Windows Server User Client Access Licences

[Beetnik]

How is a user defined?

Specifically:

I access the server for my email ([email protected]) from 5 different devices and the attached printer as required = 1 CAL required

My co-worker does the same ([email protected]) = 2nd CAL required

We both do the same for another email address ([email protected]). I'm guessing this is a another User and requires CAL #3?

 

[markjay]

That depends on what you are accessing.

File Server CALs and Email CALs are two different things.


'Windows Server User Client Access Licenses' is for accessing the file server. e.g. where you store your shared files, or database application, etc.

If there are two people at the office accessing the server, that you need 2 User CALs.

'Windows Server User Client Access Licenses' allow access to the server from any device, i.e. you are licensing users, not devices.

So in this case the number of users (i.e. 'live people') matters, but not the number of PCs or mobile devices etc in use by these people.


As for email, this is covered by the your email provider's licensing, i.e. the 'Windows Server User Client Access Licenses' is not relevant here.

So if you are using say Office 365, then the licensing T&C for Office 365 apply, not those of 'Windows Server User Client Access Licenses'.


Does this answer the question?

 

[Beetnik]

Thanks Mark.

We're using WIN SBS 2011 which, as I understand it, is an all-in-one solution so should only need 1 set of CALs? These?
I've been asked to review the licences as we may be a few short*.
As many users access via a number of devices I guess user CALs are the way to go rather than device CALS.
*It's been suggested that we need user CALs for any account on the server so:
bill.bloggs - member of staff needs a CAL to pick up email (Outlook/Exchange) but so do
accounts
admin
info
webmaster etc - all have associated email accounts but the mail is picked up by real people.

I want to be sure that we have the required # of licences but don't want to buy them if not required.

 

[markjay]

SBS includes Exchange (email server), and you would have a License pack that includes the server plus a number of CALs (5, 10, etc).

If the CALs are User CALs (as opposed to Device CALs), then all that matters is the number of users.

As for mailboxes, one mailbox can have several email addresses, hence not every email address requires it's own mailbox, and distribution lists (group email address) don't count as mailboxes either.

 

[markjay]

What is the immediate issue with licensing ?

Is everything working as it should, but you are concerned about compliance?

Or have you reached some physical limit and you are unable to create additional accounts or mailboxes etc?

 

[Beetnik]

Everything's working fine - I just want to be sure we're compliant and top up the licences if need be and allow room for some more growth while I can still find some - MS don't sell 'em any more...

 

[markjay]

If you have User CALs, then you need one CAL per (live) user.

You do not need a CAL for each mailbox or for each AD account on the server.

Said that - if you need more CALs, You can still purchase SBS 2011 CALs, Google the Part Numbers below:

SBS 2011 CAL Suite Standard - User CAL - P/N 6UA-03863

SBS 2011 Premium AddOn CAL Suite Standard - User CAL - P/N 2YG-00873

(This is through Open Licensing, so some purchase restrictions apply)

 

[markmifsud]

you can always phone Microsoft Licensing and they will be happy to validate what you have and what you need. For my environment I have user cals, exchange cals and enterprise exchange cals.

 

[markjay]

you can always phone Microsoft Licensing and they will be happy to validate what you have and what you need. For my environment I have user cals, exchange cals and enterprise exchange cals.

This is correct.

In Beetnik's case, a single SBS CAL covers Windows Server access, SQL, Exchange, and Remote Desktop Services.

 

[rockits]

I have some cheap brand new sealed SBS 2011 CAL's if you need any. They are HP part codes for HP hardware though. Also have a brand new sealed unused SBS2011 premium add-on. This is generic OEM for any hardware though. I think I have 3 x 5 user CAL's and 1 x SBS 2011 Premiun Add-on.

SBS only needs one cal per user and covers file, email and full abs connections. They are much more expensive than std Windows CAL's though.

Bill Gates isn't the worlds richest so often for now reason!

 

[markjay]

...They are much more expensive than std Windows CAL's though....

If all you need is Windows server then yes SBS CAL costs twice as much as Standard Windows Server CAL.

But SBS comprises of Windows server, Exchange, SQL, and Terminal Server.

If you did need to use all four then compared to buying all four CALs individuly SBS CAL is much much cheaper - buying all four CALs individually will cost 7 times what SBS CAL costs.


Incidentally Microsoft stopped development of SBS, if you're a small business then their preferred route for you is Office 365, OneDrive, and Azure.

 

[moonloops]

How quaint having a physical server - well done having to deal with all the support and licensing nonsense. What's next, a new fax machine?..

Only kidding, but it is far better to get hosted email to get rid of all such complications.

 

[rockits]

We are replacing many customer SBS Servers with 2012 R2 Essentials + Office 365 Business Essentials now. SBS was great for many many years but now no longer required really. This is from someone who has sold/serviced/supported them for many many years! Times change.

 

[moonloops]

We are replacing many customer SBS Servers with 2012 R2 Essentials + Office 365 Business Essentials now. SBS was great for many many years but now no longer required really. This is from someone who has sold/serviced/supported them for many many years! Times change.

Sounds about right.

 

[rockits]

A full hosted server Inc. file server would work well for many if the internet line infrastructure in this country wasn't so naff and behind the times!

 

[moonloops]

A full hosted server Inc. file server would work well for many if the internet line infrastructure in this country wasn't so naff and behind the times!

10GB fibre at work, 100MB fibre at home for me so things can work properly, but yep 99% of folks don't have fast access. We keep file serving local but everything else is hosted.

 

[markjay]

Since 2011, all our new installations are either virtualised on local hardware (HP + ESXi) or Hosted (Public or Private Cloud), or a mixture of both.

 

[markjay]

As for Internet.... Dedicated Fibre still costs an arm and a leg, FTTC is a joke - the last leg is copper, so it has no future.... they got 56k out of Analogue Modem, 20/2.5mbps out of ADSL, and 80/20mbps out of FTTC... but copper is now pushed to the limit, even if they do manage to squeeze 320mbps out of it. Long term, there is no substitute to FTTP which is what they have almost everywhere in Europe. But BT keep beating the 'Fast Fibre' drum of BT Infinity.......

 

[rockits]

Makes me laugh that people that don't really need it get silly speeds and people who desperately need it are struggling.

My parents get FTTC about 75mb down, are retired and live on the South Coast in Seaford. They can't work a computer that fast!

Large industrial estate at Bolney Grange north of Brighton has 50 odd businesses and get about 1-1.1mb down each!

Private/dedicated fibre in Central London has become much cheaper with 100mb 1:1 often about £300 per month now in many locations.

BDUK committed only £40m this year since April 15 & it ran out in Oct! They have no such fund from April 16...laughable. Germany have committed 2.2bn EURO for their national upgrade plan to give min 50mb/s to the whole country. The UK is way way way behind....again.

 

[rockits]

The govt. go on about a Better Connected Britain! They haven't got a clue. Do it properly...do it quick. There will be some disturbances but so what. The UK needs better Internet as it is stiffling small business in this country.

Don't do another M25 and only build 3 lanes. Do it right first time & it won't need doing again for a long time.