Sims forced upgrade?

[matt40k]

I can see SLG (SaaS) replace the SIMS client for most stuff. But resource heavy stuff should still be fat client, at least for now. I can't see them moving platform, just webby. Image the cost of getting rid of all the MSSQL people or having them re-trained, re-coding all the MS specific bits.

[GrumbleDook]

A few other things to remember with this upgrade ... Is your server powerful enough to run this (or your virtualised environment suitable). This can be a fantastic opportunity for the long asked for upgrade to be rolled in, and the existing box recycled to use as something else. If you also get your school to accept that your MIS server will need a regular refresh due to the demands placed on it by both the software and the users then it can help to get SLT to understand a model for sustainability.

 

The MIS is going to be even more mission critical than ever ... make sure you have the right backend for it all.

[PiqueABoo]

We have just had some paperwork

 

Has anyone actually read it? £1550 must be the work and the (full) SQL licence surely? Perhaps the scenario is that the school has forgotten it bought the SQL licence itself last time around and only paid county a few hundred for the installation and migration work?

 

Don't forget to amortise the costs: SQL 2008 doesn't fall out of MS support until 2019. If it's going on a Server 2003 then that expires summer 2015, which gives you over 5 years before you have to change anything much, although as GD said it's a good time to check that the server isn't getting a bit creaky. [Capita could throw a spanner in this by demanding a new SQL and/or OS I suppose].

Edited February 1, 2010 by PiqueABoo

[m25man]

I think the primary reason for the move is the transistion to a 64Bit SIMs platform.

 

A 32-bit system can only directly access a maximum of 4 GB of memory.

This limits the addressable memory space for Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 systems to 4 GB.

As 2 GB is reserved for the operating system by default, only 2 GB of memory remains for SQL Server.

 

To allow a 32-bit system to address memory beyond the 4 GB limit, a set of memory management extensions to the Microsoft Win32 API called Address Windowing Extensions (AWE) is used. (Enterprise 32bit Server Editions).

 

Using AWE, applications can acquire physical memory as non-paged memory, and then dynamically map views of the non-paged memory to the 32-bit address space. By using AWE, SQL Server Enterprise Edition can address up to 32 GB of physical memory on Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and up to 64 GB of memory on Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition.

 

Although AWE provides a way to use more memory, it imposes overhead and adds initialization time leading to weaker performance as opposed to 64-bit systems.

Also, the additional memory addressability with AWE is available only to the SQL Server's data buffers. It is not available to other memory consuming database operations such as caching query plans, sorting, indexing, joins, or for storing user connection information.

 

In contrast, SQL Server 2005/2008 (64-bit) makes memory available to all database processes and operations.

Using the 64-bit version on either IA64 or x64 hardware, a SQL Server instance can address up to 1 terabyte of memory; the current maximum amount of physical memory supported by Windows Server 2003 SP1.

This memory is available to all components of SQL Server, and to all operations within the database engine.

 

Switching to 64bit SQL is going to resolve the increasing number of issues SIMs user have due to the limitations of the OS and Databases of existing versions.

 

But, with all of the newly addressable memory and speedy databases how long before they fill it all with bloated modules and subroutines?

[Mcshammer_dj]

In all of this debate we only appear to be looking at Capita because they have moved to SQL 2008. The other "main" products in the market also have a reliance on Microsoft and will also require the same updates in the future

 

Bromcom

"Bromcom MIS is a Microsoft .NET, predominantly web-based application that runs on the Microsoft Windows 2003 Server operating system with Microsoft SQL Server 2005"

 

(and does this work as a true web app or do you need IE and the MS plugins?)

 

Serco

 

Currently use SQL 2005 and in an earlier post

"In years to come we will be using more and more of features found in 2005 and 2008 such as stored procedures and management views, among other things"

[BromcomPublicRelations]

In all of this debate we only appear to be looking at Capita because they have moved to SQL 2008. The other "main" products in the market also have a reliance on Microsoft and will also require the same updates in the future

 

Bromcom

"Bromcom MIS is a Microsoft .NET, predominantly web-based application that runs on the Microsoft Windows 2003 Server operating system with Microsoft SQL Server 2005"

 

(and does this work as a true web app or do you need IE and the MS plugins?)

 

"

 

 

Edited February 8, 2010 by Dos_Box

[zag]

Won't make much of a difference in the future when all this stuff moves into the cloud.

 

Also you can do the 2008 upgrade yourself, the last one was a 60 minute job from what I remember.

