Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of Pau Lo
Pau Lo

asked on

exchange liscensing

Can I ask how exchange server is liscenced? What kinds of liscence are involved, i.e. are there any specifics on how many mailboxes you store in your mailbox databases? Or the types of server roles you use in your environment? We need to check our compliance to software liscensing and would be interested to know how you would go about it for your exchange environment.. having never purchased software liscences for server apps like exchange, in what format does the liscence come? Can you obtain liscence keys via any sort of shell commands? And do they last forever, or are they annual type liscences, with renewals involved?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Nick Rhode
Nick Rhode
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of Pau Lo
Pau Lo

ASKER

Thanks Nick.Are CAL's specific to each application, so you wouldnt have 1 CAL that covers user access to all ms server apps, i.e. exchange, sharepoint, and any other MS application?

To be clear - you need 1 CAL per application, so 1 CAL for exchnage, one for sharepoint etc. So if a user accesses 5 MS server apps, they need 5 CAL's?

How do the rules work for ex employees, i.e. say you still have a mailbox in the database for an ex employee, how does that work in terms of rules?

And also when you buy say exchange , in what format is your liscence agreement, is it an easy to digest document?
Avatar of Pau Lo

ASKER

And out of interest, any idea on the costs for an exchange 2010 liscence, and the cost for a single CAL liscence? Is there any way to get any stats on how many unique users accessed their mailbox in a single day? or at a single point in time?
Licenses vary but from what I can recall exchange license is about $500+ and CAL's are the most expensive (like $60 - $75 per CAL) it varies by vendor and how much you sweet talk them :).

The only applications I can think of that require a CAL are users of a licensed:

SQL - Users accessing a licensed SQL Server
Exchange - Per Mailbox
Lync - Per Account
SharePoint - Per Account
RDP Server (Terminal Server) - Per Remote Session
Server - Login to Domain\Accessing servers

Here is a link to help hopefully get a better understanding (isn't licensing fun!).

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/client-access-license.aspx#tab=2


Just as a special note:  It took me a little while to understand the licensing part and if you call up Microsoft they will clarify and help you with questions to licensing.  Also I pretty much purchase all volume licenses through a vendor.  When it comes to purchasing ask the vendor to speak with someone who specializes in licenses and they can help you out also.

Hope this helps :)
SOLUTION
Avatar of Lee W, MVP
Lee W, MVP
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of Pau Lo

ASKER

So its a grey area as to whether its per mailbox or per concurrent user load? Nick, from your first post it seemed to be per concurrent user connections, and then in the second post it says per mailbox, regardless of how many are accessed at one point. Can anyone locate any formal definition of the liscence requirements, ideally from a MS source.
It is per connection but to get a license base you would look at mailbox count.  Distribution groups, room mailboxes, and all that jazz don't count for licensing.

The link I posted above explains the licensing.  If you click the License Tracking Tab in the webpage, scroll down and you will see some PDF guides on Assessing Licensing for all Windows Server, SharePoint, SQL, System Center, Exchange, and Lync
Avatar of Pau Lo

ASKER

any idea on the rules around disconnected mailboxes, i.e. those that still reside on the mailbox database, but arent connected/accessible?
That per mailbox was a mis-type.  Think of it this way, any user that opens outlook, checks their mail on their phone, or accesses OWA would require an Exchange CAL.
Avatar of Pau Lo

ASKER

if think for senior employees, who may have their exchange constantly synch'd to their smartphone, and outlook open on their desktop, in that case is it 2x CAL's, as they essentially have 2 types of access to the same mailbox at any given time..
Avatar of Pau Lo

ASKER

"it's per user as I understand it."

what does per user actually mean? if say a user has 5 domain accounts and 5 mailboxes, do they need 5 CAL's?
No it is not double the CALs if they have outlook opened and phone sync'd because it is 1 user account connected to both.

Per user means each person that uses outlook connected to exchange will require 1 CAL.  1 CAL allows the user to connect to exchange by any means (phone, OWA, outlook).  They are entitled to all of that for 1 CAL.  

So here is another example.  You have 5 users that use exchange.  3 users open outlook to view their email on the exchange server.  At that point you are using 3 exchange CALs.  1 user closes outlook.  You are now using 2 exchange CALs.  You technically only need enough CALs to match the amount of users connected to exchange an 1 time.  

Back in the old day a perfect example would be terminal server 2003.  You purchase CALs to allow a certain amount of users to RDP into the terminal server.  In the past if you purchased 5 CALs, up-to 5 users could use the terminal server at one time.  If a 6th user tried to RDP into the terminal server they would get denied because the CALs are being used.

You only need enough CALs to cover the amount of users connected to exchange at one time.  So if you have 50 users and only 25 of those users connect at one time you would need 25 CALs.  If a 26th user connects to exchange you would be in violation.  So as a safe guard I typically purchase CALs equal to the amount of users that would connect to exchange (get mail from the exchange server by any means).
Avatar of Pau Lo

ASKER

Well summarised, thanks.