[THIN] Re: ECL vs. Per device or per user
- From: "Nick Smith" <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:39:35 +0100
Add another £5/user (For SQL Standard) or £7.89 (For Enterprise).
One username per site beckons, I suspect.
Nick
_____
From: Jason Patten [mailto:pattenj@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 June 2004 14:41
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: ECL vs. Per device or per user
Yes, our main app connects to a SQL database.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Mishchenko [mailto:Dave.Mishchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:38 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ECL vs. Per device or per user
At a minimum you would need a Windows SAL for each user logging in
unless you go with the per processor option for ASP licensing. Any users
connecting to SQL Server?
_____
From: Jason Patten [mailto:pattenj@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: June 28, 2004 6:31 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: ECL vs. Per device or per user
Well we currently have 14 servers in 2 farms serving up a mixed variety
of Apps. None of them is exchange or office and one instance of IE, but only
to connect to a specific site for file transfers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Smith [mailto:nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:18 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: ECL vs. Per device or per user
If you're an ASP, you should also look at the Service Provide
Licence Agreement (SPLA).
This enables you to pay a rental cost per user per month (Or
possibly per processor - your choice). It's a little difficult to get pricing
because there are very feew companies who resell this for Microsoft. To give
you an idea, in the UK an Excahgne SAL (equivalent to a CAL) is £2.33/month -
?about 3$?
Nick
_____
From: Jason Patten [mailto:pattenj@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 June 2004 13:53
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: ECL vs. Per device or per user
I was afraid of something like that, but I wasn't sure. The
book I saw said they cant be "employees" of your company. And as it is, we can
easily control WHO gets a username but not easily control What device they use
since they are all remote locations. Aside from the 10 or so people in our
company who are here at the office, everyone else is just coming in from the
internet.
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Thomas [mailto:jeremy.thomas@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:50 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: ECL vs. Per device or per user
I could be wrong, but...
As I understand it, external licenses can only be used
if you don't know who is connecting, like if you provided a Terminal Server
with Demo software through a website where users can run the software
anonimously.
As I don't think you're in that situation, I don't
think you can use ECL licenses.
Regards,
J
_____
From: Jason Patten [mailto:pattenj@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday 28 June 2004 14:44
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] ECL vs. Per device or per user
Question for the group.
I have been reading up on licenses and wondering if the
External Connecter Licenses would be a good idea for us. We are an ASP, and
it is very difficult for us to keep up with how many devices our customers
connect to our system. Till now We have been on NT4 o we have kept up best we
could but not worried too much about it. And we havent restricted how many
users each location that subscribes to our services uses. That means we have
about 2800 usernames in use right now with about 350 concurrent at peak times.
Based off that I was thinking that ECL might be the way to go for us. I
understand that they ECL cannot be given to employees of our company, but any
idea if they would work with our setup?
I am trying to get all this straight so I can have a
full implementation plan for Windows 2003 ready to go when asked.
Jason
670,616,629 mph. Its not just a good idea, its the
law.
Other related posts:
