"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:48bbb6e7$1@news.povray.org...

>> Plus most large companies will probably have site-licences so they don't 
>> worry about buying individual licences like you or I would.
>
> How exactly does that work? I know how I *thought* it worked, but 
> apparently I'm wrong; I heard one of our head IT guys complaining that we 
> actually have more Server 2003 Enterprise installations running than we're 
> "supposed to".

Licencing's not my specialty. Sounds like you have a certain number of 
licences and you have more servers than that.
A previous company I worked for had a site-wide licence for certain apps. 
Meant they could install as many as they liked and still paid a fixed amount 
every year (support/upgrade contract). It's expensive for smaller companies, 
but as the number of PCs increase, it becomes more reasonable than paying 
for each one.

I don't know if it's still an option. As I said, I don't do licencing if I 
can help it.

>> Most and almost.
>> I know that currently SQL Server isn't supported for production usage on 
>> any form of virtual machine. It may change in the upcoming months with 
>> HyperV.
>
> "Supported" and "working" aren't the same thing. ;-)
>
> It might be that it *works* perfectly well, but the testing department 
> haven't assured themselves fully about it yet, so they don't want to spend 
> time supporting it until they have.

Indeed. The problem with multiple SQL instances in VMs is IO. You can 
allocate CPUs and memory to specific VMs, but there's still a single IO 
channel, and SQL database tend to be IO bound more often than CPU or memory.

Post a reply to this message