Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement from a different perspective
David: I must be misunderstanding your comments. You state that SQL Server, for instance, would charge a per connection license for a large web site. I don't believe this is true. SQL Server pricing depends on the licensing model one needs. Generally you get a per processor or a per server plus end user client access licenses (CALs). Per Microsoft, the suggested retail price is: Editions. Processor Server + CAL Pricing Pricing Enterprise Edition (OLTP, Data Warehousing, Data Mining) $24,999 $13,969 w/25 CALs $162 per additional CAL Standard Edition (E-commerce, DW, app server, etc) $5,999 $1,849 w/5 CALs Workgroup Edition (Front-end Web server, Branch Office)$3,899 $739 w/5 CALs $146 per additional CAL The Developer Edition, Express Edition and Compact Edition are essentially free. A description of the Processor Licensing Model A license is required for each physical or virtual processor accessed by an operating system environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any device or user client access licenses (CALs). Under this structure, a customer acquires a separate Processor license for each processor that is located in the server running the SQL Server software. If you have made a processor inaccessible to all operating system copies on which the SQL Server software is set up to run, you do not need a software license for that processor. This licensing model is most appropriate for applications that are accessible through the Internet and for internal applications with a high client-to-server ratio. Server Plus Device CALs Licensing Model Server plus device client access license (CAL) licensing requires a separate Server license (for either SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition or Enterprise Edition) for each server on which the software is installed, plus a CAL for each client device. A SQL Server CAL is required for a device (for example, a personal computer, workstation, terminal, personal digital assistant, or mobile phone) to access or use the services or functionality of either edition of SQL Server. For more information on the requirements for devices that use SQL Server functionality without directly accessing the database, please see the SQL Server 2005 licensing Special Considerations page http://www.microsoft.com/Sqlserver/2005/en/us/special-considerations.aspx at (http://www.microsoft.com/Sqlserver/2005/en/us/special-considerations.aspx) Server plus device CAL licensing is optimal for customers who do not need access beyond the firewall and who have relatively low CAL-to-server ratios (for example, approximately 25 or fewer devices per processor for Standard Edition and 75 or fewer devices per processor for Enterprise Edition). The device CAL model will likely be more cost-effective than user CALs if there are multiple users per device (for example, a call center or an airport kiosk). Please note that MV applications generally have not paid for more than 5 CALs because telnet connections were not considered devices. So a typical small business installation used Windows 2003 Server w/5 CALs and U2 workgroup edition. What we do in our telnet environment can't really be considered high volume. So, although your point of not expecting something for nothing is valid, when what's paid is one's own money instead of someone elses (the company we work for) money, many of us look for value. And it is not unexpected that idea of fair differs amount U2 providers, developers, and users. When a number of companies are using U2 as a datastore for their web application, I think, as Tony pointed out, that the licensing model for the MV environment is out of sync with the new paradigm of licensing as outlined by Microsoft and other dbms providers. The IBM U2 connection pooling licenses aren't necessarily useful in that new U2 apps may use multiple accounts instead of one or two accounts (we're taking our apps to the web as a SAAS application). (a note: an IBM connection pool license costs about $1,800 but only is valid against one account path at a time. So, if a U2 SAAS installation has 20 accounts that use a web application they need 20 licenses at $36,000 which is very expensive for such a low-use, and small company, environment.) To give you an idea, a 200 user license of U2 for a web server would cost about $100,000 - $150,000, which is significantly more than in the Microsoft RDBMS world. Many in the U2 world work in large installations, which is great. However, one has to remember that others are attempting to make their tried and true MV application available to a completely new set of
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement from a different perspective
Sorry, resend because it was hard to tell what I had written as it put the legal stuff up at the top. from the post I was replying to (so it doesn't do it again): ... SQL Server pricing depends on the licensing model one needs. Generally you get a per processor or a per server plus end user client access licenses (CALs). Per Microsoft, the suggested retail price is: ... Just a note of clarification. On the server plus CALs there are 2 options. Server plus USER CAL and server plus DEVICE CAL. At first you start to mention user CALs but then in your example you put per device. On the per device, it does not matter how many users use that device (think factory floor workstation shared by the user). On the per user CAL it does not matter how many devices the user has... A previous message said something about majority of rdbms systems requiring per device so if a user had 3 devices times 100 user you'd need 300 licenses. I think that was the example used anyway. That's true on the per device CAL, it is NOT TRUE on the per user CAL. You would need 1 per user, not 1 per user per device. Even on the per device, it would be the number of total devices. So yes it would be 300 if (and only if) every device only ever had 1 user. Which if that was the case, it wouldn't be too smart to buy per device, which are only slightly cheaper, licenses any! way. Straight from the horses mouth: A device CAL allows any number of users to gain access to licensed server software from a particular device. A user CAL lets a particular user gain access to licensed server software from any number of devices. In other words, a user CAL covers a particular user's access to the server software from work computers and laptops, as well as from home computers, handheld computers, Internet kiosks, and other devices. A device CAL covers access by multiple users to server software from a single, shared device. And yes you can mix license modes. It is not recommended from a management standpoint, however it is allowed. If you can guarantee that each session will be covered by a user or a device CAL you're good to go. And there's always the option of going per processor which gives you the right to install any number of copies of SQL Server 2005 on a single computer, as long as you have purchased processor licenses for all of the processors on that computer. And MS has updated their licensing for virtualization under the per processor option as well. If you buy 8 processor licenses, you can run on 8 physical processors regardless of the number of virtual machines. In my opinion, the U2 license structure needs to be updated... I recently got a quote for 50 additional user licenses, and it was more than double what we pay for MS per user price and almost triple the per device license. Robert F. Porter, MCSE, CCNA, ZCE Lead Sr. Programmer / Analyst Laboratory Information Services Ochsner Health System This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement from a different perspective
