>> 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.

Right. Well we definitely have a company-wide license for Windows XP, 
Office 2003, and a few other bits. I *thought* we had a company-wide 
license for all the products we've licenced, but perhaps not?

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

Amen! But some of us don't have that luxury. :-S

>> "Supported" and "working" aren't the same thing. ;-)
> 
> 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.

Yeah, database engines by definition are I/O hungry (and memory hungry 
if you want to cache some of that rather than reread it a zillion 
times). Depending on what you're doing it can be CPU-heavy too, but 
mainly just I/O.

I'm sure it'll *work*, but how fast...? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message