SQL Licensing Blank Title 120334

Yahoo Archive
1
Ryan,



I Just comparing hardware requirements between progress and SQL scared
me add that cost with the SQL licensing cost for a product that runs
slower. Fun



Patrick Winter



From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ryan Houseman
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 06:53
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Re: SQL Licensing





Yeah, this is where all the Epicor 10 talk has me tripping.
There is no way a small company like mine can take on a project like
that- our Epicor server has 2 x 4 core cpu's, and that cost is obscene.
It was like amputating limbs to get them to pull the trigger on Epicor
originally, think they'll approve 20 G's for an 'upgrade'? Fat chance,
we'll be on Epicor 9 forever, and Epicor will lose our money.
Any other companies like us out there?

Ryan Houseman
IT Manager
rhouseman@... <mailto:rhouseman%40pivotprecision.com>
<mailto:rhouseman@...
<mailto:rhouseman%40pivotprecision.com> > |
Pivot Precision
6550 Campbell Blvd
Lockport, NY 14094

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2
With all the discussion of Epicor 10 going to SQL I started looking into costs. Unless there is some major disconnect between my software rep and myself, I was told it will cost $24K to license SQL on my current Epicor 9 server. SQL is licensed based on cores, which Epicor's 905.700 guidelines say should be two 6 core Xeon processors for a company our size. It's roughly $4K for SQL server for 2 cores or $2k a core. So a dual 6 core server is $2k x 12. That seems crazy, at least for a small company like ours. We currently use Progress and SQL is something I'm not overly familiar with.
Does this sound right to everyone else?
3
The 2008 and 2012 SQL licensing is different.

In 2008 and 2008R2, the licensing is per physical processor, while in 2012
it is making the jump to per core in the processor. With the change in
method of licensing, there is also a price change as well, per core is
dropping by 75% of the per processor pricing.

"The per core licensing option switches from the earlier model of charging
per processor. Many organizations took advantage of this by purchasing
multicore processors and a single license. The license price of $1,793 per
core (with a four core minimum) is designed to be the same cost incurred for
a four-core processor under SQL Server 2008 R2 ($7.171). If you're running
four or fewer cores, you'll see no increase under this model. On the other
hand, if you're running more than four cores per processor, you'll see a
price increase."

But also take into account the cost of Client and Server CALS as well.

"The server/CAL licensing option requires a $898 licensing fee per SQL
Server. This is the same as SQL Server 2008 R2. However, you'll also need to
purchase client access licenses (CALs) for each client accessing the
database. This is where Microsoft socks you with a major increase. The fee
has now increased 27% to $209 per CAL."

I mean, as long as Epicor is supported on 2008 and 2008R2, I would stick
with it unless you have some kind of site licensing deal or actions pack or
whatever other bundles MS sells.


-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David G
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:10 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] SQL Licensing

With all the discussion of Epicor 10 going to SQL I started looking into
costs. Unless there is some major disconnect between my software rep and
myself, I was told it will cost $24K to license SQL on my current Epicor 9
server. SQL is licensed based on cores, which Epicor's 905.700 guidelines
say should be two 6 core Xeon processors for a company our size. It's
roughly $4K for SQL server for 2 cores or $2k a core. So a dual 6 core
server is $2k x 12. That seems crazy, at least for a small company like
ours. We currently use Progress and SQL is something I'm not overly familiar
with.
Does this sound right to everyone else?



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

Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must have
already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/linksYahoo! Groups Links
4
Yeah, this is where all the Epicor 10 talk has me tripping.
There is no way a small company like mine can take on a project like that- our Epicor server has 2 x 4 core cpu's, and that cost is obscene. It was like amputating limbs to get them to pull the trigger on Epicor originally, think they'll approve 20 G's for an 'upgrade'? Fat chance, we'll be on Epicor 9 forever, and Epicor will lose our money.
Any other companies like us out there?

Ryan Houseman
IT Manager
rhouseman@...<mailto:rhouseman@...> |
Pivot Precision
6550 Campbell Blvd
Lockport, NY 14094


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5
I feel like you folks are making a mountain out of a mole hill. In terms of small companies, we have less than 50 employees up to 30 concurrent users in Epicor and implemented SQL will very little overhead costs. We have a VM host (R710 with 2 x 6 procs) that runs Epicor and SQL in a single install on RAID10 SSD the entire server cost was 6200 dollars only needing more RAM to support SQL, which RAM is cheap in the scheme of things. The SQL license we purchased through Epicor at a partner discounted rate was a couple grand. And administering SQL for a small company is a piece of cake. Obviously Epicor is not going to make the move to SQL simply to alienate their customer and I would imagine they will offer some form of assistance with it. We have to trust that there are solid reasons systematically for the move. I guess if something like this really upsets you that much you can always go to the less mature MS Dynamics or MAS200. Then of course there are my favorite bloated pigs SAP and JD Edwards, of which by the way good luck customizing and maintaining a decent upgrade path on. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it seems that ignorance is driving anger here.



Joshua Giese

CTO

920.437.6400 Ext. 337

Site ID: 27450-E905700B2-SQL64

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan Houseman" <rhouseman@...>
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:53:16 AM
Subject: [Vantage] Re: SQL Licensing



Yeah, this is where all the Epicor 10 talk has me tripping.
There is no way a small company like mine can take on a project like that- our Epicor server has 2 x 4 core cpu's, and that cost is obscene. It was like amputating limbs to get them to pull the trigger on Epicor originally, think they'll approve 20 G's for an 'upgrade'? Fat chance, we'll be on Epicor 9 forever, and Epicor will lose our money.
Any other companies like us out there?

Ryan Houseman
IT Manager
rhouseman@... <mailto: rhouseman@... > |
Pivot Precision
6550 Campbell Blvd
Lockport, NY 14094

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]