[Mcshammer_dj]

[Quoting content that was ]

 

but am I still right in the assumption that when your database needs to be migrated the sites will need to purchase a new licence??

 

Equally does bromcom work fully with FIrefox or chrome etc

Edited February 9, 2010 by vikpaw
removing quote content that was unauthorised

[BromcomPublicRelations]

but am I still right in the assumption that when your database needs to be migrated the sites will need to purchase a new licence??

 

Equally does bromcom work fully with FIrefox or chrome etc

 

Yes, you will need to buy Microsoft SQL 2008 license. However CALS you need to buy is likely to be much less than in the case of non-browser MIS with thick based Windows solutions.

 

Indeed, Bromcom teacher's client software for "in classroom use" work fully for IE 7&9, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera with any operating system and with no emulation.

 

Admin office parts/use is tested for only IE7&8.

[PiqueABoo]

A 32-bit system can only directly access a maximum of 4 GB of memory.

 

I'd say all current Windows x86's are arguably 36-bit systems, just with artificial physical memory addressing limits coded into different editions. Although it won't play with physical memory over 4GB, the XP running on this laptop is running with the OS support and the OS page table overheads to accommodate AWE and calls to the API will work. [XP SP2+ likes DEP on by default and that needs PAE]

 

But, with all of the newly addressable memory and speedy databases how long before they fill it all with bloated modules and subroutines?

 

I once worked on a very serious "MIS" (at least as complex as SIMS and definitely with more concurrent users) Server-side was in four logical parts and each one fitted in < 1MB RAM running on a DOS VM. Mid-late 90s everyone went "We must have our data in an 'open' database so we can access it", which of course they never do (or can't because of licence restrictions) and the bloat began. XML did a similar thing to comms bandwidth.

 

The X64 is a very good point (it's the default for me for any new server): I don't know about this round, but there was a very significant memory increase for SIMS SQL2K->SQL2K5.

[SkywOrca]

Yes, you will need to buy Microsoft SQL 2008 license. However CALS you need to buy is likely to be much less than in the case of non-browser MIS with thick based Windows solutions.

 

I seriously doubt this is actually the case, you need to buy SQL CALs for all users of the SQL database, no matter what method they use to connect with if they are performing write back operations. Certainly, the licensing model for the Serco ePortal product requires that you buy SQL CALs for each of the client (Facility Admin) users and for each teacher login to ePortal. The only ones that shouldn't requre CALs are parents and student logins to ePortal, since they don't have any ability to write data back to the database. This was confirmed with Microsoft UK themselves.

 

I don't know how you conclude that an all-browser based MIS would therefore results in fewer CALs?

[matt40k]

Is Bromcom thinking of using the external connector?

 

But then you couldn't use the SQL\Windows security???

[BromcomPublicRelations]

I seriously doubt this is actually the case, you need to buy SQL CALs for all users of the SQL database, no matter what method they use to connect with if they are performing write back operations. Certainly, the licensing model for the Serco ePortal product requires that you buy SQL CALs for each of the client (Facility Admin) users and for each teacher login to ePortal. The only ones that shouldn't requre CALs are parents and student logins to ePortal, since they don't have any ability to write data back to the database. This was confirmed with Microsoft UK themselves.

 

I don't know how you conclude that an all-browser based MIS would therefore results in fewer CALs?

 

 

Bromcom is happy to be corrected but since Microsoft Windows Server 2003 internet users do not use up a windows CAL licence. In stating this, Bromcom relies on the following extract from Microft License information. However reader should check for themselves and not rely on this.

 

 

”In previous Windows Server licensing models, Windows Client Access Licenses were automatically triggered when particular server services were invoked (such as file, print, remote access, and terminal services, as well as authenticated access).

 

With Windows Server 2003, CALs are no longer triggered based on the use of certain services but are instead based on access to and/or use of the server software. This holds true for all editions of Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2, except Web Edition. Windows CALs are not required for Web Edition.

 

Note the following general exception to Windows CAL requirements: Windows CALs are not required when access to the server software is unauthenticated and conducted through the Internet. Authenticated access is defined as an exchange of user or application credentials between the server software and a user or device. An example of this exception would be if unidentified users browsed your public Web site. Windows CALs would not be required for those users.”

 

 

If this is the case it means using a browser based MIS, in addition to the other benefits stated previously, will also bring further saving in Microsoft license cost for schools with large number of users.

