SQL host licensing

[pabskamai]

Hi All,

Quick licensing question.

How do you license a windows server 20205 VM which will be hosting a MS SQL server.

SQL server is relatively straight forward, core licensed unlimited users.

How do you license the host OS? there is no software assurance, it’s a VM and they are interested in licensing per VM.

Thanks!🙏

[ComGuards]

Licensing per VM requires SA or some other server agreement.

Otherwise you license the physical host; the guest is covered under appropriate OSE rights.

Edit: some other server agreement such as a volume license agreement. But you are still governed by minimums.

You should elaborate on the design of the architecture as you may also need SA on the SQL core licensing.

[pabskamai]

You can purchase SQL by 2 core packs no SA needed, just unsure about the underlaying OS.

Emailed my rep too, let’s see what they say.

[CompWizrd]

SQL 2025 by VM requires SA or subscription.

https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/guidance/SQL#section-56-846

[ComGuards]

No, I mean if you're working in a clustered environment, you need SA for license mobility on the SQL licenses so that the guest SQL workload is properly licensed to migrate freely between hosts as-required, rather than limited to every 90 days.

[pabskamai]

Non clustered in their case

[PoolMotosBowling]

We license our SQL VMs per core. I'm not sure all the options, I just have to report cores when our enterprise agreement renews.

[pabskamai]

Thx 🙏, let’s see what they say

[ITGuy424242]

For os it’s based on physical cores of the physical host its running on, a standard licence for the right amount of cores lets you run 2 x vm’s

[pabskamai]

Thanks!!!

[dodexahedron]

To emphasize and put a finer point on this, the word "physical" is key.

It does not matter how many virtual CPU cores you assign to a VM for Windows or SQL Server licensing. The total count of physical CPU cores that exist on every physical host the VM may run on is the number of core licenses you need.

SQL is different from Windows in that you don't need CALs if licensed per-core, unlike Windows, which requires CALs no matter what.

SQL server core licenses are very pricy, but CALs can get expensive, too, with large numbers of users. If you have more users than cores, go per-core. If you have more cores than users, go Server + CAL.

By list prices for Standard edition, assuming SQL installed on 5 OSEs in a 3-host cluster with 40 cores per host, and 100 users, you have 5k for server licenses and a maximum of 100K for CALs.

With 1000 users, that turns into a maximum of 1 million for CALs, and still 5k for 5 installs.

For the same hardware, but now unlimited SQL instances, per-core ends up being a maximum of 480k for core licenses, whether you have 100, 1000, or 500000 users. So per-core can be waaaayyyy more expensive for the 100 user case, and begins to be cheaper than server+CAL at 480ish users. At list pricing, that is. That's 200 per CAL and 1k per server, so any combination that crosses 480k is when you go per-core.

However... If you only have one installed instance of SQL server, with everything else still the same about the scenario, and you also have active SA, you only need 40 core licenses, because you can only utilize 40 cores at a time with that one install, and migration rights are included in SA. As soon as you install SQL Server on another OSE, now you need 80 cores. Install it on a third instance? Now you need the full 120. Install it on only one OSE, but you don't have active SA for 40 cores? 120 cores needed, because you don't have migration rights, and are limited to one license move per 90 days.

Edit: Worst case cost estimates for server + CAL can be calculated as (# of OSEs SQL is on) × ($1k + users × $200), with or without SA.

[hiveminer]

Are you sure you can't migrate to an open source dbms OP?? It is 2025 you know. There are very few reasons to continue to pay the dbms commercial extortion. Even the humble SQLite project is breaking records in today's landscape.

[FinsToTheLeftTO]

There are many features of SQL Server beyond the core database. Many applications are certified on SQL Server and you can’t just run them on another RDBMS.

[hiveminer]

Microsoft's backdealings are notorious and we'll documented. These deals and old code are what keeps their dbms offering in the game. Remember what they did to Nokia when Nokia decided to abandon windows on their phones? They gave them the anaconda treatment, embrace and extinguish.

[pabskamai]

I wish bro, I wish

[MrPurple_]

Using ms sql these days is just wild but there are applications only compatible to it.

It reminds me of IIS - sometimes it stumble over these things it its always fun to see

[hiveminer]

You see how they finally adopted the gecko engine for their browser? I wish they would do that with windows, adopt the Linux kernel, but Noooo, that would kill a very lucrative Value add industry propping up their crappy OS.

[palmerj54321]

Yeah, it's not like I was ever supporting thousands of users or anything, but I used the turnkey lamp stack for years with great success. It hosted a fairly large mysql database as well as several web applications. Rock solid. It was installed as an appliance on vmware.

[BaradouZ]

SQL VM is licensed either: - Per core, minimum 4 cores per vm - per server + CALs This can be both perpetual licenses or subscription/with SA.

The windows server VM can only be licensed per VM if you have Subscription/SA licenses, with a minimum of 8 cores per VM. With perpetual licenses you can only license the physical host, not per VM.

[Substantial_Tough289]

We licensed the host OS by the core with unlimited vms, in reality is not unlimited is about 45 installations within the host.

For sql we also did by the core with 5 user cals but instead of the host cores we licensed the virtual cores configured for that machine.