From: John Cuccia 

In the case of processor licensing that is correct.

But we were discussing the number of users above which a processor license
makes sense.  To decide that, you need to account for the cost of the
server license plus CALs.   The quick/dirty thing I did earlier
in the thread indicates the breakpoint is about 100 users, below which it
is cheaper to license SQL Server plus CALs than to spend the money on a
processor license.

Actually, I think the number will be well over 100 users, because any
installation big enough to acquire a per CPU license is likely to have a
multiprocessor machine, requiring a processor license for each CPU.


On 17 Jun 2005 20:48:06 GMT, Ellen K  wrote:

>What SQL Server CAL?   There is only the SQL Server per-CPU license, the
>Windows O/S license, and the Windows CALs.
>
>> From: John Cuccia 
>> Huh?  The SQL Server CAL is not included with your Windows license.
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:16:11 -0700, Ellen K.
>>  wrote:
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Since normally you're not going to add Windows users just because you're
>>> adding a database box, I think you don't have to add anything for CALs
>>> in your cost comparison.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:03:53 -0500, John Cuccia

>>> wrote in message :
>>>
>>>> a single user CAL is allowed to
>>>> talk to as many servers as there are

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5