Edited February 2, 2010 by BromcomPublicRelations
Typo

[garrysaddington]

 

 

If this si the case it means using a browser based MIS, in addition to the other benefits stated previously, will also bring further saving in Microsoft license cost for schools with large number of users.

 

Not using any MS software would bring even greater savings;)

[vikpaw]

i'm confused now Bromcom.

 

I initially thought we were talking about SQL CALS, such that if you connected via a browser to a server and that server/software made the SQL calls then effectively there'd only be one SQL user. i think i was dreaming.

 

Either way, Windows CALS would still be needed wouldn't they, even for web access, certainly if we are wanting authenticated access which i hope we all are.

 

What are the issues around Server 2008 which is where we are headed?

anyone?

[SkywOrca]

I'm slightly confused as to which licences we're discussing now, too, but I believe that as far as SQL CALs are concerned, you need a separate SQL CAL for each user that has write access to the database, no matter how they achieve that access. So the presumption that because the web service connects to the database via a single server they only need one CAL isn't correct. There's fine print in the licensing documentation that states that any ability for users to log into a system that connects those users directly to an SQL database with write access, even if that's a custom login function, then they're considered separate users and require a CAL.

 

I personally didn't liaise with Microsoft on this, but a colleague of mine did, and after explaining the access model used by the Serco ePortal product (which uses an internal login authentication model) we were told specifically that this is covered by the licensing agreement and explicitly requires an SQL CAL to be purchased.

 

As to how many Server 2003/2008 CALs you'd need to purchase, I'm not so sure. We were only concerned with the SQL side of the equation when we were looking into upgrading our schools to SQL 2005. Others will doubtless have a better understanding of this aspect, and it might well turn out that Bromcom's interpretation of the Server CAL model is accurate.

 

I am slightly surprised that Bromcom are adopting a model whereby they require each of their customers to purchase SQL CALs for their access to the product. Surely part of the net gains you get from hosted solutions is lowering overall infrastructure costs, so why not internalise the costs of the licensing and spread that cost out across your customer base. You would obviously then be purchasing the per-processor (which includes unlimited CALs) licensing model, which, as the userbase increases, clearly leads to significant savings on the overall licensing costs?

[BromcomPublicRelations]

I'm slightly confused as to which licences we're discussing now, too, but I believe that as far as SQL CALs are concerned, you need a separate SQL CAL for each user that has write access to the database, no matter how they achieve that access. So the presumption that because the web service connects to the database via a single server they only need one CAL isn't correct. There's fine print in the licensing documentation that states that any ability for users to log into a system that connects those users directly to an SQL database with write access, even if that's a custom login function, then they're considered separate users and require a CAL.

 

I personally didn't liaise with Microsoft on this, but a colleague of mine did, and after explaining the access model used by the Serco ePortal product (which uses an internal login authentication model) we were told specifically that this is covered by the licensing agreement and explicitly requires an SQL CAL to be purchased.

 

As to how many Server 2003/2008 CALs you'd need to purchase, I'm not so sure. We were only concerned with the SQL side of the equation when we were looking into upgrading our schools to SQL 2005. Others will doubtless have a better understanding of this aspect, and it might well turn out that Bromcom's interpretation of the Server CAL model is accurate.

 

I am slightly surprised that Bromcom are adopting a model whereby they require each of their customers to purchase SQL CALs for their access to the product. Surely part of the net gains you get from hosted solutions is lowering overall infrastructure costs, so why not internalise the costs of the licensing and spread that cost out across your customer base. You would obviously then be purchasing the per-processor (which includes unlimited CALs) licensing model, which, as the userbase increases, clearly leads to significant savings on the overall licensing costs?

 

Yes, apologies. We seemed to have had crossed wires.

 

Microsoft Windows Server CALs: Our understanding is as stated in our previous post.

 

Microsoft SQL CALs: We beleive, SkywOrca's interpreation is correct. Each user needs an SQL CAL.

 

However on the point of Bromcom's deployment model, main portal products are 'centrally hosted' and hence per-processor licensing model applies. These are MyChildAtSchool, Teacher'sWebFolder and Galaxy-VLE. For Hosted service for MIS per-processor based model is used. However we are finding that generally whilst primary schopols are OK, secondary schools are not keen to have their data off site. Speed and resilienece to broadband service level may also be consideration.

 

The advantage of Bromcom MIS is that schools have a choice whether to have it on site or hosted. You may find that with the other browser based MIS software you do not have this choice.

 

.