Windows Server 2003 CALs
Hello Everyone,
Im in the process of buying a server for my work place. I am very confused about the CALs associated with Windows Server 2003. I know you get 5 CALs with the purchase of the OS but do I need to purchase additional CALs? I currently have about 20 users with licensed copies of XP Pro that needs to access this machine. The server will be a DC and a file server. Can someone explain to me how the licensing works. What would happen if I exceed the the default 5 CALs?
Thank
ltran1578
Im in the process of buying a server for my work place. I am very confused about the CALs associated with Windows Server 2003. I know you get 5 CALs with the purchase of the OS but do I need to purchase additional CALs? I currently have about 20 users with licensed copies of XP Pro that needs to access this machine. The server will be a DC and a file server. Can someone explain to me how the licensing works. What would happen if I exceed the the default 5 CALs?
Thank
ltran1578
0
Comments
The server license (Cal's) is the number of concurent users that can access the server at any one time. If that server is the Domain controller and all the users are part of the active directory structure then everytime a user logs into the server it uses up one of those Cal's. So if you have 20 computers that are all logging into the server because it's the domain, file, and/or print server then you'll need 20 Cals (or in your case 15 more).
keep in mind that these are concurrent liscenses and not per user licenses. Which means you could have 40 user accounts but only 20 of them could be signed onto the server at any one time. These cal's are also used up if you have remote clients logging in. If you are using it also to server web pages then IIS may use up 1 Cal regardless of how many people are viewing that web page(s). But I'm not 100% on that because from time to time that has changed - by not sure I mean running IIS may not chew up any Cal's not that it'd chew up a cal for every veiwer of a page.
Microsoft use to offer per user licenses but I believe they've stopped that because they are a waste of time, specially with the way most businesses now work.
If you have more users trying to log in then Cal's they simply won't be able to log into the server. They can still turn on their computers and log in locally to them they just won't be attached to the network.
So that's the legal answer. Now this could have changed on a Win2k3 but on a Win2k server you can just tell it however many Cal's you have and it doesn't check.
Of course now the other question is, why run a win2k3 server? You could also run a linux server with Samba and have it do the exact same things and not have to deal with server/user licensing at all. But then again that's just the linux geek in me talking. The actual implementation of setting up a linux server is only easy if you actually know how to. Windows on the other hand is certainly more straight forward and depending on specific needs more practical.
Per user CAL's come in handy when you have more than one server. If you use the concurrent licenses you have to buy them for each server. If you have 10 people [edit] all concurrently [/edit] accessing two servers, you would need 10 licenses on server 1 and 10 licenses on server 2 for a total of 20 licenses. If you have a per user license, you only need 10.
BTW, It really is per device. If you have 5 different people logging onto a single computer that connects to a server you only need 1 licenses for that computer
I hope that helps
Thanks again,
ltran1578
Linux is really your only other alternative if you want to save huge costs on software and licensing.
Anyway, I am confused with the whole licensing thing too... I have been administrating a Server in this office for about a year now - which I have 10 licenses for, everything has worked fine.
Now we want to incorporate another branch office (across the country) in with this network, so we will have to buy another Windows 2003 server for that office as well (for redundancy/backup reasons) and we want to have both offices on the same domain so they dont have to VPN in anymore (I think the servers can establish a 2-way VPN with each other).
So, my questions are,
1. Do I have to buy a new copy of windows server 2003, or is it possible to buy a "server license" (and where the hell can you find one) and use the old copy of windows server 2003?
2. Do I have to buy 10 more user CAL licenses for the new server if the combined amount of people using both servers (which will be on the same domain) does not exceed 10? Do the two servers "share" User CAL's?
The other office doesn't need a domain server as long as they have a router that acts as a gateway and hands out unified IP address for the computers there.
If all files are going to be stored on the current server and the one in the other office is for redundancy then it doesn't need to be a primary domain controller, though you would have to make it a secondary domain controller if you want it to act as a fall back should your primary fail.
If all that one is going to be doing is acting as remote file backup then you wouldn't even have to setup xp 2003 server on it, you could just have a regular windows (or linux) box and just put file sharing on it.
For the VPN tunnel to be stable and secure I'd suggest investing in a couple really good VPN enabled routers and not use the windows servers to maintain the connection. 1st the routers are more secure and they also are more reliable. They are less prone to crashes and boot up faster should there be a power failure. Plus if you need to reboot your windows server for whatever reason you won't loose your vpn tunnel.
The problem is that this office is in New Orleans and if we have another hurricane the other server (in Chicago) is going to have to take over the company for however long (5 months for Hurrican Katrina).
So given that, do you agree that we need two copies of Windows Server 2003 and to accomplish this?
It really depends on what you have those servers doing. For example with such a small office you could easily run a scenario like this:
modem <--> router <--> switch <---> multiple connecte IP devices.
Now in a case like this the router handles your network connection to the world. It acts as the gateway and also acts ad the DHCP server (hands out IP addresses). You can then have your 10 or so terminals not to mention network printers, copiers - whatever.
In a case like this just make sure every computer is a member of the same workgroup, no domain controller. Each computer would be an identity to itself and would authenticate only to itself, but could share resources. You could have one computer alone that acts as the file server just by puting up shared folders for the work group to access. This is in every bit the same type of set up you'd have at home. You couldn't 'roll' anything out such as updates or corporate anti-virus software it would all have to be micromanaged. But with only a few people it's usually pretty easily done and is certianly much cheaper. Plus you don't need any server licensing.
So to answer your question, if you do want a primary domain and a secondary domain, then yes I agree you need two copies of windows 2k3 server. The question I pose is really do you need a domain server?
And of course there is the linux route.
If it were up to me personally I'd do this :
modem <-> router <-> linux box <-> switch <-> IP connected Devices.
In this setting the linux box acts as the gateway, does all the file sharing and whatever else you want it to do (email, web proxy etc..). It also acts as a domain controller. Windows boxes can authenticate to it. You wouldn't be able to roll out patches and anti-virus software but you gain all the other advantages.
One word of caution is that the applications you are running on that server are pretty intensive and you may even with 10 users notice some speed issues depending on what hardware the server is. I would certainly recomend at least a dual processor with minimum 4gigs of ram and a 2 drive scsi or sata raid. Preferably 4 drives with 2 acting as redundant if this is seriously business critical.