MS SQL Clustering and Failover

I have a 2 node Microsoft 2000 cluster with a shared storage device. I
want to create automatic failover for MS SQL 2000 server. I can do
that wit the following options:

1. Active/Pasive (one instance installed)
2. Active/Active (More then one instance/virtual sql servers
installed)

I have a question about option 2.

Is it possible to have more then one instance/virtual SQL server,
service only one database for example loadbalancing. ?, or when you
create multiple instances/virtual SQL servers, does that mean you have
multiple databases ? If not why does a Virtual SQL server has to be
taken over by a cluster node that didnt fail. Then you can actually
use option 1. Please advise!

The documentation is not very clear on this issues.

Regards,
Nico de Grootn.groot@.sneenterprise.com (Nico de Groot) wrote in message news:<e705c127.0307100056.7d09cd03@.posting.google.com>...
> I have a 2 node Microsoft 2000 cluster with a shared storage device. I
> want to create automatic failover for MS SQL 2000 server. I can do
> that wit the following options:
> 1. Active/Pasive (one instance installed)
> 2. Active/Active (More then one instance/virtual sql servers
> installed)
> I have a question about option 2.
> Is it possible to have more then one instance/virtual SQL server,
> service only one database for example loadbalancing. ?, or when you
> create multiple instances/virtual SQL servers, does that mean you have
> multiple databases ? If not why does a Virtual SQL server has to be
> taken over by a cluster node that didnt fail. Then you can actually
> use option 1. Please advise!
> The documentation is not very clear on this issues.
> Regards,
> Nico de Groot

I suggest you ask this in microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering for a
more detailed answer. My knowledge of clustering is limited, but I do
know that Windows clustering is for failover only, not for load
balancing. (There is a load balancing component in Windows Server
200x, but only for web services.)

Simon

MS SQL 2005 Workgroup licensing question

Hi,
I am a bit confused about the licensing schemes for MS SQL.
There is a "Processor" licnese (about $4000) and a "Server +
User/Device CAL" for $740 (5 CALs + $150 per additional CAL).
It says:
Processor Licensing Model. Under this model, a license is required for
each physical or virtual processor accessed by an operating system
environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any
device or user client access licenses (CALs).
Server plus Device CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
Server, as well as a CAL for each client device that accesses a system
running SQL Server.
Server plus User CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
Server, as well as a CAL for each user that accesses a system running
SQL Server.
If I am installing the MS SQL on one web server running Windows 2003
Server, accessible by corporate users over Internet, which licensing
model is suitable?
TIA.Calculate how many different users access the server. Not at once,
all together over time. Calculate the cost of that many CALs compared
to the per-processor price. You probably will end up with
per-processor pricing.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On 26 Jul 2006 10:03:32 -0700, ashkaan57@.hotmail.com wrote:

>Hi,
>I am a bit confused about the licensing schemes for MS SQL.
>There is a "Processor" licnese (about $4000) and a "Server +
>User/Device CAL" for $740 (5 CALs + $150 per additional CAL).
>It says:
>Processor Licensing Model. Under this model, a license is required for
>each physical or virtual processor accessed by an operating system
>environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any
>device or user client access licenses (CALs).
>Server plus Device CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
>for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
>Server, as well as a CAL for each client device that accesses a system
>running SQL Server.
>Server plus User CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
>for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
>Server, as well as a CAL for each user that accesses a system running
>SQL Server.
>If I am installing the MS SQL on one web server running Windows 2003
>Server, accessible by corporate users over Internet, which licensing
>model is suitable?
>TIA.|||The definitive answers to licensing questions are at:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/default.mspx
My take:
You may recall, that the processor license is required for
internet/intranet/extranet usage UNLESS all users will have a proper CAL.
(That even includes a single small query populating a small list box on a
web page.)
If your web site is restricted to company users only, and if all company
users that will be accessing SQL Server have an existing SQL Server CAL,
then I believe that you are covered. (Subject to verification with VL.) If
all company users do not have SQL Server CALs, then you most likely need a
processor license -or additional CALs.
I do not think that any non-company (or extranet) users would be included
without the processor license -unless, upon software audit, you can prove
the existence of CALs.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<ashkaan57@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153933412.130178.59290@.s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am a bit confused about the licensing schemes for MS SQL.
> There is a "Processor" licnese (about $4000) and a "Server +
> User/Device CAL" for $740 (5 CALs + $150 per additional CAL).
> It says:
> Processor Licensing Model. Under this model, a license is required for
> each physical or virtual processor accessed by an operating system
> environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any
> device or user client access licenses (CALs).
> Server plus Device CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
> for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
> Server, as well as a CAL for each client device that accesses a system
> running SQL Server.
> Server plus User CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
> for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
> Server, as well as a CAL for each user that accesses a system running
> SQL Server.
> If I am installing the MS SQL on one web server running Windows 2003
> Server, accessible by corporate users over Internet, which licensing
> model is suitable?
> TIA.
>

