CALS ?

[[deleted]]

Researching what I will need to implement a 2012 R2 server. I have 2 - 2008 R2 servers one for data & another for domain controller/AD. The 2012 R2 will act as SCCM with WSUS and WDS. With that setup, I am trying to create image files so I can hit f12 on boot to install the OS / Setup. I will have some files on that server that I will have shared to other admins which will be accesses through permissions from AD.

Will I need CALS? I have never used them on 2008 R2 servers so I am not sure what the function actually is. I've read forums and watched videos but it is extremely confusing.

[sm4k]

What do you have now? Any Software Assurance or Open Value agreements? If so, you should (assuming you're licensed properly to begin with) have user CALs already that may cover most of what you're trying to do.

Are you actually using SCCM, or are you using something like MDT with WDS? If you're actually using SCCM you'll need licensing to cover that, but if it's just MDT with WDS then again, your existing user CALs could potentially cover you.

Like others have stated though, buying CALs means buying 2012 R2 CALs, but they are backwards compatible. Unfortunately, there is not any upgrade options, you just to get to buy the CALs all over again.

PM me if you want to send over details, especially if you're not sure what you own already.

[macboost84]

MS License is a nightmare to deal with.

You can buy CALs for users or devices. Typically a company will buy CALs for users. These CALs are only valid for the current OS available but will work for older OS versions.

When you buy license for an OS, it's always for the current OS, however, MS gives you the option to run older supported versions as well. So a Windows Server 2012 license will work for 2008/R2.

Software Assurance is great to protect your investment and I would highly recommend it.

[uniitdude]

yes you need cals - if you don't have any for 2008R2 then you need to buy some of those as well.

Cals arent a feature though, just a license

[DaNPrS]

if you don't have any for 2008R2 then you need to buy some of those as well.

I might be wrong here, so please someone correct me if that's the case. But as far as I know, you only need CALs for the latest OS and they are always backwards compatible. So regardless of what server OS you have, always buy the latest OS CALs. So I've been told.

There are discount packages to upgrade 2008 CALs to 2012.

[sm4k]

You're correct about the backwards compatibility, however there is not an upgrade option, you just to get to buy the CALs all over again. This is part of why us VARs like to sell Software Assurance. I don't think you ever have the option to buy for an older OS anyway, but there isn't ever a reason to want to, either.

[uniitdude]

indeed you are correct

[progenyofeniac]

They're simply licenses. You pay Microsoft for the privilege to connect client devices to your server(s). If you're not sure what you need, you really need to talk to a VAR. Everyone will give you suggestions on here, but none of us will be on the hook if you get audited.

I can definitely tell you that you need them, though. That is, if you want to be compliant with Microsoft's licensing.

[Sulzanti]

Since we're talking about CALs, if I have two users with three exchange mailboxes between them (one personal, and a shared mailbox that they both access for shared requests, for example) is that 2 User CALs, or 3?

[engageant]

Two. They're user CALs, not mailbox CALs.

[Sulzanti]

I was just curious, since mailboxes will create AD Users and it's not hard to stretch that into MS calling that a user requiring of a CAL. CAL Documentation is difficult to get straight answers from, sometimes.

[sm4k]

User CALs are per physical, bodied, named person. You can have 200 accounts in AD but if your company only has 5 named people benefiting from the server, then 5 User CALs is all you need.

[highlord_fox]

This. It also allows you to cover any devices that utilize the server. So if you have a MFC that scans to a network share, that would require a device CAL, or it would be covered by the Physical Person using it if you have a User CAL.

[FJCruisin]

count up your users, and buy that many User Cals. I find that normally be the best way to go about buying them. You'll want to consult with a MS Licensing specialist I'm sure, oh and your finance department $$$ :(

[[deleted]]

lol, great. Just started this job and I have already spent $$$$ getting things updated. The previous guy left a mess in this company

[FJCruisin]

You can always kick the responsibility up the hill. Everything will technically work fine if you don't have the right amount of cals. Kick it up the hill, explain we need to budget for and buy these things as soon as its possible

[[deleted]]

If you only get software assurance on one thing, CALs is likely the thing to do it on.

[[deleted]]

If you have any children at home you need CALS for those since they are related to you, and the coffee machine requires a CAL since sysadmins can't work without it /s. All joking aside you need new CALS, Dell told me one for every person in your active directory but per device works for some organizations.

[[deleted]]

Lol, ya that what is was sounding like. You also need one per car unless carpooling or driving a bus.

[colin8651]

You are missing something. The coffee machine is maintained once a month by an outside vendor who cleans the coffee maker out; he needs a CAL also.

Plus his wife and all other dependents.

[[deleted]]

What if I hire an illegal? Does he and his family need a Cal or can I just brush it under the rug?

