0

*Sorry, found other licensing questions on the site so naturally assumed these were ok here... The suggested post did not answer the question I specifically asked

Please remove the post if I've violated some rule and I will seek an answer elsewhere.*

I know the "rules" say I have to buy a core license for Sql Server 2019 for each core in the machine, in our case 10 cores/20 threads. I would need 5 2xCore Packs or 2 4xCore Packs and 1 2xCore Pack.

I also know it's honor system, but I do like to be honorable about licensing.

My question though is, is it possible to get just 4 Core Licenses (on a 10 core machine) and limit Sql Server to only using those 4 cores? We're a small business, the machine serves multiple purposes. We've been using 2008R2 until now when I realized after three years we've way outgrown that (they were using 22 linked Access MDBs before I upgraded the system).

So when I look at 10 cores, the best total price is $8K. Ouch. We will get better speed and processing sure.

But if I can present a more less ouch option to the bosses and still be legit, that would be great. I suppose we could buy a new server with less cores (do they still exist?)

4
  • My question though is, is it possible to get just 4 Core Licenses (on a 10 core machine) and limit Sql Server to only using those 4 cores?. No. No it is not. "When running SQL Server in a physical OSE, all physical cores on the server must be licensed". Also license questions are off-topic. download.microsoft.com/download/3/D/4/…
    – Greg Askew
    Nov 18, 2021 at 19:55
  • Thanks @GregAskew. I'd already stated that in the question "I know the "rules" say I have to buy a core license for Sql Server 2019 for each core in the machine," But as for questions about licensing being off-topic, I had found other related questions (but not mine specifically) asked here, so naturally assume this was the right place to ask. Apologies the evidence was contrary to the rules.
    – klkitchens
    Nov 18, 2021 at 20:11
  • 1
    If you were to call the vendor, Microsoft, which you should do, they would tell you you could also use per-user CALs for Standard Edition.
    – Greg Askew
    Nov 18, 2021 at 22:59
  • @GregAskew That would be more costly than getting 10 cores (which we ended up doing)
    – klkitchens
    Nov 19, 2021 at 18:23

1 Answer 1

1

My question though is, is it possible to get just 4 Core Licenses (on a 10 core machine) and limit Sql Server to only using those 4 cores?

  • Yes. If those 4 cores are ALL CORES AVAILABLE TO THE MACHINE. Like.... running SQL Server in a Virtual Machine and this machine is limited to X virtual cores.

  • NO, if the OS sees all cores - you must license the whole machine.

We're a small business, the machine serves multiple purposes.

Best practices would demand, then, that you install SQL Server in a separate VM to start with. Maintaining a system with a ton of different functions and installed things is nasty.

6
  • May be "nasty", but it's old school (and the way thing were done until a few years ago). When and if we get large enough to warrant multiple VMs (and the IT support staff to manage that) it's definitely something we will consider to be sure. And as always "best practices" are always just some entity's opinion on what works best IN GENERAL. Been that way for a long time... Microsoft has been infamous for "best practices" that are neither. :)
    – klkitchens
    Nov 19, 2021 at 18:25
  • Yeah, but given in the context a useless rant. And I never would love a machine with anything else than SQL on it - there are cases it does not play nice. a VM handles this nicely. THe support staff? If the admin can not deal with hyper-v in 2021, firing is how you get competent staff. It is standard windows these days.
    – TomTom
    Nov 19, 2021 at 18:29
  • you clearly don't understand "small business" at all. I appreciate the limited signal contained in your noisy answer, but the elitist attitude hinders the helpfulness of it.
    – klkitchens
    Nov 19, 2021 at 19:54
  • Now to start fresh, perhaps TomTom, you could be of help and provide perhaps a good resource to educate about this "standard" you claim. I'm no stranger to VMs, my work machine has been a VM on my desktop for 15+ years. But from a server standpoint, no so much. I'm a developer first and foremost. Keeping the server "simple" has been acceptable for years. I have done server admin before but a long time ago. I understand the ins and out mostly, but servers were always physical. I can imagine how a physical box could run multiple VMs interacting with other and see benefits. Thanks.
    – klkitchens
    Nov 19, 2021 at 20:03
  • Nope. You ask a question, I answer. You want me to give you a professional opinion - I have a hourly rate you likely can not pay. Done. VM's ARE keeping the server simple - multiple installations keep getting into serious troubles. As a developer, in 2021, you should be EXTREMELY knowledgeable of things like containers, virtualization - that is how you set up test and development environments.
    – TomTom
    Nov 19, 2021 at 20:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .