License vs physical cores

Question

License vs physical cores

Marts

SSC Eights!

Points: 937
More actions
April 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm

#258723

I have a machine that has two sockets, each with quad cores.
Our IT budget is very tight, and I want to know if I can license sql server 2012 for just 4 cores legally.
I know that our old sql server 2000 instance is able to specify the cores to use, and the database runs just fine on 4 of those.
Speaking with one of our IT guys here, (FYI I am not an IT bod) he says that typically you only need to license that which you use, and that if you can restrict the server to 4 cores that the license should suffice.
The other IT guy flippantly suggested that we remove the other processor, which I was unaware that we could actually do...
Regards
Martin

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

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

Eddie Wuerch SSChampion Points: 12532 More actions · Answer 1

Full details at http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/get-sql-server/how-to-buy.aspx

The guy who said 'rip out a processor' was on the right path. If the Windows OS can see a processor core, even if you use SQL Server's affinity mask to prevent SQL Server from using it, then it must be licensed.

-Eddie

Eddie Wuerch
MCM: SQL

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 2

You'll have to either remove the processor from the machine or restrict the CPUs in the BIOS (some servers that's possible on, others not). If it can be seen by Windows, it must be licensed.

Setting processor affinity is not good enough.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

LutzM SSC Guru Points: 107049 More actions · Answer 3

Do you really need a processor based license?

Depending on how the SQL Server is used, a UserCAL or DeviceCAL based license might be good enough.

Another option would be to buy SQL2008R2. The license terms were much more customer friendly (you'd need two processor licenses for the two sockets when using 2008 or 2008R2).

Lutz
A pessimist is an optimist with experience.

How to get fast answers to your question[/url]
How to post performance related questions[/url]
Links for Tally Table [/url] , Cross Tabs [/url] and Dynamic Cross Tabs [/url], Delimited Split Function[/url]

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 4

LutzM (4/6/2012)
Another option would be to buy SQL2008R2. The license terms were much more customer friendly (you'd need two processor licenses for the two sockets when using 2008 or 2008R2).

Two processor licenses, each one 4x the cost of a core license for 2012.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

LutzM SSC Guru Points: 107049 More actions · Answer 5

GilaMonster (4/6/2012)
LutzM (4/6/2012)
Another option would be to buy SQL2008R2. The license terms were much more customer friendly (you'd need two processor licenses for the two sockets when using 2008 or 2008R2).
Two processor licenses, each one 4x the cost of a core license for 2012.

So, basically, as long as one would use a 4 core processor, the cost would be the same?

Lutz
A pessimist is an optimist with experience.

How to get fast answers to your question[/url]
How to post performance related questions[/url]
Links for Tally Table [/url] , Cross Tabs [/url] and Dynamic Cross Tabs [/url], Delimited Split Function[/url]

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 6

LutzM (4/6/2012)
GilaMonster (4/6/2012)
LutzM (4/6/2012)
Another option would be to buy SQL2008R2. The license terms were much more customer friendly (you'd need two processor licenses for the two sockets when using 2008 or 2008R2).
Two processor licenses, each one 4x the cost of a core license for 2012.
So, basically, as long as one would use a 4 core processor, the cost would be the same?

That's MS's intention. 1 processor license converts to 4 core licenses.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Marts SSC Eights! Points: 937 More actions · Answer 7

Thanks for the advice.

I did look into CAL's, but since one of the main applications will be an intranet based tool, and we have over 100 employees (although initially only about 20 will interact with this app) I think CAL will get more expensive than the core.

I also looked at the 2008R2 a while ago, and decided to wait for 2012, since we do not upgrade frequently, I want to "future proof" the system to some extent, and now I find the actual cost to us is about the same 2012/2008, I think the newest is the better option.

I am going to req the full system to see if I get it, if it gets rejected, I will look at the option of halving the cost by removing/disabling one processor.

Regards

Martin