Another question regarding licensing

Hi all,
I read different statements below and now I'm totally confused. My case is
as following: We want install SQLServer 2000 Standard Edition on a single
processor server. Our application Saperion is the only application which uses
that SQL instance. For Saperion we have a concurrent licensing model. That
means we have defined about 40 user who could use these applicaton, but at
the same time only 20 user have access. So, in maximum 20 user can work with
Saperion with SQL as the database engine.
Now the question is what kind of license do I have to buy. I understand the
processor licensing model, but the device CAL's and User CAL's not!
Thank you for your kind help in this matter.
Regards,
KE
User and device CAL licensing is based on total numbers rather than
concurrent numbers. On the information given it seems you would need 40 user
CALs if you chose the User CAL model. Device CALs are licensed per end-user
device so if you have multiple users sharing a workstation for example then
device CALs may be more cost effective than user CALs.
That's my understanding, but don't take my word for it. Ask a Microsoft
representative if you want a definitive answer.
Lots of info on licensing here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
You may find the FAQ helpful.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Hi David,
Thank you very much for your answer. 40 user CAL's are not logical for me,
because Saperion never allows us to have more than 20 users online. That
means maximum 20 users can use the SQL server at a certain time. Logical for
me would be 20 user CAL's. If I'm wrong, tell me why......
Best regards,
KE
"David Portas" wrote:

> User and device CAL licensing is based on total numbers rather than
> concurrent numbers. On the information given it seems you would need 40 user
> CALs if you chose the User CAL model. Device CALs are licensed per end-user
> device so if you have multiple users sharing a workstation for example then
> device CALs may be more cost effective than user CALs.
> That's my understanding, but don't take my word for it. Ask a Microsoft
> representative if you want a definitive answer.
> Lots of info on licensing here:
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
> You may find the FAQ helpful.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
|||SQL Server isn't licensed per CONCURRENT user. The fact that Saperion is
licensed that way wouldn't affect SQL Server licensing.
A user licence grants A USER a licence to use the software so one licence is
required PER USER not per connection or connected user.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Hi David,
Thank you very much for your explanation. In my point of view the SQL
licensing NOT per CONCURRENT user is very strange. Logical for me would be
only the CONCURRENT approach. However MS can do what they want!?!?!?
I have following additional question. Do we need for each SQL server
installation CAL's for all possible user (40 in our case)?
Example 1:
2 SQL Server Standard with user CAL's, 40 user can work with applications,
which use these servers.
Do we need 2 server licenses and 40 CAL's or 80 CAL's?
Example 2:
1 SQL Server Standard with processor license, 1 SQL Server Standard with
user CAL's.
According to MS homepage for the SQL Server with processor license I do not
need any CAL's. Is that correct? If yes, I assume that we need 1 server
license and 40 CAL's for the second SQL installation?
Thank you very much in advance.
Regards,
KE
"David Portas" wrote:

> SQL Server isn't licensed per CONCURRENT user. The fact that Saperion is
> licensed that way wouldn't affect SQL Server licensing.
> A user licence grants A USER a licence to use the software so one licence is
> required PER USER not per connection or connected user.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
|||Inline below:

> I have following additional question. Do we need for each SQL server
> installation CAL's for all possible user (40 in our case)?
> Example 1:
> 2 SQL Server Standard with user CAL's, 40 user can work with applications,
> which use these servers.
> Do we need 2 server licenses and 40 CAL's or 80 CAL's?
2 server licenses. 40 CAL's. You can look at it like each user has a piece of paper that gives
him/her the right to connect to SQL Servers.

