Warm Standby Licencing

[sh33n]

Any of you chaps know the rules on licences for Microsoft products, particularly SQL Server 2000?

If we have a warm standby server connected to the Internet as a fail over does it need the full license? Or is there a different license that can be purchased as technically we wouldn't ever use this sytem unless the primary system failed (and therefore it's licence moves to fail over server).

Cheers.

 

[sh33n]

Answered my own question:

When doing failover support, a server is designated as the passive server. The purpose of the passive server is to absorb the data and information held in another server that fails. A passive server does not need a license if the number of processors in the passive server is equal to or less than the number of processors in the active server. The passive server can take the duties of the active server for 30 days. Afterwards, it must be licensed accordingly.

 

[dk]

is that from the MS site as I don't believe its correct.

A standby server that is switched on needs to be fully licensed for Windows and if using server licensing for the sql rather than processor licensing also needs to be licensed. You only get DR standby server rights if you have Software assurance on an MS licensing scheme.

There is a case whereby if you have processor licenses, you could then transfer those processor licenses to the standby server in the event of a failure, its still the case whereby the windows license is required, no matter what the situation.

If you need to know any more then let me know and I will get one of our licensing gurus to speak to you.

I come across this daily though building DR solutions for customers.

 

[sh33n]

That's from the MS site dk, in refernce to MS SQL.

Not sure about the case for windows, couldn't care the cost is so miniscule anyway in comparison to MS.

We defo have software assurance, quite a large PLC

Will be confirming all this tomorrow with chaps from IT but I do like to be prepared.

 

[dk]

thats a new thing for 2005, wasn't the case for 2000.

Is this what you were looking at?

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/activepassive.mspx

 

[sh33n]

thats a new thing for 2005, wasn't the case for 2000.

Is this what you were looking at?

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/activepassive.mspx

Yer that's right.

Yer like you said that is for 2005 couldn't find info about 2000 explicitly.

 

[dk]

yeah, strange, they seem to have got rid of all the sql2000 info on there, especially licensing it.

Not sure how they expect people to get it right and abide by the rules if they make them disappear.

I do have a document somewhere that explains it all for 2000, and its essentially what I wrote above.

Suppose you are going to use 2005 now anyway, I know we are building a 2005 cluster for our new blades.

 

[Dafthead]

I was told you don't need licences for a server which is a warm passive server in a cluster ONLY

as we are implementing a failover site, and will need licences for those servers, as they are not part of the live cluster, even though they will probably never be used

ROBBING b******s

 

[dk]

I was told you don't need licences for a server which is a warm passive server in a cluster ONLY

as we are implementing a failover site, and will need licences for those servers, as they are not part of the live cluster, even though they will probably never be used

ROBBING b******s

microsoft are not known for being generous

 

[Dafthead]

They've got to pay their $1.2bn fine somehow I suppose haha

 

[sh33n]

They've got to pay their $1.2bn fine somehow I suppose haha

LOL, yer EU rinsed them a bit there so now they are rinsing us.

 

[@Spoonie]

yeah, strange, they seem to have got rid of all the sql2000 info on there, especially licensing it.

Not sure how they expect people to get it right and abide by the rules if they make them disappear.

I do have a document somewhere that explains it all for 2000, and its essentially what I wrote above.

Suppose you are going to use 2005 now anyway, I know we are building a 2005 cluster for our new blades.

Its discussed in the SQL 2000 Reskit:

Chapter 4 - Choosing How to License SQL Server
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part2/c0461.mspx?mfr=true

All Active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, with either Processor Licenses or Server Licenses. However, if a server is strictly Passive, and works only when an Active server has failed, no additional licenses are needed for that Passive server. The exception to this is if the failover cluster is licensed under Processor License, and the number of processors on the Passive server exceeds the number of processors on the Active server. In this case, additional Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the Passive computer.

 

[sh33n]

Very useful Spoonie thanks ^^

 

[fulhamfcboy]

yeah, strange, they seem to have got rid of all the sql2000 info on there, especially licensing it.

Not sure how they expect people to get it right and abide by the rules if they make them disappear.

I do have a document somewhere that explains it all for 2000, and its essentially what I wrote above.

Suppose you are going to use 2005 now anyway, I know we are building a 2005 cluster for our new blades.

Its discussed in the SQL 2000 Reskit:

Chapter 4 - Choosing How to License SQL Server
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part2/c0461.mspx?mfr=true

All Active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, with either Processor Licenses or Server Licenses. However, if a server is strictly Passive, and works only when an Active server has failed, no additional licenses are needed for that Passive server. The exception to this is if the failover cluster is licensed under Processor License, and the number of processors on the Passive server exceeds the number of processors on the Active server. In this case, additional Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the Passive computer.

Oracle require full licencing also...we have had a big argument with them regarding this, and we had to prove that our secondary DB server would never be powered on at the same time as the live server.....

 

[dk]

yeah, strange, they seem to have got rid of all the sql2000 info on there, especially licensing it.

Not sure how they expect people to get it right and abide by the rules if they make them disappear.

I do have a document somewhere that explains it all for 2000, and its essentially what I wrote above.

Suppose you are going to use 2005 now anyway, I know we are building a 2005 cluster for our new blades.

Its discussed in the SQL 2000 Reskit:

Chapter 4 - Choosing How to License SQL Server
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/reskit/part2/c0461.mspx?mfr=true

All Active servers in a cluster must be fully licensed, with either Processor Licenses or Server Licenses. However, if a server is strictly Passive, and works only when an Active server has failed, no additional licenses are needed for that Passive server. The exception to this is if the failover cluster is licensed under Processor License, and the number of processors on the Passive server exceeds the number of processors on the Active server. In this case, additional Processor licenses must be purchased for the additional processors on the Passive computer.

i have an MS document that actually says the opposite and that the passive node also needs a SQL license if using server licensing.

In any case, windows has to be licensed on the passive node.

I will try and find the document I have on this.

Also, the technet does say that the information was only correct at the time it was written, and as many of you know, MS change their clicensing rules daily to keep people confused!