<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Strategies for licensing SQL Server on a per-processor basis ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-19T07:07:45-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not Necessarily]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3259626]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I've been watching a critical system that was built on all of these wonderful &quot;free&quot; products by a bunch of MIT grads go down over and over again because of serious issues with handling a slightly increased load. When you take into account time to market, support, less than optimal performance, etc... it pays to go with a product that can actually do the job. My company's success can not be pinned to something just because there's little to no up front costs!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3259626]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CloseToTheEdge]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:05:28 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Per Physical Processor]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3244344]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That is correct you would have needed 4 Per Processor Licenses. The best way to think of and remember this is they are referring to the actual &quot;physical&quot; processor and not the actual cores. Even though the system sees multiple CPU's again it comes back to the physicality of the actual CPU itself they are referring to. Hope this helps.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3244344]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[randy_scadden@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:25:46 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Free licensing is even better...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3244315]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Microsoft is doing their best to move everyone to MySQL and Postgres]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3244315]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dwright@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:09:51 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Per Processor not per Core]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3241783]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[SQL Server per processor licensing is per processor, not per core. You would have only needed 4 processor licenses.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3241783]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jerimys]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:54:43 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[per-pocessor  or per core]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3241711]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[we have always been under the impression ( from our vendors) that if you have SQL running on a server with say 4 quad-core processors. ( 16 cores). it would be best to get the unlimited lic for the server. As you would need 16 lic.  and this was told to us by most verndors. Have always thought this was wrong.  Clarify. Thanks]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-325614-3241711]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jeyer]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:31:41 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

