Give us all the features

  • Comments posted to this topic are about the item Give us all the features

  • Steve

    Situation is, in fact, much more complicated and worse: what you mention are the stated versions and prices. As it is, if you are an account with sufficient weight to throw around, say Shell Oil or Boeing, you can and will negotiate your own deal which will likely include a tailored version and made-to-order support terms and conditions.

    That is done by the sales, and if it means that they converted an account from Oracle, there is only one rule: anything goes.

    It has nothing to do with engineers in the Servers and Tools Division and in support (ECO).

    Sorry.

  • One other problem is the enforcement. While I like the idea to pay by scale how can unscrupulous customers be forced to pay the right scale?

    So buying one core, 2GB license and then deploy on 32 core, 2 TB server? The lockdown has to be in the code which could be buggy or lead to side problems (it needs cycles to check that the underlying hardware hasn't changed etc).

    So a simpler licensing model becomes an engineering problem. Nothing that can not be solved but imagine the outcry that MS interrogates your server...

    I guess there is no real easy answer to this dilemma.

  • I've worked at smaller shops where we're clearly not an "Enterprise" size of company and Standard edition would work great for our needs. But you see it especially with 2008 that a lot of the really neat features that'd be fun to learn and experiment with are only in the Enterprise edition. Of course I'd be in favour of having all the features in all the editions (except Express), but even if they just put a bit more thought into which features go into which edition, I'd be happier. Like in your example with TDE, is encryption something that would only be of value to a large enterprise? Or would everyone benefit? Sounds like something that should be "standard" with SQL Server, or even put it all the way back into Express where students learning will get used to encrypting their databases. Resource governor? I'd argue that smaller shops would see much more benefit from it than an enterprise who uses virtual servers to better distribute the load, so standard edition would be a good fit.

  • Not only is Microsoft driving developers toward OSS with server license costs and features restrictions, but the restrictions in various tiers of Visual Studio do the same. Smaller companies in many cases are choosing to use OSS to avoid the whole mess. Which is a shame because many of these tools lack the polish and support of the Microsoft software.

  • I would personally love it if the server came with all the features, and like Express it limited hardware. I would like it even more if the increments, and buy in were a low bar allowing you to scale your environment very granularly.

    A good example would be something like:

    Each 1GB RAM or core/processor it will use for SQL Server would be $100, and just give me all features, like you said.

    Then, also make the lowest buy in remove any restriction on DB size. Realistically, any serious business will need to scale RAM/proc with DB size unless it has low use.

    So, I could buy two licenses for $200 and get all the enterprise features, but the hardware allowance would be about the same as SQL Express, so it's not like I could run an airline booking system on it.

    Just my two cents,

    John

  • This is one reason that I have developers install the SQL Server "Standard" edition from MSDN rather than the "Developer" edition.

    The Developer edition has all features enabled, including the Enterprise features.

    I once had a developer do something that, performance wise, depended on a feature available only in the Enterprise version, then we got burned a little when we went to deploy in production (which used Standard edition) and that feature wasn't available.

    That's one downside to the Developer edition IMHO - unless the developers have a feature matrix handy, they may use something that you don't have in the production environment if they are not careful.

  • Revenant (10/17/2011)


    It has nothing to do with engineers in the Servers and Tools Division and in support (ECO).

    Sorry.

    Not sure I implied it did. It's all sales/marketing, or maybe all marketing/execs. In any case, I'm just making a case for it, not blaming anyone.

  • Knut Boehnert (10/18/2011)


    One other problem is the enforcement. While I like the idea to pay by scale how can unscrupulous customers be forced to pay the right scale?

    So buying one core, 2GB license and then deploy on 32 core, 2 TB server? The lockdown has to be in the code which could be buggy or lead to side problems (it needs cycles to check that the underlying hardware hasn't changed etc).

    So a simpler licensing model becomes an engineering problem. Nothing that can not be solved but imagine the outcry that MS interrogates your server...

    I guess there is no real easy answer to this dilemma.

    It's already not checked. There isn't a check for per processor licensing now in the code. It's an administrative thing, and we ought to be able to expand it. Plenty of other platforms make the checks or even have "unlock keys" so hardware isn't interrogated, without issues. Not a show stopper, from what I see.

  • a-241529 (10/18/2011)


    I would personally love it if the server came with all the features, and like Express it limited hardware. I would like it even more if the increments, and buy in were a low bar allowing you to scale your environment very granularly.

    A good example would be something like:

    Each 1GB RAM or core/processor it will use for SQL Server would be $100, and just give me all features, like you said.

    Then, also make the lowest buy in remove any restriction on DB size. Realistically, any serious business will need to scale RAM/proc with DB size unless it has low use.

    So, I could buy two licenses for $200 and get all the enterprise features, but the hardware allowance would be about the same as SQL Express, so it's not like I could run an airline booking system on it.

    Just my two cents,

    John

    Yes!

  • mannaggia (10/18/2011)


    That's one downside to the Developer edition IMHO - unless the developers have a feature matrix handy, they may use something that you don't have in the production environment if they are not careful.

    That's the issue.

  • Great idea, Steve. I hope MS can adjust its license policy to what you described.

  • Opening up the features has an direct benefit not just to MS, but to the people that recommend SQL Server and build solutions with it everyday.

    I've had to say many times in interviews that "I've haven't had the opportunity to use that feature in production since my employers haven't purchased the edition that has it (however, I have worked with it at home and know how it works)..."

    Picture not having to say that ever again. The limitation then becomes me and my initiative. I'd accept performance limits to get the features, no hesitation there. I win, my employer wins, and it comes back to MS with better real-world skillsets, experiences, and more examples of how SQL Server can be used. You can't get all that with me playing with a dev edition at home.

  • Steve Jones - SSC Editor (10/18/2011)


    Revenant (10/17/2011)


    It has nothing to do with engineers in the Servers and Tools Division and in support (ECO).

    Sorry.

    Not sure I implied it did. It's all sales/marketing, or maybe all marketing/execs. In any case, I'm just making a case for it, not blaming anyone.

    It was too late and I was probably darn tired. That "Sorry" meant "I am sorry that MS marketing and sales fell free to make such mess of it."

  • I'd love to see this type of licensing.

    As has been mentioned you could start small, but then you could just scale up by buying more processor licenses without any changes to the SQL Server install.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply