| Author |
could somebody please explain to me the licencing modes
|
|
| ghaouf 2003-05-11, 2:18 pm |
| i was reading the ms press book and it talks about per seat licence and per server licence
what is per seat and per server i could not understand there explanation
thanks | |
| prezbedard 2003-05-11, 4:43 pm |
| From what I understand about the licensing is either per computer or per seat.
So if you have p20 computers and 20 licenses all computers can be connected at once.
If have you have per seat with 10 licenses and you have 20 computers you can only have 10 concurrent connections with the server.
The wording might not be exact but I believe that this is generally how it works. | |
| ghaouf 2003-05-11, 5:23 pm |
| so you have to buy the licencing also
that is a very cheap way to make $$ then
not only do i have to buy the windows server for about $$1k but i also have to buy the licence | |
|
|
| ghaouf 2003-05-11, 7:11 pm |
| still do not understand | |
| prezbedard 2003-05-11, 9:01 pm |
| I believe when you buy Windows server it comes with at least 5 client licenses.
It is stupid to have to buy licenses to connect to a server in your own network which you already own and paid for. | |
| shanghai_12b 2003-05-12, 12:31 pm |
| http://www.softwarespectrum.com/lsmg/microsoft/CAL.htm
http://www.wugnet.com/tips/display.asp?ID=198
http://mssg.rutgers.edu/topics/Micr...ingOverview.ppt
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=13997
http://its.med.yale.edu/software/cal.html
Think of per server as the server only allows X number of connections to it.
Per seat means that the client computer, not the server has the CAL.
Take this scenario. You have 500 computers in your company and one server. However with these 500 computers, only 250 (one half) of the computers are ever on and connected to the server at any given time (your company runs two shifts, but everyone has their own computer.) In this scenario, it would be best to have a per server liscense of 250. This is because only 250 CALs are needed vs. a per seat liscense mode which would require 500 lisences (one per client computer).
Take this second scenario. You have 100 computers and 5 servers. You are sure that all 100 computers will connect to the 5 servers constantly. You could by a per server liscence for each server, but you would need to buy 100 for each server. This would amount to 500 CALs. But, if you went per seat, you would only need 100 CALs because you only have 100 client computers connecting to the multiple servers.
Hopefully, the links, and my examples help more than harm.  | |
| prezbedard 2003-05-12, 12:44 pm |
| Thanks for the links. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by shanghai_12b
http://www.softwarespectrum.com/lsmg/microsoft/CAL.htm
http://www.wugnet.com/tips/display.asp?ID=198
http://mssg.rutgers.edu/topics/Micr...ingOverview.ppt
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=13997
http://its.med.yale.edu/software/cal.html
Think of per server as the server only allows X number of connections to it.
Per seat means that the client computer, not the server has the CAL.
Take this scenario. You have 500 computers in your company and one server. However with these 500 computers, only 250 (one half) of the computers are ever on and connected to the server at any given time (your company runs two shifts, but everyone has their own computer.) In this scenario, it would be best to have a per server liscense of 250. This is because only 250 CALs are needed vs. a per seat liscense mode which would require 500 lisences (one per client computer).
Take this second scenario. You have 100 computers and 5 servers. You are sure that all 100 computers will connect to the 5 servers constantly. You could by a per server liscence for each server, but you would need to buy 100 for each server. This would amount to 500 CALs. But, if you went per seat, you would only need 100 CALs because you only have 100 client computers connecting to the multiple servers.
Hopefully, the links, and my examples help more than harm.
Nice post shanghai_12b.  | |
| ghaouf 2003-05-12, 1:26 pm |
| thanks now i understand | |
| shanghai_12b 2003-05-12, 1:50 pm |
| Just glad to have helped out. |
|
|
|