Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Well a SQL Server Enterprise license for a single processor costs about £17,000 plus the cost of the Windows license under that. Shall we say £20,000? For that I can get 16 connection pooled licences on U2 on a Linux box which will support a lot of users. OK the U2 could get more expensive if you put, say, 20 webshares on a single processor box but then put another processor in there and you have another £17k cost on SQL Server. They are different models so comparisons are hard, but surely they aren't that out of line with each other George On 26/09/2009 17:27, Ross Ferris ro...@stamina.com.au wrote: Yep, now it takes 2 connection pool licences to buy SQL Server Enterprise, rather than just 1 I can see that makes a BIG difference LOL! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 7:51 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement George Thanks, seems I was misquoted or the price has fallen (it was a while ago). At around 1700 GBP (with underlying licence) that's more reasonable. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: 25 September 2009 10:38 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 25/09/2009 09:51, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Hi Brian, Current price is actually 1,207 GBP with 181 GBP pa from year 2 onwards George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
1 way traffic!! Of course going the other way, we also generate things like price files that we transmit to many people via email never got an answer as to wether this required a licence pool or not. In the end the exercise became too hard for IBM I think, and the eventual answer was along the lines of it depends, we would have to look at the specifics on a case by case basis ... nothing like shifting goal posts!! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Steven M Wagner Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 11:56 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement Ross The question that I would ask, Was this one-directional? PC to U2. Or bi-directional? PC to U2 and back. One-directional is data collection. Bi-directional could be seen as a way around buying licences. Steve -- Sent from my Palm Pre Ross Ferris wrote: Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom amp; processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Batson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:43 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that lt;IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
I believe by the definitions provided by IBM (may be subject to change soon), this could NOT be considered as a connection pool, as each discrete connection only serviced an individual user, rather than a single connection servicing multiple users (now THAT is a connection pool!) somewhat academic, and will be interesting to see if a Rocket will be applied to this aspect of licencing. Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 3:55 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement But what you are describing is connection pooling which is when you need connection pooling licenses. George On 24/09/2009 23:27, Ross Ferris ro...@stamina.com.au wrote: David, I think your problem may be that you are logging only when you get a request? If you were to have lines pre-logged-in, though the complexity of the middleware increases, you may find a corresponding increase in performance ... and with a little more effort you may also decide to NOT kill a used connection immediately, 'cause if you get another request in from the same client soon, shouldn't be an issue using the previously used connection (that is still open) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 5:47 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:32 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Yep, now it takes 2 connection pool licences to buy SQL Server Enterprise, rather than just 1 I can see that makes a BIG difference LOL! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 7:51 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement George Thanks, seems I was misquoted or the price has fallen (it was a while ago). At around 1700 GBP (with underlying licence) that's more reasonable. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: 25 September 2009 10:38 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 25/09/2009 09:51, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Hi Brian, Current price is actually 1,207 GBP with 181 GBP pa from year 2 onwards George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
I believe the short answer is yes, they would require connection pooling licences Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Symeon Breen Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 7:08 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement So does this mean that all mv.net and designbais customers also should have connection pooling licences as well - after all they are multiplexing to some extent ? Do bluefinity and designbais have a statement on this ? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
IBM accepts this with the ODBC license. You have the option of login process query and logout, or remain logged in with connection pooling but share a pool of licenses. The same with their web services. It is concurrent licensing, which is the number of licenses logged on at any one time. If someone manipulates the process, where 10 users remain logged on at the same time but only use one license, then it is a breach. Licensing is complicated. If people have alternative suggestions, put it forward and build a business case. If it is a legitimate process, U2 will seriously consider it. Under Rocket, it will probably be easier than under IBM. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
So does this mean that all mv.net and designbais customers also should have connection pooling licences as well - after all they are multiplexing to some extent ? Do bluefinity and designbais have a statement on this ? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
On 25/09/2009 09:51, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Hi Brian, Current price is actually 1,207 GBP with 181 GBP pa from year 2 onwards George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
George Thanks, seems I was misquoted or the price has fallen (it was a while ago). At around 1700 GBP (with underlying licence) that's more reasonable. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: 25 September 2009 10:38 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 25/09/2009 09:51, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Hi Brian, Current price is actually 1,207 GBP with 181 GBP pa from year 2 onwards George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Hi Charles The text regarding connection pooling was inserted into the licence agreement when RedBack was first added, and originally that was the target of the change in the licence agreement: any multiplexing or connection concentrating was banned unless you had webshares. This of course meant that if you had any other stateless solution you could *only* use RedBack, whilst people *already had* home grown solutions using UniObjects that were suddenly in breach, where they had not been before. Also, connection pooling was only added to UO.net and UOJ much later, so there was a period when a change to the licence agreement - in other words, a change to the agreement you had originally signed up to - meant that you could not run your existing software legally even though it was perfectly legal when you wrote it, and there was no technical or commercial solution in place as an alternative (I like RedBack but it doesn't suit all applications). However, it was only 'advertised' to the distributors are part of their handbook, and so many end users didn't know about this (do you generally re-read the licence agreement every time you upgrade?). Hence there was a lot of confusion around. My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: 24 September 2009 23:40 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
IMO still far too expensive - I have recently done a project on sql server because it would have been too expensive to use unidata with conn pooling on the back end - not a situation I want to be in really ! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: 25 September 2009 10:51 To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement George Thanks, seems I was misquoted or the price has fallen (it was a while ago). At around 1700 GBP (with underlying licence) that's more reasonable. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: 25 September 2009 10:38 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 25/09/2009 09:51, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Hi Brian, Current price is actually 1,207 GBP with 181 GBP pa from year 2 onwards George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
It depends whether we are talking WebDE/RedBack or U2 connection pooling. If WebDE there is the underlying license but if it is a pure U2 connection pooling license for uniobjects or a home grown solution then 1207 is the price. So in other words 1207 for pure connection pooling and 1441 for a RedBack webshare plus a one off 887 for the RedBack server license. Obviously all GBP not USD or anything else. I can understand why it is how it is, a uniobjects connection pool license is about 5 times the cost of a standard one (depending on the edition). So from one angle that's not bad since it should cope with more than 5 users at any one time. George Land APT Solutions Ltd On 25/09/2009 10:50, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: George Thanks, seems I was misquoted or the price has fallen (it was a while ago). At around 1700 GBP (with underlying licence) that's more reasonable. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: 25 September 2009 10:38 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 25/09/2009 09:51, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Hi Brian, Current price is actually 1,207 GBP with 181 GBP pa from year 2 onwards George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
That is not quite right - it does not cope with 5 users at any one time - it only copes with 1 user at any one time, in the course of a second that may well end up being 5 individual users. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: 25 September 2009 12:40 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement It depends whether we are talking WebDE/RedBack or U2 connection pooling. If WebDE there is the underlying license but if it is a pure U2 connection pooling license for uniobjects or a home grown solution then 1207 is the price. So in other words 1207 for pure connection pooling and 1441 for a RedBack webshare plus a one off 887 for the RedBack server license. Obviously all GBP not USD or anything else. I can understand why it is how it is, a uniobjects connection pool license is about 5 times the cost of a standard one (depending on the edition). So from one angle that's not bad since it should cope with more than 5 users at any one time. George Land APT Solutions Ltd On 25/09/2009 10:50, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: George Thanks, seems I was misquoted or the price has fallen (it was a while ago). At around 1700 GBP (with underlying licence) that's more reasonable. Brian -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: 25 September 2009 10:38 To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 25/09/2009 09:51, Brian Leach br...@brianleach.co.uk wrote: My beef is quite simply with the price of pooled connections. With the cost of the underlying licence, you are talking around 3,000 GBP plus AMC per connection, which means 10 shares costs around twice the amount you can buy SQL Server Enterprise for and get unlimited connections. That is simply untenable. Hi Brian, Current price is actually 1,207 GBP with 181 GBP pa from year 2 onwards George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[U2] Connection Pooling Statement - While we're on the subject!
