SCCM 2007 and licensing

myITforum.com Community Forum

Home Forums Blogs Live Support chat Search Articles Wiki FAQ Email Lists Register Login My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums

Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ Ticket List Log Out

All Forums RSS Feed Subscription:

SCCM 2007 and licensing

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Management Products] >> System Center Products >> System Center Configuration Manager >> SCCM 2007 and licensing

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

SCCM 2007 and licensing - 4/9/2008 2:39:02 PM

mthaxter

Posts: 18
Score: 0
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline

Hello,
I hope I'm asking in the right place so here I go.
I was looking at the MS site about SCCM 2007.
We're are going to migrate from SMS2003 sp2->sp3 soon then when we get the funds to SCCM 2007 for the features we will need to help support our clients.
My question is on Client Licensing (CL):

Do we need an SQL CL for each of the SCCM clients (we know about needing a SCCM CL for each client)?
If we get the SCCM with SQL Tech do we need those SQL CL? Since, in theory only the SCCM and maybe a few consoles will need direct access to the SQL server, so like 5 CLs.

Thanks in advance.

_____________________________

Remember!
No matter where you go.
There you are!
Work Blog

Post #: 1

RE: SCCM 2007 and licensing - 4/15/2008 5:30:07 AM

atodd

Posts: 22
Score: 0
Joined: 5/9/2006
Status: offline

I'm no SQL licensing expert but there are different license models for SQL, you can have per-processor socket or per client. For the per client I believe that you will need to have a CL for every device that the database has data about( please correct me if I'm wrong). I think the SQL license that come with SMS/SCCM is a per-processor license but you will only be licensed to run the SMS/SCCM instance on the SQL server and this can be local or remote to the site server.

Hope this helps and please correct me if I'm wrong.

(in reply to mthaxter)

Post #: 2