How many Cals?

[AllUserNamesAreTaken]

Very fundamental question....

At the moment 19 users are connected to an SBS2000 server.

I inteng to migrate them to our new server, Server 2003 with Exchange, so will need to install SQL elsewhere.

My question, how many CAL's does SBS have? Does that mean I'd need to go out and purchase 20 CALS for Server 2003..?

 

[AllUserNamesAreTaken]

I guess I'm being a tad brief there.

I think realisitcally, I want to know if I can install SQL 2000 on an Exchange Server running Windows 2003 Standard Edition.

The beauty about SBS is that it's cheap - But what a pile of wank it is when you want to upgrade. Pardon my French.

If I can't install SQL2000 on that Server, I will format the old SBS2000 server, install Windows 2003 Standard and then install SQL2000 on that. Which means that the users will have more downtime, but that's life unfortunately.

I still need to purchase 20 CALS for SQL2000 though, right?

 

[TechCarnivore]

I would suggest installing the SQL on a different piece of hardware, separate from your SBS2003 server, but I have not read anything to suggest that you cant have SQL2000 on an SBS2003 server. In fact I'm running SLQ2005 on 2003.

As for the CALS, SBS 2003 comes with 5, so in theory you will need 15 more. The thing is they're sold in 5 or 20 CAL bulndles. You may just want to buy 20 and have some room to grow. By default I think the licensing scheme is per user, just FYI.

 

[AllUserNamesAreTaken]

I decided to scrap the idea of SBS completely, and buy a copy of Windows Standard 2003 R2 and SQL 2000 (19 Cals).

I already have an Exchange Server on-site that I set up in May this year, so I'll utilize that to it's full potential.

I really do not like SBS, in the way that it combines everything.

Much appreciated input of course however !

 

[58sniper]

You can easily use a transition pack later if you want to move away from SBS. You can also separate Exchange from SBS as well.

But I wouldn't put SQL on any Exchange box - SBS, Standard, Enterprise - none of them.

Pat Richard, MCSE MCSA:Messaging CNA
Want to know how email works? Read for yourself -

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt

 

[AllUserNamesAreTaken]

I read elsewhere that putting SQL on an Exchange Server is not the best of ideas since they're both RAM and CPU hoggers.

This just essentially means more downtime for users over the weekend period, but I guess that's life unfortunately !

 

[markdmac]

Bigger concern would be installing SQl on a DC. Also, unless you already own the SQL2000 you should go to SQL2005 as support for 2000 is almost gone.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

 

[AllUserNamesAreTaken]

Unfortunately the guys who support the Dbase don't support SQL2005.

I had to purchase the Licences for 2005 anyway, just so I could back date the software to SQL 2000. Ridiculous.

 

[markdmac]

Not sure if you are complaining you had to buy the 2005 license or the fact that the app people don't support SQL2005. The latter is in my opinion the more rediculous scenario. For anyone to not support the latest version of a product is crazy to me. Granted there is always a ramp up period for new products, but they should be testing their product and ramping up on beta software for that so they can support production when the product releases. SQL2005 has been out for a while now and it is lazyness on thier part to not support it by now.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

 

[AllUserNamesAreTaken]

Indeed I was referring to the company that supports the database not supporting SQL2005 - Ridiculous. Indeed it is Laziness, but I guess coming from their point of view, if it works on SQL2000, why "fix" it to work on SQL2005?

More understandable that'd make more sense if Windows 2003 Server did not support SQL2000. I'm sure the migration will happen in time.