Robert F. Porter, MCSE, CCNA, ZCE Lead Sr. Programmer / Analyst Laboratory Information Services Ochsner Health System This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. Bill Haskett wphask...@advantos.net 9/25/2009 12:59 PM ( mailto:wphask...@advantos.net ) ... SQL Server pricing depends on the licensing model one needs. Generally you get a per processor or a per server plus end user client access licenses (CALs). Per Microsoft, the suggested retail price is: ... Just a note of clarification. On the server plus CALs there are 2 options. Server plus USER CAL and server plus DEVICE CAL. At first you start to mention user CALs but then in your example you put per device. On the per device, it does not matter how many users use that device (think factory floor workstation shared by the user). On the per user CAL it does not matter how many devices the user has... A previous message said something about majority of rdbms systems requiring per device so if a user had 3 devices times 100 user you'd need 300 licenses. I think that was the example used anyway. That's true on the per device CAL, it is NOT TRUE on the per user CAL. You would need 1 per user, not 1 per user per device. Even on the per device, it would be the number of total devices. So yes it would be 300 if (and only if) every device only ever had 1 user. Which if that was the case, it wouldn't be too smart to buy per device, which are only slightly cheaper, licenses anyway. Straight from the horses mouth: A device CAL allows any number of users to gain access to licensed server software from a particular device. A user CAL lets a particular user gain access to licensed server software from any number of devices. In other words, a user CAL covers a particular user's access to the server software from work computers and laptops, as well as from home computers, handheld computers, Internet kiosks, and other devices. A device CAL covers access by multiple users to server software from a single, shared device. And yes you can mix license modes. It is not recommended from a management standpoint, however it is allowed. If you can guarantee that each session will be covered by a user or a device CAL you're good to go. And there's always the option of going per processor which gives you the right to install any number of copies of SQL Server 2005 on a single computer, as long as you have purchased processor licenses for all of the processors on that computer. And MS has updated their licensing for virtualization under the per processor option as well. If you buy 8 processor licenses, you can run on 8 physical processors regardless of the number of virtual machines. In my opinion, the U2 license structure needs to be updated... I recently got a quote for 50 additional user licenses, and it was more than double what we pay for MS per user price and almost triple the per device license. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement from a different perspective
Hi Bill I raised that there are 2 options, per user or per processor. For a web site you would select the per processor model. I was generalizing licenses and was trying to point out that licensing is complex for all platforms and costs are not always as cheap as they may seem. There are gotchas in all databases that many users are not aware of. I am aware that there is a clampdown by database providers who are facing a sales slump and are going through checking people have legitimately used their licenses and they are finding breaches. IBM's audit of U2 licenses related to pooling would have coincided with audit checks of other IBM databases. One vendors license agreement allows the vendor to walk into sites for inspections and audits are at the clients costs. There are suppliers who believe they are losing up to 30% of their revenue to breaches of licenses so this is not a minor issue to them. However the main point I was raising was that we needed to find a middle position on pooling where both IBM and the customer were getting a fair price for license use. What have people done to raise the problems with licensing at IBM. We have a user group and the Better and Better site. If there is a better alternative to licensing for pooling, then let us put a business case together and present it rather than just complaining. U2 does not want to lose sites to another vendor because the licensing model does not work. I know that the issues of SAAS has been raised with IBM and if my memory serves me correct, I believe that IBM realised there was a problem and suggested that such situations should be discussed with them to find a solution. Regards David Jordan ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement from a different perspective
We as a community want U2 technology to have all the bells and whistles and to market and generally upgrades its game. But many of us want U2 to do it for free. If we don't buy appropriate numbers of licenses, then U2 will not be a viable business proposition to a supplier. As a customer we need to pay a fair price for a fair service. Sure, at the same time we need to encourage U2 to provide a fair service for a fair price and maybe we need to encourage better pricing for U2 Connect. Forget the law for the moment and consider what is fair. For if something is abused, then things will be forced upon us that we may not like. In the RDBMS world the majority do not have concurrent licensing. They have per user which means if you access the system through the web, through the PC and through a phone, that is 3 licenses. If you have a 100 users and connect 3 ways you need 300 licenses. Alternatively they run processor licenses based on the power of the processor. This is getting muddy too particularly with a move to virtual servers. Where the virtual server may only use 2 processors of an 8 processor machine. Is the licensing on the virtual or physical processes. When customer A runs 100 users with 2 licenses, then they undermine it for all the other customers. They have equal customer support to customer B who has 100 licenses, but they only contribute 2% to the RD and support framework that customer B provides. If customer B followed customer A methodology then U2 licenses will drop by 98%, which will be quickly followed by 100% because it is now seen as a declining product. Something is only worth what you pay for it, or the mantra if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. As a community we should look for a better position between the two positions on licensing. Playing devil's advocate David Jordan ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement from a different perspective
Well stated, David! ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
