 at 12:58

OT but nice shades

Baz · 4 Aug 2006 at 08:33

If you have 100 users, then 2 CPU licences is cheaper than 100 user licences.

Just work out the price, and how many people would be connected at any one time, then work out if its cheaper to go the CAL route or the CPU Route.

We have around 80 users, and to be on the safe side, with our new ERP system we went for 2 CPU licenses (mainly as we have around 40 Wifi scanners accessing the DB as well!) and it was cheaper.

akakjs · 4 Aug 2006 at 08:51

Honestly, I'd get a dual mobo but only put a single dual-core CPU in it. That way you get the benfit of both worlds and a built in upgrade path

Plus microsoft licence by the socket iirc, so you only need the one licence still..

With 100 users and the fact that CRM systems are fairly database heavy, you don't want to scrimp on CPU or I/O.

akakjs

stoofa · 4 Aug 2006 at 10:27

We just had to play catch-up on SQL Server licensing too as we'd got the wrong end of the stick with regards how it worked.
We thought that you could buy say 50 licenses and then in a 100 user environment then the first 50 users could connect - as most people don't need constant access to the SQL server this worked extremely well.

It is however illegal and not a licensing model MS recognise.
Every device that connects to the SQL server if it connects once and then never again, connects every day or might connect in the future requires a CAL.
In the end we bought two per-processor licenses as our SQL server is running on a dual, dual-core machine.
Just remember you are looking at around £3700 for a per-processor license for an SQL server.

Madmrcopper · 17 Aug 2006 at 11:33

Thanks for everyone comments. Sorry i havent got back to you sooner but have been on holiday for a week and just finished clear the back log. USERS! who needs them

growse · 17 Aug 2006 at 12:44

stoofa said:
We just had to play catch-up on SQL Server licensing too as we'd got the wrong end of the stick with regards how it worked.
We thought that you could buy say 50 licenses and then in a 100 user environment then the first 50 users could connect - as most people don't need constant access to the SQL server this worked extremely well.

It is however illegal and not a licensing model MS recognise.
Every device that connects to the SQL server if it connects once and then never again, connects every day or might connect in the future requires a CAL.
In the end we bought two per-processor licenses as our SQL server is running on a dual, dual-core machine.
Just remember you are looking at around £3700 for a per-processor license for an SQL server.

£4k? We (rather large techonolgical company) pay £16k. :eek:

That might be because of support stuff that's rolled in, but I was under the impression that a CAL is around £4k, and the per-cpu is 16k (or thereabouts).

Also, there's confusion that's never really resolved about what a client is. If I have one database server, and then one webserver which connects to that database server, and then 1000 users who connect to that webserver, is that one client, or 1000? I think it gets a bit more involved as you can get a CAL per-device or per-user. In which case, building a standard tiered architecture for a website (pair of clusterd sql servers, pair of webservers) is actually not too expensive on the licensing. Per-cpu only really makes sense when users are connecting directly to the data source.

J1nxy · 17 Aug 2006 at 12:57

growse said:
£4k? We (rather large techonolgical company) pay £16k.

That might be because of support stuff that's rolled in, but I was under the impression that a CAL is around £4k, and the per-cpu is 16k (or thereabouts).

Also, there's confusion that's never really resolved about what a client is. If I have one database server, and then one webserver which connects to that database server, and then 1000 users who connect to that webserver, is that one client, or 1000? I think it gets a bit more involved as you can get a CAL per-device or per-user. In which case, building a standard tiered architecture for a website (pair of clusterd sql servers, pair of webservers) is actually not too expensive on the licensing. Per-cpu only really makes sense when users are connecting directly to the data source.

The scenrio you have described is a per CPU license model and not a per user license unless the users are already licensed to connect to other internal resources by the existance of the Core CAL.

Baz · 17 Aug 2006 at 15:05

growse said:
£4k? We (rather large techonolgical company) pay £16k.

That might be because of support stuff that's rolled in, but I was under the impression that a CAL is around £4k, and the per-cpu is 16k (or thereabouts).

Also, there's confusion that's never really resolved about what a client is. If I have one database server, and then one webserver which connects to that database server, and then 1000 users who connect to that webserver, is that one client, or 1000? I think it gets a bit more involved as you can get a CAL per-device or per-user. In which case, building a standard tiered architecture for a website (pair of clusterd sql servers, pair of webservers) is actually not too expensive on the licensing. Per-cpu only really makes sense when users are connecting directly to the data source.

That sounds like you have SQL Enterprise to me.

growse · 17 Aug 2006 at 15:42

Baz said:
That sounds like you have SQL Enterprise to me.

That's probably it, for clustering etc.

stoofa · 17 Aug 2006 at 16:43

Sorry - missed this thread popping back up.
Yer, our costing was for SQL 2005 Standard.
Running on a dual, dual-core system required us to buy 2x per CPU licenses for the server.
These were £3750 each.

However that now enables any number of devices to attach to the SQL Standard server.
Certainly cheaper than buying a CAL for each device - as soon as you reach about 50 users/devices I'm sure per CPU is cheaper.

Must admit we hadn't looked into the difference in pricing on the Enterprise editions.
We use SQL as a back-end for our Great Plains system and our OneClick HR system.
They both share the same installation of SQL Standard on the same server - so both applications are covered by the same per-CPU licenses for SQL.