And this is the part about the WDE move to connection pooling that worries us (pricing wise) -- we have clients that have 5-10 accounts -- some REALLY low volume, like sales demo, and internal staff use -- yet each one will require at least one connection pool. Pricey. As it is now, if they have 10 accounts, each needs only one database connection at least (although production may two since it will usually be busiest!) and the WebShares control the 'number' of those DB seats that can be used at once... So our 2 WebShares can multiplex over 10 DB seats much more affordably than when they move to 10 Connection Pools to do the same job! If you will likewise be affected, make sure you IBM/Rocket representatives know about it before the Redback/WDE 5.0 change that will essentially 'delete' the WebShares component and move to 100% ConnectionPooling as the 'method' for connecting web users. If you have many many small accounts, it will be sticker shock and IBM/Rocket needs to know how urgently they have to attend to this pricing issue. For us, it's a deal breaker! If you have one or two accounts in use over the web, it won't make you any difference - will even be cheaper as you won't have to buy the DB seat! David W. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 12:56 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement It is the exception, you are deemed to be using an approved connection pooling mechanism and a redback webshare costs the same as a connection pooled database license except for the fact that that you need to buy a database license as well as the redback license George On 24/09/2009 23:39, Charles Stevenson stevenson.c...@gmail.com wrote: I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ 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
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
[U2] Connection Pooling Statement
George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. We have a connection manager written in Java to handle the connections to Universe or Unidata. We adhere to our IBM licensing agreement to the letter: one user one connection. Every call to the database requires a connection. After the processing is done, the connection is released and available for the next user. Since we use AJAX to make our calls, we get lots of requests per second depending on the number of users. If we run out of database licenses, then those requests are queued up in our middleware called U2WebLink until a connection is available or they hit the configurable timeout parameter. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. The technology does not have any connection manager software written. It is a single license meant to used by .NET and Web applications. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:03 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity On 24/09/2009 00:05, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: We do not require you to use IBM connection pooling since we handle this through UOJ and our connection manager. It's worth noting that if you use any software that connection pools you are obliged to buy database connection pooling licences. It doesn't matter whether you use the connection pooling facilities they provide, from a legal and commercial perspective you must buy them, you can't use normal database licences. George Land APT Solutions Ltd ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Interesting! When we've tried to do the same, the time to login/logout/login again KILLED performance - and you had to do it for each 'piece' to stick to the letter of the law... Is UOJ somehow 'faster' at doing these Login/Out/In connections than other methods exposed by U2? -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Doug Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:46 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. We have a connection manager written in Java to handle the connections to Universe or Unidata. We adhere to our IBM licensing agreement to the letter: one user one connection. Every call to the database requires a connection. After the processing is done, the connection is released and available for the next user. Since we use AJAX to make our calls, we get lots of requests per second depending on the number of users. If we run out of database licenses, then those requests are queued up in our middleware called U2WebLink until a connection is available or they hit the configurable timeout parameter. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. The technology does not have any connection manager software written. It is a single license meant to used by .NET and Web applications. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:03 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity On 24/09/2009 00:05, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: We do not require you to use IBM connection pooling since we handle this through UOJ and our connection manager. It's worth noting that if you use any software that connection pools you are obliged to buy database connection pooling licences. It doesn't matter whether you use the connection pooling facilities they provide, from a legal and commercial perspective you must buy them, you can't use normal database licences. George Land APT Solutions Ltd ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
David, I don't know what other methods you are using, but this performance speaks for itself. Within in our U2WebLink middleware Java code, we have replication logic. This is not something you would think about for UOJ or the web, but it is an integral part of the nature of this environment because it is transaction based. Our products are layered and work well in our U2 world. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:21 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement Interesting! When we've tried to do the same, the time to login/logout/login again KILLED performance - and you had to do it for each 'piece' to stick to the letter of the law... Is UOJ somehow 'faster' at doing these Login/Out/In connections than other methods exposed by U2? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:32 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
They have a home grown telnet application that runs their business on Universe. The CRM and Document Management that we supply, is just for the sales people, customer service, agents, and management with over 175 logins. How many are in use at a specific moment in time? I don't know, but I haven't had a call that they are slow or need more licenses. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:47 PM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
