SQL Server 2000/2005 Licensing with Named Instances 1

[Apollo21]

Good Day Everyone.

The only constant is change.
We have a mixed environment of SQL Server MSDE, SQL Server 2000 Standard w/processor and server license set ups.

We would like to simplify this mix because other people and applications are about to get involved. Also we are thinking that it is time to go to SQL Server 2005 (Standard, probably not Enterprise).

I have researched named instances as a possible solution right along with virtualization (Virtual machines) and have come up with tons of ideas but none standing out at the moment.

Without getting too detailed I came up with a couple of simple questions that MS does not seem to directly come out and state in its literature.

1. If we set up a SQL Server 2005 environment (processor license option), do we need to have a license for each named instance of SQL Server 2005?

2. If we set up the same scenario with a server licence and CALS, it would seem that each instance needs at least their own CALS (Client Access Licenses), but do we need a server license for each named instance on this set up?

3. [We understand that if we vertualize that we will need a SQL Serve Licence with each VM] Is this ture also?

Thank you in advanced. These answers will help me to eliminate some comfusion that has cropped up!

Thank you again.

Apollo21

 

[mrdenny]

1. No, if you have CPU licenses that covers all the instances on the server.

2. Each instance would need it's own server license. CALs are assigned to the users, and allow the user to connect to every SQL Server of that edition and below.

3. Yes, each VM would need it's own license.

This FAQ faq962-5153 might help you out.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration / Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005) / Database Developer (SQL 2005)

My Blog