> Example 2:
> 1 SQL Server Standard with processor license, 1 SQL Server Standard with
> user CAL's.
> According to MS homepage for the SQL Server with processor license I do not
> need any CAL's. Is that correct? If yes, I assume that we need 1 server
> license and 40 CAL's for the second SQL installation?
Correct.
FYI: To speak to someone regarding licensing:
You can call 1-800-426-9400 (select option 4), Monday through Friday, 6:00
A.M. to 6:00 P.M. (PST) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing
specialist for licensing problem. Worldwide customers can use the Guide to
Worldwide Microsoft Licensing Sites
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.asp to find contact
information in their locations.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"KE" <KE@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7D9A468D-FB00-4D72-AD37-2324CF8C84AF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi David,
> Thank you very much for your explanation. In my point of view the SQL
> licensing NOT per CONCURRENT user is very strange. Logical for me would be
> only the CONCURRENT approach. However MS can do what they want!?!?!?
> I have following additional question. Do we need for each SQL server
> installation CAL's for all possible user (40 in our case)?
> Example 1:
> 2 SQL Server Standard with user CAL's, 40 user can work with applications,
> which use these servers.
> Do we need 2 server licenses and 40 CAL's or 80 CAL's?
> Example 2:
> 1 SQL Server Standard with processor license, 1 SQL Server Standard with
> user CAL's.
> According to MS homepage for the SQL Server with processor license I do not
> need any CAL's. Is that correct? If yes, I assume that we need 1 server
> license and 40 CAL's for the second SQL installation?
> Thank you very much in advance.
> Regards,
> KE
>
>
>
> "David Portas" wrote:

Another question on CASE WHEN THEN....

My fellow SQL expert is out of the office today, and I need help!

What is the syntax when you have (2) conditions that both must be met before the result? Ex:

Commission = CASE WHEN CommissionEvent = 'Portfolio'

And NewCustomer = Yes

THEN it does a formula.... and then there's a second set of (2) conditions that both must be met to produce another result.

WHEN CommissionEvent = 'Portfolio'

And NewCustomer = No

THEN it does a different formula. If it doesn't meet either set of conditions, the result should be 0.

I tried it they way I thought it should work but I am getting an invalid syntax error.

I hope my question makes sense.Commission = CASE WHEN CommissionEvent = 'Portfolio'
And NewCustomer = Yes
THEN /* it does a formula */
WHEN CommissionEvent = 'Portfolio'
And NewCustomer = No
THEN /* it does a different formula */
ELSE 0
END you too can be an SQL expert ;)|||Ex-spurt

a former drip under pressure.....|||Well shoot, I was putting in THEN WHEN where the AND should go-- DUH! I should have just typed it just like in my question!

I was trying to word it similarly to how an IF THEN ELSE statement goes which would have read "THEN IF" in that spot so I thought "THEN WHEN" would have been the substitution.

I like that definition of expert, Brett!! :D

THANKS!|||But I need another ELSE 0 somewhere for if the first statement evaluates as false. I'm getting the 0 when the

CommissionEvent = 'Portfolio' and NewCustomer field = No

but a NULL when the

CommissionEvent <> 'Portfolio' and the NewCustomer field = No.

I tried to put an additional ELSE 0 next to the ending ELSE 0 but got a syntax error. I also tried to put the ELSE 0 before the 2nd WHEN statement but also got a syntax error.|||Post what you have...it'll be easier for to to interprete...

You can have only 1 ELSE...|||Originally posted by notasoccermom
But I need another ELSE 0 somewhere for if the first statement evaluates as false. I'm getting the 0 when the

CommissionEvent = 'Portfolio' and NewCustomer field = No

but a NULL when the

CommissionEvent <> 'Portfolio' and the NewCustomer field = No.

I tried to put an additional ELSE 0 next to the ending ELSE 0 but got a syntax error. I also tried to put the ELSE 0 before the 2nd WHEN statement but also got a syntax error.

What about this version?

Commission = CASE WHEN CommissionEvent = 'Portfolio'
then case
when NewCustomer = Yes
THEN /* it does a formula */
when NewCustomer = No
THEN /* it does a different formula */
else 0
end
ELSE 0
END|||Never mind!! I just figured it out. I had a formula with an alias name in my view that I was trying to use in this CASE statement, but I also had that same column name in one of my tables. So it was pulling the data from my table with that column name which had null values, so I had to rename my alias to something else and use the actual formula for the alias instead of the alias name in the CASE statement. Now it works fine!

Sometimes you just wrack your brain so hard on something that you can't see the forest for the trees, or the trees for the forest! And what I thought was the problem really wasn't at all!

Thanks for everyone's help, I'll have to keep this forum in mind when I can't get answers at work!!|||Originally posted by notasoccermom
I'll have to keep this forum in mind when I can't get answers at work!!

You get answers at work?