3 ms·

Does it make any sense from licensing point of view to host database on windows if there is a Linux version available? As far as I understand each user hitting

Does it make any sense from licensing point of view to host database on windows if there is a Linux version available? As far as I understand each user hitting that database directly or indirectly via an app needs a CAL for that Windows Server. Outside of an enterprise (ie. Cloud) it gets veery expensive quickly. Enterprises embraced Linux long ago so not sure if rethinkdb will have much ROI on this effort.

talles 11y ago
I work in a big company (20k+ employees) and we are MS from top to bottom relying as least as possible on the cloud.
newman314 11y ago
Depends if your only options are SQL Server or Oracle (it happens a lot with enterprise software). In that case, SQL Server is often the less costly option. I would do everything possible to avoid an Oracle product based on their licensing schemes. Architecture by licensing is not a fun exercise at all.
UK-AL 11y ago
You don't have a cal for each user. Say you have rest api server, which talks to sql server. This doens't require a CAL for each user.
- polskibus 11y ago
  from http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/10/licensing-how-to-when-do-i-need-a-client-access-license-cal.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/... : The front end servers used to host your website would generally be considered as running “web workloads” and CALs or External Connectors will not be required to access these servers. Once the customer adds a widget to their shopping cart, creates an account and enters their credit card and shipping information to complete the sale – they are now authenticated via your back end commerce servers/application (non-web workload). Since users are accessing the backend commerce servers which web workloads are not running – CALs or External Connectors will be required for users to access these back end servers.
  - UK-AL 11y ago
    You would per core licensing, not Server + CAL licensing for the SQL Server. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/server-cloud/products/sql-server/purchasing.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/server-cloud/products/sql-se... I thought this would be obvious, since Server + CAL Licensing would make any public site unfeasible, and there are many large sites running on the windows stack.
    - polskibus 11y ago
      But you also need CALs for the Windows Server your database sits on.
      - UK-AL 11y ago
        External connector lisence. Also I read some Ms documentation that a windows server that runs the database for web workloads may acutally come under web workload. I can't remember that document however.
        polskibus 11y ago
        I don't remember exact number but external connector license is equal to a cost of hundreds if not thousands of CALs. If you come across that document, I'd be grateful for a URL.
skrebbel 11y ago
The HN filter bubble sometimes forgets this, but there are a lot of developers out there who use Windows (even if they don't always deploy to Windows). Not having to set up a vagrant box just to give Rethink a try may seriously influence developer adoption in this space.
- Already__Taken 11y ago
  Also while I might personally be able to get by running my DB on a linux VM some friends I'd like to share my apps to run for themselves aren't OK with linux at all. The docker rethinkdb images made this a breeze but only helps my development.
polskibus 11y ago
I wonder what in post caused such a downgrade? I'm honestly thinking about ROI for Rethinkdb, I posted link to licensing FAQ from MS in one of my responses for clarification.
danielmewes 11y ago
We've heard from a lot of users who want to run RethinkDB on their Windows computer for development purposes. Production servers could then run on either Linux or Windows. I'm not too familiar with Microsoft's licensing terms, so I can't really comment on that aspect.

talles 11y ago

I work in a big company (20k+ employees) and we are MS from top to bottom relying as least as possible on the cloud.

newman314 11y ago

Depends if your only options are SQL Server or Oracle (it happens a lot with enterprise software). In that case, SQL Server is often the less costly option. I would do everything possible to avoid an Oracle product based on their licensing schemes. Architecture by licensing is not a fun exercise at all.

UK-AL 11y ago

You don't have a cal for each user. Say you have rest api server, which talks to sql server. This doens't require a CAL for each user.

polskibus 11y ago
from http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/10/licensing-how-to-when-do-i-need-a-client-access-license-cal.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/... : The front end servers used to host your website would generally be considered as running “web workloads” and CALs or External Connectors will not be required to access these servers. Once the customer adds a widget to their shopping cart, creates an account and enters their credit card and shipping information to complete the sale – they are now authenticated via your back end commerce servers/application (non-web workload). Since users are accessing the backend commerce servers which web workloads are not running – CALs or External Connectors will be required for users to access these back end servers.
- UK-AL 11y ago
  You would per core licensing, not Server + CAL licensing for the SQL Server. https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/server-cloud/products/sql-server/purchasing.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/server-cloud/products/sql-se... I thought this would be obvious, since Server + CAL Licensing would make any public site unfeasible, and there are many large sites running on the windows stack.
  - polskibus 11y ago
    But you also need CALs for the Windows Server your database sits on.
    - UK-AL 11y ago
      External connector lisence. Also I read some Ms documentation that a windows server that runs the database for web workloads may acutally come under web workload. I can't remember that document however.
      - polskibus 11y ago
        I don't remember exact number but external connector license is equal to a cost of hundreds if not thousands of CALs. If you come across that document, I'd be grateful for a URL.

skrebbel 11y ago

The HN filter bubble sometimes forgets this, but there are a lot of developers out there who use Windows (even if they don't always deploy to Windows). Not having to set up a vagrant box just to give Rethink a try may seriously influence developer adoption in this space.

Already__Taken 11y ago
Also while I might personally be able to get by running my DB on a linux VM some friends I'd like to share my apps to run for themselves aren't OK with linux at all. The docker rethinkdb images made this a breeze but only helps my development.

polskibus 11y ago

I wonder what in post caused such a downgrade? I'm honestly thinking about ROI for Rethinkdb, I posted link to licensing FAQ from MS in one of my responses for clarification.

danielmewes 11y ago

We've heard from a lot of users who want to run RethinkDB on their Windows computer for development purposes. Production servers could then run on either Linux or Windows. I'm not too familiar with Microsoft's licensing terms, so I can't really comment on that aspect.