SQL 2008 Licensing.

[nlinecomputers]

Ok I've got a client that has a LOB application eEmpact that is going to be upgraded. This is forcing an upgrade of her server to a Windows 2008 system and SQL 2008.

Not sure at this point if I am going to have to provide the SQL software or if ePmpact is going to. The sever and it's OS are from me. My other clients either had the software provided or had SBS which takes care of that.

This is going to be a 15 user/pc network. The server I am quoting will have 2 Xeon Quad core CPUs. I understand that in 2008 licensing it still based on physical cpu chips and not cores like 2012.

For this setup which licensing mode is most economical? By user or PC or by CPUs? And I am having trouble finding SKU# to correctly do this. Also wondering if SBS is still an option even though it is discontinued.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Check with the software people first....sometimes they include SQL 'n CALs bundled in their product. They also sometimes offer it to your client at deep discounts because they use a special version of licensing.

If not, just quote windows server and SQL server and 15 SQL user cals.

For just 15 users, I'd focus your server on 15krpm SAS disks in 2x volumes....and 16 or more gigs of RAM. You'll client will benefit performance wise from that, versus less money in disks and RAM...and going for dual xeons. A single quad core xeon will run that beast fine for many more users with lots of memory and a good disk system.

 

[nlinecomputers]

Check with the software people first....sometimes they include SQL 'n CALs bundled in their product. They also sometimes offer it to your client at deep discounts because they use a special version of licensing.

If not, just quote windows server and SQL server and 15 SQL user cals.

For just 15 users, I'd focus your server on 15krpm SAS disks in 2x volumes....and 16 or more gigs of RAM. You'll client will benefit performance wise from that, versus less money in disks and RAM...and going for dual xeons. A single quad core xeon will run that beast fine for many more users with lots of memory and a good disk system.

That is the plan. 32 gb of memory and 4 320GB drives setup as RAID 1 sets. Might throw in 2 more and build a true raid 5 stack and a spare but this client is gonna freak the $6000 bill this server is gonna run them as it is. And the data base is small. They will use the server also as a file server but that role also is very light. There old server is a PDC but I'm thinking with only 15 users and no exchange that I might just ditch the domain and let it be a peer server. eEmpact is the only real role for the place. Email is webmail and they are happy with it.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

That is the plan. 32 gb of memory and 4 320GB drives setup as RAID 1 sets. .

320 gig...sound like SATA?

 

[nlinecomputers]

320 gig...sound like SATA?

Never seen sata spinning at 15000 rpm. There Seagate sas drives.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Never seen sata spinning at 15000 rpm. There Seagate sas drives.

Me neither...only 10,000 rpm...however, I didn't see you state you were using 15,000 rpm drives. (looks up at post to double check).

I've never seen 320 gig SAS drives.....typically SAS drives in the 15k range are 73 gigs, 146 gigs, or 300 gigs, and recently 450 and 600 gigs. Period. I love Cheetah drives (have even used them in my home gaming computer...15k scsi in a gamer!) ....dont recall seeing them in a 320 size.
http://www.seagate.com/internal-hard-drives/enterprise-hard-drives/hdd/cheetah-15k/


I've yet to see a 320 gig SAS...however 320 gig is a standard SATA size. So you can see where the confusion lies.

 

[nlinecomputers]

My bad. They are 300GB drives. ST3300657SS Had to look at my quote sheet. Like you said 320 is a common size for sata.