Moving to SQL Server 2012 is a good thing . . . but it's not clear to me how to license it.

The Business Intelligence Edition uses the Server plus CAL model. The licensing guide says:

"To access a licensed SQL Server, each user or device must have a SQL Server CAL that is the same version or newer than the SQL Server software version being accessed. For example, to access a server running SQL Server 2012 software, a user needs a SQL Server 2012 CAL."

The implication is that it is the access i.e. each authenticated connection that is what's being licensed. 

The consequence is that I could have a pool of 20 users, working in 2 shifts of 10, and I would need 10 CALs as I only have 10 authenticated users connecting to SQL Server at any one time.

Certainly, this would be the case for device CALs. If I had 10 point-of-sale terminals, I'd have 10 device CALs, no matter how many sales people I had. That is very clear in the licensing reference guide where it says "Devices not operated by humans require device CALs, even when connecting to SQL Server indirectly. For human operated devices such as PCs or hand-held terminals, a user CAL or device CAL can be used."

Is is possible someone could confirm my understanding, please? Which is . . .

it is the number of actual concurrent authenticated connections that is being licensed,

and not the total number of people who might ever connect to the business intelligence instance.

Cheers, Donna

is the number of actual concurrent authenticated connections that is being licensed,

and not the total number of people who might ever connect to the business intelligence instance.

Cheers, Donna

Sorry Srinivasan, but that's not true.  SQL Server 2012 licensing for the Business Intelligence edition is Server + CAL only.

Check out http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/3/C/73CAD4E0-D0B5-4BE5-AB49-D5B886A5AE00/SQL_Server_2012_Licensing_Reference_Guide.pdf

It's the reference guide, and it says:  "The Server+CAL licensing model is appropriate when:  Deploying the SQL Server Business Intelligence Edition"

Hello,

SQL Server 2012 Business Intelligence Edition is available only under a server/CAL licensing model which menas that we should pay for server licenses per SQL Server and also purchase client access licenses (CALs) for each client accessing the database.

Reference:http://databases.about.com/od/sqlserver/a/sql_server_2012_licensing.htm
http://blogs.technet.com/b/uspartner_ts2team/archive/2011/11/30/a-concise-sql-server-2012-licensing-overview.aspx

For the detail description about Microsoft Client Access Licenses(CAL), please refer to the following blog:
http://www.boyce.us/articles/licensing_cals.asp

Regards,
Fanny Liu

If you have any feedback on our support, please click  here.

Fanny,

you said "SQL Server 2012 Business Intelligence Edition is available only under a server/CAL licensing model which menas that we should pay for server licenses per SQL Server and also purchase client access licenses (CALs) for each client accessing the database."

I'm pretty sure that's what I said in the OP, but if I was unclear about anything, please tell me so that I can clarify.  

Cutting to the chase, the central issue is 'what is a user', and the answer is critical to whether or not the BI Edition of SQL Server has a future.  

A.  If a user is someone who might access the BI box at some time, ever, then I need a CAL for every person in the enterprise . . . say, 4000.

B.   If a user is someone who is actively using the BI box then I need only enough CALs for my pool of active users, which is a lot smaller, say 50.

The breakeven point is about 250.  Above this number, Enterprise is cheaper than BI.  If the answer to 'what is a user' is scenario A, then the BI edition is dead, as the only organisations that need a BI edition are those with employee counts > 250.  I'd be obliged if you'd correct me if I'm wrong about this conclusion.

BTW, I checked out the links . . . unfortunately, they're rather old and don't refer to licensing SQL Server 2012 BI edition.  The link I supplied is up to date.

Hello,

Sorry for delay.
Please call 1-800-426-9400, Monday through Friday, 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. (Pacific Time) to speak directly to a Microsoft licensing specialist. For international customers, please use the Guide to Worldwide Microsoft Licensing Sites to find contact information in your locations.
You can also visit the following site for more information and support on licensing issues:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/mla/default.aspx

Regards,
Fanny Liu

If you have any feedback on our support, please click  here.

Fanny,

please be aware  that the Microsoft License Advisor sheds no light whatsoever on this issue.

Further, searching on "Guide to Worldwide Microsoft Licensing Sites" leads to http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/worldwide.aspx.  This site is Microsoft Volume Licensing Worldwide, and provides a link to "Visit our worldwide sites to find Microsoft Volume Licensing information for specific countries/regions" .

Whilst local/regional information is no doubt interesting, it's unfortunately not helpful in getting a definitive answer from Microsoft as a company as to what is intended.  

I refer again to my question 'what is a user?' and point out that the answer is critical to whether or not the BI edition of SQL Server has a future and re-iterate my dilemma:

A.  If a user is someone who might access the BI box at some time, ever, then I need a CAL for every person in the enterprise . . . say, 4000.

B.   If a user is someone who is actively using the BI box then I need only enough CALs for my pool of active users, which is a lot smaller, say 50.

The break-even point is about 250.  Above this number, Enterprise is cheaper than BI.  If the answer to 'what is a user' is scenario A, then the BI edition is dead, as the only organisations that need a BI edition are those with employee counts > 250.  I'd be obliged if you'd correct me if I'm wrong about this conclusion.

Regards,

Donna Kelly

A.  If a user is someone who might access the BI box at some time, ever, then I need a CAL for every person in the enterprise . . . say, 4000.

B.   If a user is someone who is actively using the BI box then I need only enough CALs for my pool of active users, which is a lot smaller, say 50.

The answer is A. For user CALs each user who accesses the server requires a CAL.  It is not based on the number of concurrent users.  The Server/CAL model was retained for BI edition to allow an option of licensing Business Intelligence by the user, instead of by the core. This aligns with how SharePoint Enterprise Edition is licensed, which contains the rest of the Microsoft Business Intelligence stack (Excel Server, PowerPivot for SharePoint, Power View,  and PerformancePoint).

The thing that you may be missing about the CAL model is that a user CAL enables a user to access any number of SQL Servers licensed under the Server/CAL model.  There are scenarios where core-based licensing is cheaper, and there are scenarios where it is mandatory.

The other thing to consider is that the BI workloads are heavily virtualized, and customers are increasingly using Enterprise Edition's unlimited virtualization benefit to license SQL on consolidated virtualization solutions. 

David

David, 

thanks for your comment.  You make a sound point regarding a CAL being 'personal', allowing each user to access every SQL Server licensed Server+CAL. However, that's offset by the fact that Enterprise is only available via the per-core model.

Given that, I can't see a situation where it's ever cost-effective to get the BI Edition. 

You want cheap and cheerful, you go Standard plus third-party tools for your self-service. 

You want full-tilt, you hold your nose and go Enterprise (and you can do Pervasive Business Intelligence, just like Microsoft said to do, when they published the Business Week report on the value of same). 

Of course, when there's an EAP scheme in place, the cost of Enterprise can drop so much that it becomes cost-effective at a really low number of CALs. As well, that kind of organization is the size of a hospital - or maybe bigger - and thus the number/cost of potential CALs would be stratospheric.  Enterprise becomes way cheaper than the BI Edition. 

Indeed, I cannot see a situation where BI Edition is ever going to be cheaper than Enterprise, for a reasonable size organization, where 'a user is someone who might potentially use business intelligence'. 

Therefore, the BI Edition is stone, cold, dead.

Dunno what Microsoft was thinking about, really.  Maybe the licensing guys didn't know what people like Bill Baker was saying when he talked about Microsoft's effort to "do a lot to accelerate the adoption of Business Intelligence" throughout enterprises.  Or maybe they had never even heard of Bill Baker?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responding to your comment about:" BI workloads are heavily virtualized . . . "

About eighteen months ago, I wrote a paper called "Don't Virtualize your BI" which said that the traditional reason for virtualization - multi-system load-sharing to use up resources in a relatively much bigger box - was exactly wrong for BI.  That was because the BI workload can vary from a few percent of a machine's capacity all the way up to maxing out even a biggish box, in just a few seconds.  Therefore, you needed to make available all the box's resources to the BI workload, knowing that it would be grossly under-utilized most of the time. Virtualization was thus the last thing anyone would want to do.

I would add that I did run my conclusions past James Akrigg, the Head of Technology in Microsoft UK, and he did agree with me.

One exception: virtualization to 'shell' the virtual BI machine for reasons of easy portability.   The box itself is not shared, of course.