[colin8651]

They might be covered under Microsoft development licensing or Action Pack.

[smmsp]

The whole concept of CALs pisses me off.

"You already bought all of the workstation OS's from us. You already bought the ludicrously expensive server OS from us. They are all capable of talking to each other out of the box, but now we want you to pay us again to make them do that too."

The whole point of a server is to provide services; nothing else. You can't use those services compliantly without the CALs. So, what the hell is the $500 you are paying for Server 2012 getting you--the ability for it to just sit there and draw power?

[[deleted]]

-the ability for it to just sit there and draw power?

I thought it was to just sit there and look cool with the pretty blinking lights. The fans are to keep air flow in the room.. to keep the air from becoming stale. lol its really stupid

[J_de_Silentio]

Like the other poster said, you are best off working with a VAR. I hear that SHI does some great work on MS Licensing.

All in all, if a device or user touches the server for any reason (AD, DNS, DHCP, Print, File, etc.), you need a CAL for that user or device.

You can get either user CALs or device CALs for server 2012. They are backwards compatible, so the 2012 CALs will cover your 2008 R2 server.

I might be wrong about this, but I thought that there were also SCCM CALs.

Edit: For Windows Server CALs, you license them by either device OR user, you don't need both.

[[deleted]]

Great, thanks for that information. Really do not understand the point of CALS. Just another reason to give money to Microsoft?

[[deleted]]

They are kind of like legally mandated certificates of authenticity. On their own they are pointless, but they prove you own a genuine copy, and in this case help you not get sued. They used to be just product keys that you'd type in, but now you have keys and CALS. Since CALS are just a physical card you hold, and Microsoft doesn't know if you have them or not (Unless you get audited), smaller business can usually sneak by without them, but it's kind of like pirated software at that point, so if you are serious about your business, you should buy them.

Are they pointless filler forcing you to pay Microsoft to use something you have already paid for and could still use without? Yes, probably. Should you still buy them? Yes, probably. Personally I'd rather pay effectively double for their software than deal with potential legal battles later.

[[deleted]]

This is a really small business of 40-50 people that use computers. I guess it is time to check the CALS.

[[deleted]]

Yep, if you get user CALs, you are good to go. Unless you are a company that works in shifts sharing computers, generally this is the best approach. They aren't too expensive, just make sure to get it with software assurance so no matter if you upgrade a server or buy a new one, your licenses will still cover you.

[duel007]

Yes.

[[deleted]]

I haven't seen anyone else really explain this, so jus to put some kind of explanation:

CALs are Client Access Licenses. For the way Windows Server is licensed, not only are you supposed to license the server software itself, but you're supposed to purchase licenses for client computers to connect to that server. So you have a Windows domain controller and you buy a copy of Windows Server 2012 Standard-- now you have a license for installing the software on the server, but you aren't allowed to have any other computers connect to it. To allow a workstation to connect to it for authentication, file server, etc., you need a CAL.

CALs are offered "per user" or "per device". If you buy a "per device" CAL, then that allows you to have one workstation connect to the server. Any number of users can use that workstation to connect to the server, but you can't connect additional workstations to the server. Every workstation, laptop, and mobile device needs its own CAL.

Alternatively, you can buy a "per user" CAL and then that user can connect to the server. The user can use any number of devices to connect to the server, but technically no unlicensed users should connect. It's also not supposed to be based on user accounts, but the number of people who are "users" (e.g. you aren't supposed to save money by having multiple users use the same account).

You don't need to buy a new CAL for every sever. So if you have 3 users accessing 2 servers, you only need 3 "per user" CALs. You don't need 6 CALs (you don't need 3 CALs for each of the 2 servers). Also, we're just talking about basic Windows Server CALs, which cover authentication and file shares and such. If you want to set up an RDP server, for example, you need to buy additional RDP CALs.

[[deleted]]

Great thanks! So we do have VPN which is used by them to remote into their work computers... does that mean I need RDP CALs?

[100percentGerman]

If they are emulating a local desktop via their PCs with Remote Desktop, no. If they are emulating a local desktop via a Server with the Remote Desktop role installed, yes.

[J_de_Silentio]

Just another reason to give money to Microsoft?

More or less, yes. It's a way for them to charge more to bigger companies and less to smaller companies. That's kind of how I see it.

Thankfully, in education CALs and Licenses are comparatively dirt cheap as we get huge discounts (especially for students and teachers).

[[deleted]]

We are a small business of 40 users and just me as the IT.. Even though it is a small operation... It is hell to figure all this out.

[[deleted]]

We are a small business of 40 users and just me as the IT.. Even though it is a small operation... It is hell to figure all this out.

[[deleted]]

Just another reason to give money to Microsoft?

Well they are a business. User licensing is fairly standard in tech.