| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Rambler |
Posted - 06/13/2012 : 05:51:25 AM
Hi. I thought I understood the "free" SQL licensing for SC2012, but I guess I was wrong once again.
I was just looking at the deployment guide for DPM2012 and it says:quote:
For the DPM database, DPM requires a dedicated instance of the 64-bit version of SQL Server 2008 R2, Enterprise or Standard Edition. During setup, you can select either to have DPM Setup install SQL Server 2008 R2 on the DPM server, or you can specify that DPM use a remote instance of SQL Server.
If you decide to have DPM Setup install SQL Server 2008 R2 on the DPM server, you do not need to provide a SQL Server license. But, if you decide to preinstall SQL Server on a remote computer or on the same computer where DPM will be installed, you must provide a SQL Server product key. You can preinstall SQL Server 2008 R2 Standard or Enterprise Edition.
If you do not have a licensed version of SQL Server 2008 R2, you can install an evaluation version from the setup DVD. To install the evaluation version, do not provide the product key when you are prompted. However, you must buy a license for SQL Server if you want to continue to use it after the evaluation period.
I was under the impression (and intended to deploy SC2012 in this manner), that you could install the SC products anywhere you wanted and you would use a dedicated single (remote) SQL instance for all the products. But according to the guide, I'd need separate SQL license for this scenario? |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| wobble_wobble |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 08:06:04 AM
Think we need a one handed economists view on the number of SQL servers necessary. |
| joe_elway |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 07:10:58 AM
Taken from a presentation by one of the System Center PMs:
 |
| Rambler |
Posted - 06/18/2012 : 02:27:16 AM
Thanks for the insight guys.
Since I'm not SQL guru, what HA options are there besides SQL clustering/mirroring (which are not supported - at least for the DPM 2012 database (VMM guide doesn't mention anything about SQL HA))? |
| joe_elway |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 12:12:29 PM
B |
| wobble_wobble |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 11:52:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe_elway
Historically, SysCtr products have all done their own thing and supported versions and SPs of SQL varied. It still does to a point. Therefore dedicated instances always seemed the best way forward. It's been a while since I last asked a MSFT PFE (always the best guys to talk to) about this but last year they still preferred dedicated instances.
....
On SQL, I tend to be conservative, and might go with dedicated instances. But I'd be willing to change my mind on that ... I must talk to some PFEs I know.
Aidan,
Do you mean
Option A
A SQL Server for the SCVMM instance
A SQL Server for the SCSM instance
A SQL Server for the SCOM instance
and so on
or
Option B
A big SQL server with instances for SCVMM, SCSM, SCOM etc?
quote:
Now that SysCtr is a single product with 8 components, I expect lots of simplification and convergence of SQL.
I'll accept its gotten much better, but the last combined version used software over 4 years period, so I'd be conservative on the date when the simplification occurs. We have just gotten a new release of SQL, System Centre and an OS, its unlikely the combining will occur within 2 years in my opinion.
|
| joe_elway |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 06:07:28 AM
This is the best blog post on the subject of SysCtr and SQL instances: http://blogs.technet.com/b/servicemanager/archive/2012/05/24/clarification-on-sql-server-collation-requirements-for-system-center-2012.aspx
Historically, SysCtr products have all done their own thing and supported versions and SPs of SQL varied. It still does to a point. Therefore dedicated instances always seemed the best way forward. It's been a while since I last asked a MSFT PFE (always the best guys to talk to) about this but last year they still preferred dedicated instances.
Now that SysCtr is a single product with 8 components, I expect lots of simplification and convergence of SQL. On SQL, I tend to be conservative, and might go with dedicated instances. But I'd be willing to change my mind on that ... I must talk to some PFEs I know. |
| Rambler |
Posted - 06/14/2012 : 05:22:57 AM
So, I should believe what I read earlier and presume the statement in the guide is wrong? I think the key word is local/remote instance.
Michael, since you have SQL on the DPM box, do you use that SQL instance for the other SC products too? Or are you allowed to run multiple instances - say 1 on the DPM box, one on other box for the other SC products?
Another bummer is that you can't use SQL clustering/mirroring (at least for DPM). |
| NMDANGE |
Posted - 06/13/2012 : 7:19:23 PM
For DPM in particular I prefer to keep SQL on the same box as DPM. Since DPM is supposed to be your system of last resort when you need to restore things, putting SQL on another server gives DPM an extra dependency. |
| joe_elway |
Posted - 06/13/2012 : 5:41:31 PM
It looks identical to the language from DPM 2010 - which as a NIGHTMARE. The sales pitch on SysCtr 2012 is that you get SQL Std edition free for the purposes ONLY of System Center - and pay very special attention to the collation you use for the instance. |
| wobble_wobble |
Posted - 06/13/2012 : 1:36:09 PM
It’s true to say there was a SQL dependency to consider when deploying System Centre 2008 R2 but this is no longer the case as the new SC 2012 licensing which you will be reporting factors in SQL runtime required for System Centre products.
The answer I got.
Be aware I work on SPLA licensing, and there are some are differences, so check with your LAR to be sure.
|
| wobble_wobble |
Posted - 06/13/2012 : 08:52:43 AM
Got a query gone back to our licensing people about it and may bother a MS Resource.
Just when you think its all in the bag!
|
| Rambler |
Posted - 06/13/2012 : 07:33:52 AM
It's from this one - http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/7/1/47182ECA-47D2-4B2B-839B-C59E7D9AF070/SC2012_DPM_Deployment.docx
That was my understanding too Joe, and that's why reading the above in the guide was kind of surprising to me. |
| wobble_wobble |
Posted - 06/13/2012 : 06:46:18 AM
What document did you get that from?
I was under the impression, from emails and conversations, that all the necessary SQL licensing, for a stand alone SQL box/ boxes, to manage the SC 2012 environment was included in the deal.
The SQL Server/ Servers are just for the SC products and managing your environment nothing else.
|