MS SQL 2005 Workgroup licensing question

Hi,
I am a bit confused about the licensing schemes for MS SQL.
There is a "Processor" licnese (about $4000) and a "Server +
User/Device CAL" for $740 (5 CALs + $150 per additional CAL).
It says:
Processor Licensing Model. Under this model, a license is required for
each physical or virtual processor accessed by an operating system
environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any
device or user client access licenses (CALs).
Server plus Device CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
Server, as well as a CAL for each client device that accesses a system
running SQL Server.
Server plus User CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
Server, as well as a CAL for each user that accesses a system running
SQL Server.
If I am installing the MS SQL on one web server running Windows 2003
Server, accessible by corporate users over Internet, which licensing
model is suitable?
TIA.Calculate how many different users access the server. Not at once,
all together over time. Calculate the cost of that many CALs compared
to the per-processor price. You probably will end up with
per-processor pricing.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On 26 Jul 2006 10:03:32 -0700, ashkaan57@.hotmail.com wrote:
>Hi,
>I am a bit confused about the licensing schemes for MS SQL.
>There is a "Processor" licnese (about $4000) and a "Server +
>User/Device CAL" for $740 (5 CALs + $150 per additional CAL).
>It says:
>Processor Licensing Model. Under this model, a license is required for
>each physical or virtual processor accessed by an operating system
>environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any
>device or user client access licenses (CALs).
>Server plus Device CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
>for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
>Server, as well as a CAL for each client device that accesses a system
>running SQL Server.
>Server plus User CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
>for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
>Server, as well as a CAL for each user that accesses a system running
>SQL Server.
>If I am installing the MS SQL on one web server running Windows 2003
>Server, accessible by corporate users over Internet, which licensing
>model is suitable?
>TIA.|||The definitive answers to licensing questions are at:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/default.mspx
My take:
You may recall, that the processor license is required for
internet/intranet/extranet usage UNLESS all users will have a proper CAL.
(That even includes a single small query populating a small list box on a
web page.)
If your web site is restricted to company users only, and if all company
users that will be accessing SQL Server have an existing SQL Server CAL,
then I believe that you are covered. (Subject to verification with VL.) If
all company users do not have SQL Server CALs, then you most likely need a
processor license -or additional CALs.
I do not think that any non-company (or extranet) users would be included
without the processor license -unless, upon software audit, you can prove
the existence of CALs.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<ashkaan57@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153933412.130178.59290@.s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I am a bit confused about the licensing schemes for MS SQL.
> There is a "Processor" licnese (about $4000) and a "Server +
> User/Device CAL" for $740 (5 CALs + $150 per additional CAL).
> It says:
> Processor Licensing Model. Under this model, a license is required for
> each physical or virtual processor accessed by an operating system
> environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any
> device or user client access licenses (CALs).
> Server plus Device CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
> for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
> Server, as well as a CAL for each client device that accesses a system
> running SQL Server.
> Server plus User CALs. Under this model, a server license is required
> for each operating system environment running an instance of SQL
> Server, as well as a CAL for each user that accesses a system running
> SQL Server.
> If I am installing the MS SQL on one web server running Windows 2003
> Server, accessible by corporate users over Internet, which licensing
> model is suitable?
> TIA.
>