My guess is that you're taking users as concurrent logged in users while Doug means them more as staff that may require access to the application. The various API's seem to login much faster than telnet (plus it's much easier to keep the login credentials than setup login scripts in your telnet client). Besides there are definitely some measures being used to throttle the telnet logins. Taken from IBM's UniData Features and Benefits page: IBMR UniDataR is an extended relational data server ideal for embedding in a variety of industry-focused solutions. Its extended relational model is perfect for rapid cost-effective vertical application development with flexible and fast storage and retrieval for the SMB market. UniData simplifies data management and query logic, providing more power for online high-transaction applications. MultiValue data model eases modeling and storing of complex data and improves retrieval performance. Flexible development options, from an integrated Basic development environment to .NET (e.g. MicrosoftR Visual Studio) to JavaT (e.g. Eclipse) and more with a wide array of programming interfaces. I would say what Doug is doing is well within IBM's intent. If I was Doug I would certainly be getting in touch with Rocket about creating synergy with his products and the various Rocket offerings. It looks like there are at least a couple I'm sure they're hoping we will be a good target market for. Some are eclipse based and Doug's experience may be a good fit. My 2 cents Colin Alfke Calgary, Canada -Original Message- From: Of David Wolverton If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: Of George Land On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
According to the letter of the U2 terms, common usage of the environment is prohibited without the purchase of a connection pooling license - that means many of you are in violation right now. I personally don't approve of a vendor who has a potential lawsuit pending over a large segment of their customer base and I hope Rocket Software will do something about this. For example: - You can't have a character terminal used as a POS when it is shared by more than one cashier. - You can't have a terminal on a shop floor used by multiple people. In the above examples, to the letter, every user must physically logoff, then log back in before they can perform an operation. Can anyone here really see that happening? This is an issue for non-terminal applications as well: - Web sites, Web Services, SOA, and SAAS cannot be deployed according to current licensing without a connection pooling license. - If you have your U2 system driving your time cards, you should have the server logout and then log back in for every person punching in or out. This increases processing time from about 1 second per transaction to at least 20. - Anyone walking up to a kiosk which uses U2 as a back-end must legally perform some action that causes a physical logout/login. - If you have a U2 port processing inbound data from credit cards, weight scales, bar code scanners, or other devices, you should be logging off and back anytime a new user initiates a transaction. Rocket Software should get someone other than an IBM lawyer who actually understands how this software is used. The situation to-date has been ridiculous. No vendor wants their runtime licenses abused with a thousand end-users on a single license. We need licensing that is somewhere between that and where we are now. This goes for all MV DBMS providers who are stuck in the dark ages of per-seat/per-user licensing. In a world where we have such a high volume of commerce performed over the internet, we need licensing that agrees with the physical limits of the technology. That is - there is only so much you can physically do with a connected process. There is no such thing as unlimited use of a single connection. While any process is occupied, a physical limitation compels us to redirect to another port for another user to perform their operations. Reasonable licensing will allow us to maximize the use of every process, rather than forcing a draconian reconnection, or compelling unused processes to go unused as new processes are started for every possible user. The U2 connection pooling license, and other attempts to extract higher fees as a defensive measure in the face of modern usage, only serve to limit MV as a viable option for modern applications. If it costs too much to deploy a multi-user application with MV, developers will simply choose another platform. IBM gets 100% of nothing with their current pooling license from developers looking for a platform to create a new web-based application. MV DBMS vendors need to understand that we can create a lot more applications, and sell a lot more licenses, if the model is made more reasonable and equitable. Create a low-cost model that allow individual ports to process as much data as they phyically can, or charge based on other metrics like bandwidth, disk usage, CPU cycles. Make a profit on volume of applications sold, rather than trying to coerce the traditional market into making up for lost revenue. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET and other Pick/MultiValue products worldwide, and provides related development services remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/blog Visit PickWiki.com! Contribute! From: David Wolverton Interesting! When we've tried to do the same, the time to login/logout/login again KILLED performance - and you had to do it for each 'piece' to stick to the letter of the law... Is UOJ somehow 'faster' at doing these Login/Out/In connections than other methods exposed by U2? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Tony, well said. I had not really considered your examples as breaches but if you take the letter of the law I guess they are, which like you says would probably put 99% of sites in the violation of licensing bucket... -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 9:16 a.m. To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement According to the letter of the U2 terms, common usage of the environment is prohibited without the purchase of a connection pooling license - that means many of you are in violation right now. I personally don't approve of a vendor who has a potential lawsuit pending over a large segment of their customer base and I hope Rocket Software will do something about this. For example: - You can't have a character terminal used as a POS when it is shared by more than one cashier. - You can't have a terminal on a shop floor used by multiple people. In the above examples, to the letter, every user must physically logoff, then log back in before they can perform an operation. Can anyone here really see that happening? This is an issue for non-terminal applications as well: - Web sites, Web Services, SOA, and SAAS cannot be deployed according to current licensing without a connection pooling license. - If you have your U2 system driving your time cards, you should have the server logout and then log back in for every person punching in or out. This increases processing time from about 1 second per transaction to at least 20. - Anyone walking up to a kiosk which uses U2 as a back-end must legally perform some action that causes a physical logout/login. - If you have a U2 port processing inbound data from credit cards, weight scales, bar code scanners, or other devices, you should be logging off and back anytime a new user initiates a transaction. Rocket Software should get someone other than an IBM lawyer who actually understands how this software is used. The situation to-date has been ridiculous. No vendor wants their runtime licenses abused with a thousand end-users on a single license. We need licensing that is somewhere between that and where we are now. This goes for all MV DBMS providers who are stuck in the dark ages of per-seat/per-user licensing. In a world where we have such a high volume of commerce performed over the internet, we need licensing that agrees with the physical limits of the technology. That is - there is only so much you can physically do with a connected process. There is no such thing as unlimited use of a single connection. While any process is occupied, a physical limitation compels us to redirect to another port for another user to perform their operations. Reasonable licensing will allow us to maximize the use of every process, rather than forcing a draconian reconnection, or compelling unused processes to go unused as new processes are started for every possible user. The U2 connection pooling license, and other attempts to extract higher fees as a defensive measure in the face of modern usage, only serve to limit MV as a viable option for modern applications. If it costs too much to deploy a multi-user application with MV, developers will simply choose another platform. IBM gets 100% of nothing with their current pooling license from developers looking for a platform to create a new web-based application. MV DBMS vendors need to understand that we can create a lot more applications, and sell a lot more licenses, if the model is made more reasonable and equitable. Create a low-cost model that allow individual ports to process as much data as they phyically can, or charge based on other metrics like bandwidth, disk usage, CPU cycles. Make a profit on volume of applications sold, rather than trying to coerce the traditional market into making up for lost revenue. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET and other Pick/MultiValue products worldwide, and provides related development services remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/blog Visit PickWiki.com! Contribute! From: David Wolverton Interesting! When we've tried to do the same, the time to login/logout/login again KILLED performance - and you had to do it for each 'piece' to stick to the letter of the law... Is UOJ somehow 'faster' at doing these Login/Out/In connections than other methods exposed by U2? ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Doug Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 1:46 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. We have a connection manager written in Java to handle the connections to Universe or Unidata. We adhere to our IBM licensing agreement to the letter: one user one connection. Every call to the database requires a connection. After the processing is done, the connection is released and available for the next user. Since we use AJAX to make our calls, we get lots of requests per second depending on the number of users. If we run out of database licenses, then those requests are queued up in our middleware called U2WebLink until a connection is available or they hit the configurable timeout parameter. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. The technology does not have any connection manager software written. It is a single license meant to used by .NET and Web applications. Regards, Doug www.u2logic.com -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 1:03 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Universe web connectivity On 24/09/2009 00:05, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: We do not require you to use IBM connection pooling since we handle this through UOJ and our connection manager. It's worth noting that if you use any software that connection pools you are obliged to buy database connection pooling licences. It doesn't matter whether you use the connection pooling facilities they provide, from a legal and commercial perspective you must buy them, you can't use normal database licences. George Land APT Solutions Ltd ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
David, I think your problem may be that you are logging only when you get a request? If you were to have lines pre-logged-in, though the complexity of the middleware increases, you may find a corresponding increase in performance ... and with a little more effort you may also decide to NOT kill a used connection immediately, 'cause if you get another request in from the same client soon, shouldn't be an issue using the previously used connection (that is still open) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 5:47 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:32 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
I don't believe IBM could have exceptions, ESPECIALLY in the USA, as my understanding is that monopoly and anti-trust laws click in. However, if my foggy memory serves me correctly, price of a Redback licence corresponded to the price of a connection pool licence, and I believe set the bar for pricing OF a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:40 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Batson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:43 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ 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
You have WEBSHARES... Those are your 'pooling' elements! DW -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 5:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? ___ 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
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Consider this an AD even though I also propose using freeware... From: Ross Ferris Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! We don't need IBM for that. We can do that fairly quickly right now. I even wrote a U2 file system interface a while back so that I could view/update/drag/drop U2 data within Windows Explorer - or with any Windows application. I think at the time I was getting tired of the why isn't it free or open source? mantras so I didn't make it public. I'll probably resurrect it if there is enough interest. People can use my freeware mvExec too: nospamNebula-RnD.com/freeware/ Anyone who has mv.NET can have it and use it completely for free. If you don't have mv.NET I can provide a license - no, not for free. If you want it to be retrofit with UO.NET (w/wo connection pooling) I can do that too as a service - no, not for free, but I'd publish it as freeware. For drag/drop we would need to add a file system monitor but that's pretty easy too. There's lots of info on the Net for someone to do this on their own. Does all of that fall under the connection pooling scenario? Yup. Stupid? Yup. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula RD sells mv.NET and other Pick/MultiValue products worldwide, and provides related development services remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com/blog Visit PickWiki.com! Contribute! ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Woa - this one right here just picked up a large pack of users. LOL -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:52 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Batson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:43 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Ross The question that I would ask, Was this one-directional? PC to U2. Or bi-directional? PC to U2 and back. One-directional is data collection. Bi-directional could be seen as a way around buying licences. Steve -- Sent from my Palm Pre Ross Ferris wrote: Interestingly, one of the scenario's we ran past IBM back in April/March was the use of disk shares, where people could drop files from windows applications which would be picked up by a U2 phantom amp; processed they characterised this as requiring a connection pool licence! Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Batson Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 8:43 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I RedBack you would be using WebShares which is basically like Connection Pools. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Charles Stevenson Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:40 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that lt;IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
Exactly. It's been a while since I've been involved with RedBack, or been involved in the contracts, but webshares are paid for as part of RedBack, not UV or UD, aren't they? Dollars lost on the DB side are gained on the RedBack side. Since our Vendor De Jour owns both pieces, they don't mind. It's just illegal for anyone else to use that same technological trick, right. I am impressed that anyone, without license pooling, can get adequate performance without doing something like what RedBack does. All this is a bit artificial hard to enforce. Archaic might be a better word. What would Temenos do if Rocket made RedBack work with jBASE? How do other (non-MV) DBMS companies handle this? By making their base product more expensive to start with? By charging by some other mechanism than number of concurrent users? Size of hardware platform it runs on? I think most don't really care about connectivity to their product, let alone price by it. You have WEBSHARES... Those are your 'pooling' elements! DW ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
But what you are describing is connection pooling which is when you need connection pooling licenses. George On 24/09/2009 23:27, Ross Ferris ro...@stamina.com.au wrote: David, I think your problem may be that you are logging only when you get a request? If you were to have lines pre-logged-in, though the complexity of the middleware increases, you may find a corresponding increase in performance ... and with a little more effort you may also decide to NOT kill a used connection immediately, 'cause if you get another request in from the same client soon, shouldn't be an issue using the previously used connection (that is still open) Ross Ferris Stamina Software Visage Better by Design! -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users- boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of David Wolverton Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 5:47 AM To: 'U2 Users List' Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement If you log off and on, it does satisfy the licensing - letter and intent... BUT usually the performance hit is so high that it FORCES you to connection pooling - or to have lots more seats! Both of which make IBM-Rocket happy. g I'm still wondering how they can get 175 users through 2 seats -- unless each user does 2 things a day!! My understanding was that you either had to have a seat for each 'logical' connection to a user, or sign off/sign on between each 'thing' - and the overhead for going off and on is INSANE in any way I've tried to make it work... So - I understand your point George -- I am in the same headspace! David W. -Original Message- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Land Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:32 PM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement On 24/09/2009 16:45, Doug dave...@hotmail.com wrote: George, We do not do connection pooling or use multiplexing software. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was trying to make a general point that you need connection pooling licences if you connection pool however you do it. We scale quite remarkable well. We have 70 user client running a call center with 10 Unidata licenses dedicated to the web. We have a public warehouse client with 4 licenses running 20 users internally and 20 customers externally. We have a 175 user running our CRM system using 2 licenses. There is a general point here though, supporting 175 users on a 2 license system is exactly the situation IBM/Rocket are trying to address by forcing you to have connection pooling licences. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of breaking the letter of the license agreement, but I think it is breaking the intention of it. Quite what 'connection pooling' and 'multiplexing' really is can be debated, but essentially what they want is for you to pay more for databases licenses that support multiple users than you do that are tied to one user. And having a small number of database licenses supporting a large number of users is exactly what you are doing George ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: [U2] Connection Pooling Statement
It is the exception, you are deemed to be using an approved connection pooling mechanism and a redback webshare costs the same as a connection pooled database license except for the fact that that you need to buy a database license as well as the redback license George On 24/09/2009 23:39, Charles Stevenson stevenson.c...@gmail.com wrote: I'm missing something. We ran Redback without connection pooling. Is that an exception because it's a U2 product or were we in violation? Ross Ferris wrote: Doug, I fear that if you look at the terminology and description that IBM (Rocket may change, but somehow I doubt it) use to describe a connection pool, though you may like to think that your connection manager is different, I fear you may fall foul of their definition and if you look at your 175 user system running off 2 licences you can understand why (I assume that the 175 users also use other stuff, rather than everyone using NOTHING BUT your CRM) ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users ___ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
