Skip to main content

licensing - How are SQL Server CALs counted?












Running a SQL Server, as far as I understand it, you need one CAL for every user who connects to the database server.



But what happens if the only computer which is accessing the SQL Server is the server running your business layer?
If, for example, you got 1 SQL Server and 1 Business logic server, and 100 Clients who all just query and use the business logic server. No client is using the SQL Server directly, no one is even allowed to contact it.
So, since there is only one computer using the SQL server, do I need only 1 CAL???



I somehow can't believe this would count as only 1 CAL needed for the SQL Server, but I would like to know why not.


Answer



You need CAL's for every user of the business logic server, even though there is no direct connection between them and the SQL server. Microsoft use the term "multiplexing" for the scenario you describe.



This is for SQL 2005 but I don't think it is any different for other versions:





A CAL is required for each distinct device or user to the multiplexing or pooling software or hardware front end. This remains true no matter how many tiers of hardware or software exist between the server running SQL Server and the client devices that ultimately use its data, services, or functionality. An exception to this includes the manual transfer of data from employee to employee. For example, if an employee sends a Microsoft Excel version of a report to another employee, the receiving employee does not require a CAL. An additional exception is communication exclusively between the servers running SQL Server.




Anyone using your Application has to be covered by a CAL, including someone who uses it solely to generate Excel Reports but someone who only receives a copy of one of those Excel Reports by e-mail doesn't.



Edited to add This is just one of many aspects of SQL server licensing and it's only relevant if you choose the Server+CAL licensing model. If you want to get a full understanding of all of the alternatives the definitive document is Microsoft's 63 page SQL Server 2008 Licensing Guide which covers all licensing models and approaches.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able