max number of workstations

[mrsbean]

My employer is considering upgrading from a peer to peer workgroup to a server based network. I have received conflicting information that I hope someone can clear up for me. At least one thing I have read says that the max number of workstations or users (depending on how you set up your licenses) is 50. Other sources say 75. Is the difference between the two that the R2 version is 75 and the original version is only 50?

MrsBean

 

[nsanto17]

You are allowed 75 concurrent connections to your server.

U can have 100 users on your network but only the first 75 will be able to loginto the server.

 

[LWComputingMVP]

Actually, 2000 SBS was 50, Microsoft increased it to 75 with SBS 2003.

 

[TechSoEasyMVP]

nsanto, that's not true... it's not concurrent connections.

You cannot have more than 75 CALs assigned. Either USER or DEVICE CALs.

SBS Licensing is NOT based on concurrent connections.

But the truth is that if you have more than 50 or so users it's time to look at transitioning out of SBS anyhow.



Jeffrey B. Kane
TechSoEasy

http://www.techsoeasy.com

 

[ShackDaddy]

Just to throw an observation from the field in:

I audited an SBS2003 environment a few weeks ago that had 92 unique users in the directory. They said that 85 people worked full-time for them and all had their own workstations. I looked to see what the License Manager had to say, and it looked like only 55 licenses were installed. I asked whether they had had any difficulty with users being able to connect, and they said that they did not. Frankly, I was surprised.

I'm pretty sure they were set up with user CALs, but I didn't verify that.

Draw your own conclusions.

ShackDaddy
Shackelford Consulting

 

[TechSoEasyMVP]

ShackDaddy,

SBS Licensing is fuzzy at best. Microsoft has allowed a tremendous amount of flexibility with SBS (either that or they really couldn't figure out how to control it to begin with). But that doesn't change the fact that there are very strict licensing requirements that are a written contract between the End User and Microsoft which states that ALL USERS or DEVICES (depending on the type of CAL used) MUST have an Individual CAL assigned to them whether or not SBS acknowledges the CAL.

So... assuming that you did a thorough audit on that SBS2003 environment, and you saw that all 85 workstations were joined to the domain (meaning that none of them were XP Home, or left in a workgroup for some other reason), and assuming that the 55 licenses you saw that were installed were USER CALs, then this location is in violation of the license agreement and is subject to whatever penalties that may exist under the law. (They are breaking the law, by the way, and if you're a Microsoft Partner, you've broken your agreement with Microsoft, and could also be in violation of the law).

Now... if these folks have DEVICE CALs, and only have 55 workstations joined to the domain, then everything is hunky-dory. No laws are being broken, and they only have a pretty unmanageable network on their hands.

I don't make the above legal statements lightly. I truly believe that if a company chooses to use a product to assist them in a profit-making venture (even if they're not making a profit), then they should pay the agreed upon price for using such product. I often tell my clients, that use delivery vehicles... since they could easily just siphon gasoline from a vehicle they park next to at a delivery into their own truck to save on fuel costs... why don't they?

mrsbean... back to your question... I hope that this wasn't too off-topic.

One thing that stands out to me is that you state,

My employer is considering upgrading from a peer to peer workgroup

If you are currently running peer to peer, do you mind me asking why you are even worried about the limitations of SBS? Because I certainly hope that you aren't running a 50 workstation peer-to-peer network! You have my sympathies if you are!



Jeffrey B. Kane
TechSoEasy

http://www.techsoeasy.com

 

[ShackDaddy]

Jeffrey, of course you are right about all the licensing issues and the importance of staying in compliance. My audit was tied to a comprehensive proposal that didn't end up being accepted, and this wasn't a client of mine.

My only point in making the observation was to support your statement about concurrent connections not being a player in understanding the SBS licensing scenario.

The fact that I didn't comment on the ethics didn't mean I didn't have an opinion, just that for this discussion I'm focused on the details of Microsoft's functional enforcement of licensing.

ShackDaddy
Shackelford Consulting

 

[TechSoEasyMVP]

Oh, I knew that... I was over-emphasizing my point... just FYI.

But one thing that you didn't confirm about that audit is whether or not all 85 workstations were members of the domain.

As for Microsoft's "functional" enforcement of licensing? Its very, very fuzzy... as mentioned. There are some checks and audits internally in SBS, but one thing is for sure, concurrent connections are NOT part of them. That's because if you have a USER CAL, that user may very well be concurrently connected on THREE or FOUR devices just by themselves, (Workstation, Laptop, Mobile Device, MicroPC) and be totally within compliance for a SINGLE USER CAL.



Jeffrey B. Kane
TechSoEasy

http://www.techsoeasy.com

 

[ShackDaddy]

I wasn't able to check the relevant OU's to see if all 85 workstations had been added to the domain, but I assume that they had, since they had a SQL-based line-of-business app that used integrated authentication, and it would have been a pain with workstations that weren't joined to the domain. We'll never know for sure. The admin at the time was sacked a couple of days after we turned in our proposal (which fully detailed the problematic licensing and plenty of other things), so we no longer had a technical contact at that company.

ShackDaddy
Shackelford Consulting

 

[TechSoEasyMVP]

That's the stuff that provides fodder for legends.

Jeffrey B. Kane
TechSoEasy

http://www.techsoeasy.com