October 27, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Perhaps someone could answer this question I have regarding licensing and software assurance from their experience. Apologies if there is a different forum where this should be posted.
I've read the MS licensing guide and it's not exactly clear and the vendor we purchased SA from couldn't definitively answer either.
Scenario: You have 48 enterprise core licenses which you've carried since SQL 2008. You've paid software assurance on that yearly and are currently using SQL 2016.
Question 1, what happens if you do not renew software assurance? Apart from not being able to upgrade to any newer versions etc and open support tickets under SA etc?
I understand you are not eligible to upgrade to the next version (2018 perhaps?) you will have to buy a new outright license for SQL 2018 which is obviously very expensive if and when you decide to purchase the new license.
My understanding however is that you are still able to use the existing 48 core licenses with Always on and any other features etc. as long as the VM's running SQL are all licensed. Secondaries are included in the 48 licenses in my scenario.
Thanks in advance for any info
October 28, 2016 at 6:03 am
I'm glad to see your post. You're facing the same issue we're facing at our organization. Microsoft is taking the position that if you don't have SA, you do not have the right to run SQL 2016 in a failover role, even though your original license for SQL 2008 included that right, and you've paid for SA which gave you the "upgrades." I don't think it's a correct, fair, ethical, wise, or even legal position on Microsoft's part, and am prepared to challenge it. Please read my post on this forum from just two days ago with the subject line 'Microsoft requirement to have SA in order to have failover server'.
October 28, 2016 at 11:33 am
Thanks, will take a look at your post
"Microsoft is taking the position that if you don't have SA, you do not have the right to run SQL 2016 in a failover role,"
In our situation though even our "failover" servers are licensed. So it's not a case of failing over to a server which is a cold standby and the license moves.
All our SQL secondaries which form part of the availability group are actually licensed.
We fail to see the point in continuing with SA and want to make sure that we're in a position to continue using Always on as is just with our licenses
October 28, 2016 at 12:14 pm
When I talk about a failover server, I'm referring to a warm standby which is actively maintained as ready to go through either mirroring or its replacement, the availability groups. Unless you've purchased licenses for the primary server cores and the secondary server cores, meaning separately purchased licenses, SA is required. That's the position that Microsoft is now taking. If you refer to the 'Failover Basics' segments in the SQL 2008, SQL 2012, and SQL 2016 licensing guides, you'll see that they've inserted this SA requirement on the most recent version. I've had multiple exchanges with Dell (the company from whom we purchased the SQL 2008 license and Software Assurance) and their on-site Microsoft licensing specialist. I've asked them repeatedly but to no avail to have someone up-level reexamine this policy, that I thought it was grossly unfair and inappropriate. From what you said about your environment, you would appear to be in the same situation we're in.
For the SQL 2008 licensing guide, see link below, reference page 35, Failover Basics:
For the SQL 2012 licensing guide, see link below, reference page 15, Failover Basics:
Below is the link for the SQL 2016 licensing guide. See page 20, Failover basics. Note the insertion of the Software Assurance (SA) requirement:
“For each server license with SQL Server 2016 and covered by active SA, customers can run up to the same number of passive failover instances in a separate OSE to support failover events.”
October 28, 2016 at 12:21 pm
I'm not sure I would consider this unfair.
In 2008, the only real thing available was mirroring. The spares were warm, and only one could be alive at a time.
With Always On, the spares do not have to be warm, although they are read only.
There is no mechanism to "test your spares" to see if in fact they are simply sitting there unused except for a fail over situation.
As an example, the ready only copies are being used for reporting in our environment.
Maybe you need to re-think your strategy?
Michael L John
If you assassinate a DBA, would you pull a trigger?
To properly post on a forum:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/
October 28, 2016 at 12:41 pm
Don't get me wrong -- I'm grateful for enhancements. But then, that's the point of Software Assurance, that we pay a fee so that we have access to the latest version, which presumably would enhance the product. What I'm complaining about is that Microsoft has removed a feature of the original database license, that of being able to use the product in a failover role without having to have a separate license. In effect, they've downgraded the product with respect to failover. The mirroring feature and its successor, availability groups, now are part of Software Assurance and not part of the SQL Server license. No, I don't consider this fair or reasonable, and I think ultimately they're going to have to back off of this position.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply