Assume you have a client who wants to have a Windows 2000 dedicated server.

How does the licensing work?
Usually, how much does it cost to obtain one (1) license to host a Windows 2000 dedicated server?

W2K server 5 CAL runs about $599 OEM and $799 Retail. You need 1 CAL for every user that is authenticated buy Windows.

Hope that helps!

Hello,

For a typical dedicated server, you just need one (1) CAL, am I correct? Like when you setup a Windows2000 dedicated server for a dedicated server client, you just issue/use one (1) CAL, right?


Is the CAL something that you must have to show when Microsoft goes after you, or each CAL has a unique keycode like Windows95,98,2000,ME?

Well, you cannot get W2K with just 1 CAL. The min is 5 CALs. Off the bat you will probably have 5:

Administrator
Guest
IUSR (IIS Anon User)
IWAM (IIS Out of Process)
TSInternetUser (Terminal Service)

A CAL is just a piece of paper, it's not software or codes you enter. Yes, you must have 1 CAL for each authenticated User Account.

Are you saying ...

Each dedicated server running Windows2000 will need more than one (1) CAL (at least around fibe (5) CAL per dedicated server), am I right?


1 dedicated server (Windows2000) = (5) CAL
2 dedicated server (Windows2000) = (10) CAL

Yep

Now we know how microsoft make their billions!!!

Oh the joys of *nix :D

Thanks for the info, RackMy


When people colocate Windows2000 server, do you retain the CAL from them or they keep it.

When you provide Windows2000 server, I guess you have to keep it.


That is a hugh upfront for Windows2000 server.

Originally posted by Asia


That is a hugh upfront for Windows2000 server.

Exactly why I'm thinking of converting my site and hosting to Linux! The cost of getting a dedicated 2000 server is well over $1500 by the time you add in the mail server, stats, dns, etc. :bawling:

With colocation customers, they keep the license. With our managed customer, we maintain the license.The cost of getting a dedicated 2000 server is well over $1500 by the time you add in the mail server, stats, dns, etc.Actually, you get get a W2K server fully loaded for a lot less than that. There are great fee/low cost software available out there.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Actually, you get get a W2K server fully loaded for a lot less than that. There are great fee/low cost software available out there.

Here's what I'm looking at:

Windows 2000 Server -- $599.00
IIS 5.0 -- $0.00
SimpleDNS -- $149.00
CesarFTP -- $0.00
Merak Mail -- $460.00
Hosting Controller -- $500.00
ASPEmail -- $0.00
Jmail -- $49.00
ASPUpload -- $149.00
PHP -- $0.00
ASP.net -- $0.00
MySQL -- $0.00

Total -- $1,906.00

Any recommendations to lessen the blow?

Sure,

Windows 2000 Server -- $599.00
IIS 5.0 -- $0.00
MS DNS -- $0.00
MS FTP -- $0.00
Merak Mail -- $280.00
ASPEmail -- $0.00
Jmail -- $0.00
PHP -- $0.00
ASP.net -- $0.00
MySQL -- $0.00
Analog -- $0.00

Total -- $879.00 :)

Mike, thanks for feedback! Ok... not bad, cut the cost by over half :D

The one thing I haven't seen a free/low cost alternative for is the bandwidth and disk quota monitoring. Something like Hosting Controller can keep tabs on that. Any suggestions? I've looked briefly at the Disk Quota built in to 2000, but its not the "cleanest" thing to administer!

Hi,

You don't need a CAL per user. The options when setting up the server are 'Per Seat (server)' or 'Per Connection'.

So if you select per server shouldn't you only need one CAL per server.

David

Heres what i've found for win2k hosts.. when they get more than 1-2 boxes . It's cheaper to get another server and make it a dedicated linux/freebsd mailserver. And its more reliable.

No, you do not need a CAL for each user but you need 1 CAL for every user that is authenticated by Windows.

Heres what i've found for win2k hosts.. when they get more than 1-2 boxes . It's cheaper to get another server and make it a dedicated linux/freebsd mailserver. And its more reliable.Good idea, but we have mail server clusters running W2K that have been up just as long as Linux/FreeBSD boxes :)

but who wants to pay for Imail or Rockcliffe,

4 computers running freebsd+qmail+vpopmail+mysql working with a good raid fileserver can just about handle anything... and they're no need to pay per server. frankly, the products developed by inter7 have a better interface than most commercial software.

I don't have anything against NT mail servers.. (Exchange is awesome)
but you really get more bang for the buck with something running on freebsd/linux. Hehe why not use that bought license to host sites or maybe a SQL server database cluster?

Originally posted by RackMy.com
W2K server 5 CAL runs about $599 OEM and $799 Retail. You need 1 CAL for every user that is authenticated buy Windows.

Hope that helps!

I found a 5 CAL pack for $151.00 on PriceGrabber:
http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=217657/search=windows%25202000%2520server/ut=c07f5e0725a97e91/

EVERYONE STOP! Especiall the post above mine for $151!


The CAL license is NOT FOR WEB HOSTING, it is for File/Printer sharing using native Windows 2000 / Windows 98/ME/95 methods.

For a web server to run IIS5, all you need is "Windows 2000 Server" license. It is true they are sold *RETAIL* bundled with 5 CAL licenses, even if you do not need the CAL (which you do not need for a web server).

There are OEM copies that sell for a little less, that include only ONE CAL. Mosty companies like DELL and Compaq include those, but sometimes you can get a copy. BUT - you do not get support from Microsoft on these.

RETAIL:
Amazon.com Windows 2000 Server product (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00003L4FH/qid=1017949217/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_67_4/102-5307698-5361745)

Again, do NOT get confused by the "5-Client":

-- You get ONE copy of Windows 2000 that you can use on ONE server.
-- The "5 client" refers to File and Printer sharing, NOT web hosting.
-- There is no limit on the number of web users who can connect to a server (at least as far as license is concerned).
-- Limit to computers with 4 processors. Limit to systems with 2GB of RAM. You have to get "Advanced Server" to go more than those...


In the Microsoft world, it makes a lot more sense to purchase a Dual-Processor 2GB system than it does to purchase two computers with 1 processor and 1GB of RAM. The license savings...

SQL Server is a whole mess too. Microsoft charges $5,000 per CPU in the server for purposes of web hosting.

Microsoft is supposed to have a special version of Windows XP just for web hosting, but it has not been released yet. It is named "Windows .NET Web Server" and is supposed to address the fact that $750 is too much. HOw much will it be? I guess $300 a server? Just guessing.

Hi rackmy.com, (and everyone else, of course)

This is a great thread.

In one of your post above, you mentioned you see uptimes typically similar between W2K and Linux and FreeBSD servers.

What I'm wondering is what are your thoughts on the security or "cracker proofness" of *properly set up and hardened* Windows boxes compared to Linux boxes compared to FreeBSD boxes?

I know it's hard to say one is 100% secure; after all, how does one know 100% for sure? But what are your thoughts on how the three OSs rate in the real world in "cracker proofness"?

Moreover, do you have a specific hardening process you go thru for each OS? Can you share any info or links?

Security concerns seem to be holding back lots of folks who would otherwise move current and new apps and initiatives to the internet. What is out there that could be used to show a decision maker (i.e. manager) that "hey, it's the general concensus that if we install the OS and follow this step by step hardening process, we can be as close to 100% certian as anyone can be that our server won't get cracked if we put it on the internet"?

I've heard that security is a process. I'm not sure all the stuff one has to do when *administering* a server to keep it secure and from getting cracked or misused, but surely a secure/hardened install must be part of the foundation.

Thanks for whatever thoughts and info you can share. I really appreciate it.

Louis

Originally posted by gadget


Any recommendations to lessen the blow?

*nix it! :D

For a web server to run IIS5, all you need is "Windows 2000 Server" license. It is true they are sold *RETAIL* bundled with 5 CAL licenses, even if you do not need the CAL (which you do not need for a web server). Yes, you do need to have CALs for a web server. The IUSR user and IWAM which is used by IIS requires 2 CALs. Then you have an Admin login, that is 1 CAL. Then you then you have a TS CAL. That's already 4.

You MUST have 1 CAL for every authenticated user. 5 Client Licenses (CALs) does not refer to just File & Print sharing, it is for any authenticated user. There are a limited number of web users who can connect to the server, if they are authenticated. The IUSR account takes care of anyone who visits the site and is not authenticated.

We have gone round and round with MS and other MS sellers and this is what we have learned. Hope that clears things up. :)

at my old place we signed up for the microsoft web hoster program which let you have server licenses for MS w2k advanced for free as long as you put their powered by windows 2k technologies..

it might still be there.. check it out

i saw them at ISPCON in baltimore last year

Just use linux lots easier? lol

stlouislouis, sorry I totally missed your post :( Yes, we do have a large laundry list of how we secure servers. It's not that difficult to do, but it is easier when you have it all processed out.

The quickest tip I can share, if you don't need it don't install it or remove the service. A properly set-up bastion W2K server only has about 12 services running. Another important tip, keep up with the security hotfixes. They can make or break you.

Hope that helps, let me know if you have any other questions :)

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Yes, you do need to have CALs for a web server. The IUSR user and IWAM which is used by IIS requires 2 CALs. Then you have an Admin login, that is 1 CAL. Then you then you have a TS CAL. That's already 4.


I think you are confusing "client MACHINES" with user accounts. I do not believe there is such a thing as a license for a user account!

Otherwise an office would just give everyone the same account and get around the restriction.

It is the machines that connect, not the username that matters.

from the EULA.TXT off my Windows 2000 Server CD-ROM. Read the following:

=============== cut here ==============
c. Windows 2000 Server Client Access License ("CAL")
Requirements. You must acquire a separate CAL for each
Device that is used by an "Authenticated User" or that
uses "Windows 2000 Server Services" regardless of what
software you use. Terminal Services. In addition to a CAL,
you must acquire a Terminal Services Client Access License
("TS CAL") for each Device that uses "Terminal Services."
You do not need to acquire a TS CAL to utilize Terminal
Services for Devices running a licensed copy of Windows
2000 Professional. CALs and TS CALs that you acquire may
be used only in conjunction with your Server Software.
Definitions.
=============== cut here ==============

The key here is "CAL for each device" -- where does it say "login username" or anything to do with that?

Microsoft FAQ On Windows 2000 Licensing (http://www.microsoft.com/partner/products/windowsfamily/windows2000professional/Windows2000LicensingFAQ.asp)

Q: If I do not use Windows 2000 Server file and print services but do use Windows 2000 Server for Intranet web-based applications, do I require CALs?

A: If those users that are accessing the applications are “Authenticated Users” and/or are using any other Windows 2000 Server Services, then they would require CALs. If those users are not “Authenticated Users” and/or are not using any other Windows 2000 Server Services, then they do not require a CAL.

Oh my, that is such an old license. :) You really should read the new license requirements for W2K server: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/model.asp & http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/howtobuy/pricing/changes.asp

Authenticated Use Explained
An authenticated user is one who directly or indirectly uses the Windows 2000 Server Integrated Sign-on Service or receives credentials from the Windows 2000 Active Directory™ service.

Windows 2000 Server customers who may be affected by changes in license terms include users planning to access applications running on Windows 2000 Server and users connecting to Windows 2000 as a Web server:

Authenticated use by applications. Customers whose applications use Windows 2000 authentication or directory credentials will require CALs. Many such customers have already purchased CALs for other services such as file and print. But for those who do not have CALs for other purposes, CALs will be a new requirement.
Authenticated Internet access. Customers with Internet sites using Windows 2000 authentication will require CALs for authenticated users connecting to their sites. Such customers may comply with this licensing requirement by purchasing CALs in "Per seat" or "Per Server" mode. Or, they may opt to purchase the new Internet Connector license for unlimited Internet CALs as long as the devices are used by "Internet users" on a single server. Access to Internet sites by anonymous users does not require a CAL.
"Internet user" is defined as any person connected to the Internet, other than a person (i) employed by you (as an employee, independent contractor, agent, or in any other capacity); or (ii) otherwise providing goods or services to you (for example, one of your suppliers) or on your behalf (for example, one of your distributors or resellers, agents, or a consulting firm hired by you).

For authenticated "Internet users," you may substitute the Internet Connector for CALs.

Server Services Requiring CALs
Client computers accessing the following server services in a Microsoft Windows 2000 Server-based network require Windows 2000 Server CALs:

File services. Accessing or managing files or disk storage.
Printing services. Printing to a printer managed by the product.
Remote Access Service. Accessing the server from a remote location through a communications link, including a virtual private network.
Terminal services. Using the terminal services feature of the server to enable client devices to use applications or data residing on the server.
More more there and good info to know.

Hope the helps!

Mike,

I have read all this. Microsoft does NOT say anything about _login accounts_ being charged.

There are three things here:

-- people: human beings
-- machines: client workstations, a "PC"
-- accounts: login usernames

Microsoft license is based on people+machines, not accounts.

Your claim that a single Windows 2000 Server requires 4 CAL's just because of the IUSR_* IWAM_* accounts and admin login is not correct.

You can create 500 user login accounts, as long as they are all used by the same person+workstation PC, and only need 1 CAL for that person+workstation PC.


Real world example
======================
The number of CAL's required to run a "tradiional anonymous web site" would be equal to the number of admins you have.

For example, the web sites I run have 3 admins - to cover the fact that 24x7 coverage is required (have to have sleep!). We also have 80,000+ active customer accounts.

The customers login to the site, but use cookies and database - not NTFS or Active Directory for username+password. This is considered anonymous access, so they do NOT need CALs.

The three admins login to protected web pages that use NTFS permissions to control that access. For these three users, we DO NEED CALs, as they are employees or subcontractors as defined by Microsoft (not anonymous). It does not matter if the three admins all use the same username+password, it is the human+machine combination.

Things start to get real tricky when a single admin person starts to login to the server with more than one computer at the same time. I would have to research that whole issue ;)

Steve,

So what you are saying is that if you had one admin on a web server, you only need one CAL? That is incorrect. I understand what you mean by computer/user and account but what you fail to see is that they are almost one in the same.

The number of CAL's required to run a "tradiional anonymous web site" would be equal to the number of admins you have. That is incorrect. IIS requires at least one CAL for the IUSR account. If you run any of your sites out of process, you will require another CAL. If you use Terminal Services, because you use a computer to connect to the system you will require another CAL.

You are thinking of MS's old license aggreements. Really, I am not lying about this :) Please, give MS a call and you will they can help to better explain the license for a W2K server. We have called 7 different offices by 3 different people in our office to get clarification on this.

[edit]We keep editing back and forth :)

The customers login to the site, but use cookies and database - not NTFS or Active Directory for username+password. This is considered anonymous access, so they do NOT need CALs. You will need at least one CAL as the IIS IUSR account requires one CAL. I understand what you are saying, that is why a lot of people use FTP software like Serv-U because you don't use MS authentication process.

The number of CAL's required to run a "tradiional anonymous web site" would be equal to the number of admins you have. Not really. If you have 3 admins, but they do not all connect to the server at the same time you can use only one CAL in Per Server Mode.

Ok, my eyes are crossed now :)

Mike,

I'm sorry to break this to you - but one person at Microsoft saying it on the phone to you does not make it true :)

You need to cite a specific paragraph in the license that says this "per process" on the same server requires a license.

Anonymous access is anonymous, even if you define multiple accounts equal to the IUSR_ account.

I could have www.site1.com on my server use IUSR_SITE1_LOGIN and www.site2.com on my server use IUSR_SITE2_LOGIN and both be anonymous web sites. As long as I don't require a client to provide credentials... it is anonymous. Even if they run "out of process".

And I could create 500 different logins for myself on the server using "User Manager for Domains". ADMIN000 - ADMIN499 and I (one person) could login with a different account+password each day from my single laptop admin (remote) machine. I would only need 1 CAL.

All this assumes you selected "PER SEAT" licensing during install of Windows 2000 Server.

I'm sorry to break this to you - but one person at Microsoft saying it on the phone to you does not make it true Obviously you did not read my post. We have called 7 different offices by 3 different people in our office to get clarification on this. We are a Windows host and follow MS licensing to a "t". Have you ever read an SQL license agreement? I could post a whole diatribe on that and it took calls to 15 different offices to get the right info.Anonymous access is anonymous, even if you define multiple accounts equal to the IUSR_ account. I could have www.site1.com on my server use IUSR_SITE1_LOGIN and www.site2.com on my server use IUSR_SITE2_LOGIN and both be anonymous web sites. As long as I don't require a client to provide credentials... it is anonymous. Wrong, that would require 2 CALS. Even though this is an anonymous user accounts, the anonymous user accounts are still being authenticated by Windows and thus would require 2 CALS.And I could create 500 different logins for myself on the server using "User Manager for Domains". ADMIN000 - ADMIN499 and I (one person) could login with a different account+password each day from my single laptop admin (remote) machine. I would only need 1 CAL. Correct, but if you logged into 2 different accounts on two different computers at the same time you would need 2 CALs.

Hi Rackmy.com,

I have no doubt you know a lot about Windows hosting.

Do you guys do FreeBSD hosting, too?

Could you share your opinion on FreeBSD as a hosting platform?

Thanks!

Louis

No, we don't offer FreeBSD managed hosting. Only W2K.

We do have a couple internal servers that run FreeBSD and colo customers who us it. The reason we use it is when we need a maintenance server which requires a fast TCP stack.

Hi Rackmy.com,

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but what's a maintenence server?

Also, what's your opinion on those boxes you've seen running on FreeBSD? Are they pretty much problem free? Any security breeches? Any comments on what you've seen regarding Free or Open BSD servers is very much appreciated.

Thanks for the info; I really appreciate it. I'm in learning mode right now.


Take care,

Louis

what's a maintenence serverWe have a few IDS (intrusion detection system) boxes that run FreeBSD because of thier fast TCP stack.

Any OS is vunerable to hackers, it's really up to the knowledge of the Admin on how safe & stable a system is.

Hope that helps!

RackMy.com -- a phone call is not proof! Where is the written comment? There is NO SUCH COMMENT about "out of process" license requirement.

SQL Server 2000 license is very simple for a web site. $4999.00 per CPU in the server allows unlimited web users.

Originally posted by gadget


Here's what I'm looking at:

Windows 2000 Server -- $599.00
IIS 5.0 -- $0.00
SimpleDNS -- $149.00
CesarFTP -- $0.00
Merak Mail -- $460.00
Hosting Controller -- $500.00
ASPEmail -- $0.00
Jmail -- $49.00
ASPUpload -- $149.00
PHP -- $0.00
ASP.net -- $0.00
MySQL -- $0.00

Total -- $1,906.00

Any recommendations to lessen the blow?


Yes... go Linux = $0 + whatever control panel :)

And then sit back and watch as days and weeks and months go by without a reboot :)

Sorry... Just had to say it :D

:)

I would stay away from ASPUpload since it supports binary streaming (which on itself is pretty neat) which will allow a smart user to bypass your bandwidth monitor (since most of them work by parsing the logfiles and the binary stream is initiated on the server and therefore not logged and therefore not calculated towards your clients...

But W2k is just as stable if not more stable then Linux, it all comes down to the admin; a crapy admin on W2k will be a crapy admin on Linux. It's just that there are more crapy W2k admins then that there are crapy Linux admins, since running Linux requires some effort on the Admins site and W2k is just like their desktop so it can't be hard, hey?

DrAtomic

Don't think you can get ADVANCED SERVER for free (to deploy in a production environment, even):

http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/programs/wwhp.asp

Think again.

This is SPECIFICALLY FOR WEB HOSTING COMPANIES.

And how many offices did you call ... ? :rolleyes:

Dan

Oh sheesh! Just reading this thread on Microsoft's Licensing Agreement and the various interpretations makes me want to stay away from using MS' product.

I'm sure that Mike and StephenRS are professionals in the field, but I just can not believe the complexity of this.


BTW, thanks for the link CagedTornado

Brian

Apparently, you folks didn't know you could get Win2k for FREE.Well sure! But I don't think once copy would work for all our servers. :)

Let me get this straight.

Say I have 70 websites in IIS 5.0 each with their own user eg. IUSR_WEBSITE1, IUSR_WEBSITE39, ISUR_WEBSITE90. All active and busy websites. Then I would need about 74 CALs???

How are you getting around this? Are you running all websites under the one IUSR account, sorta like the current Apache limitation whereby running accounts under nobody. Surely then therefore IIS suffers from the same problems of Apache then in this setup where you can read the source of other users files (by writting a simple asp script). ????

MattF - I respectful as I can think RackMy has it all wrong.

Microsoft wouldn't have a chance with an ISP that had a clue. Running each site with a different account has both stability and security advantages (as you point out).

To me, it all comes down to "when is anonymous anonymous". If the web browser does not have to provide credentials (username/password) then you are anonymous.

You can run UNLIMITED accounts, when used for anonymous web sites, and you pay only for 1 license. CAL's are for authenticated users, where a password and username is pop-ed up to the web browser.

Having just purchased Windows 2000 licensing for a major organisation I must disagree with you RackMy.

To quote what you said earlier:


Authenticated Use Explained
An authenticated user is one who directly or indirectly uses the Windows 2000 Server Integrated Sign-on Service or receives credentials from the Windows 2000 Active Directory™ service.

Windows 2000 Server customers who may be affected by changes in license terms include users planning to access applications running on Windows 2000 Server and users connecting to Windows 2000 as a Web server:

Authenticated use by applications. Customers whose applications use Windows 2000 authentication or directory credentials will require CALs. Many such customers have already purchased CALs for other services such as file and print. But for those who do not have CALs for other purposes, CALs will be a new requirement.
Authenticated Internet access. Customers with Internet sites using Windows 2000 authentication will require CALs for authenticated users connecting to their sites. Such customers may comply with this licensing requirement by purchasing CALs in "Per seat" or "Per Server" mode. Or, they may opt to purchase the new Internet Connector license for unlimited Internet CALs as long as the devices are used by "Internet users" on a single server. Access to Internet sites by anonymous users does not require a CAL.
"Internet user" is defined as any person connected to the Internet, other than a person (i) employed by you (as an employee, independent contractor, agent, or in any other capacity); or (ii) otherwise providing goods or services to you (for example, one of your suppliers) or on your behalf (for example, one of your distributors or resellers, agents, or a consulting firm hired by you).

For authenticated "Internet users," you may substitute the Internet Connector for CALs.

Server Services Requiring CALs
Client computers accessing the following server services in a Microsoft Windows 2000 Server-based network require Windows 2000 Server CALs:

File services. Accessing or managing files or disk storage.
Printing services. Printing to a printer managed by the product.
Remote Access Service. Accessing the server from a remote location through a communications link, including a virtual private network.
Terminal services. Using the terminal services feature of the server to enable client devices to use applications or data residing on the server.



None of the services you mention there have anything whatsoever to do with internet and/or IIS.

To quote from the MS website:

Customers with Internet sites using Windows 2000 authentication will require CALs for authenticated users connecting to their sites. Such customers may comply with this licensing requirement by purchasing CALs in "Per Seat" or "Per Server" mode. Or, they may opt to purchase the new Internet Connector license for unlimited Internet CALs on a single server. Access to Internet sites by anonymous users does not require a CAL.

That clearly states that CALs are only required for authenticated users on a website, not the IUSR users.

It also states that:

If users are not "authenticated" as described above, but otherwise utilize the following services of Windows 2000 Server, CALs are required:

File Services—i.e. accessing or managing files on the network.
Printing Services—i.e. sharing and managing printers on the network.
Remote Access Services—i.e. accessing a server from a remote location through a communications link, including a virtual private network.
Terminal Services—Using the terminal services feature (see Windows 2000 Terminal Services for further information) of the server to enable client devices to use applications or data residing on the server.

Therefore use of IIS by non-authenticated users does not require a CAL.

Really, you should not listed to any of us baffons :)

Give MS a call and they can clarify it for you. You will have the answer straight from the horses mouth.

StephenRS, respectfully, your opinions obviously come from a person that has never corporately dealt with MS Licensing. RackMy is absolutely correct. I admin for a company with 8000 windows client seats and 1000 win2k servers, 60+ are web servers. Every user account (local logins on most W2k web servers) requires a CAL. An IUSR account is an authenticated account that "proxies" anonymous users requests , and therefore only requires 1 CAL. IWAM acounts are used for running out of process sites - CAL. For my sites, to allow site admins to FTP into their website roots using windows ACL's and maintain the security of all other sites on the box, I set up a local user account for that person. Guess what? CAL. SQL Server user account? CAL. Terminal Server account? We're off the hook there, luckily, UNLESS you are using terminal services in remote admin mode. CAL. I plan on 1 CAL per site plus the 5 gimmees that come with the OS. I know my licensing, we have lawyers battle these issues. My company has too much at stake not to know the law.

Also, Scratch MERAK mail server and go with the FREE MailEnable. It rocks very hard.

RackMy - Why not MS DNS? I saw another post where you recommended another product from Incognito.

Why don't you use mailenable... its great software. and its free!!!! and you can get the professional verison which is the webmail for #175

sorry... i did not read the previous post.

You only need 1 CAL per user if you are using the server as a terminal server serving applications to remote users. If you are using the server for webhosting which you are you can do per seat licensing and by doing it that way you only need 1 CAL per server.

Terminal Server account? We're off the hook there, luckily, UNLESS you are using terminal services in remote admin mode. CAL.

That's what I wa trying to say here, but it came out wrong.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Well, you cannot get W2K with just 1 CAL. The min is 5 CALs. Off the bat you will probably have 5:

Administrator
Guest
IUSR (IIS Anon User)
IWAM (IIS Out of Process)
TSInternetUser (Terminal Service)

A CAL is just a piece of paper, it's not software or codes you enter. Yes, you must have 1 CAL for each authenticated User Account. WRONG!!!!!!

Keep it in per server mode and you only need 1 CAL for every Authenicated User and since it comes with 5 your set to go.

Originally posted by Intrepid00
WRONG!!!!!!

Keep it in per server mode and you only need 1 CAL for every Authenicated User and since it comes with 5 your set to go.

Wrong again, depending how how much money you plan on making. If you sell 200 domains per server, you must plan on EVERY customer being logged in all the time Via FTP. FTP accesses the ACL for permissions, and each ACL authentication requires an ACL. Not saying they will, but IF they did all connect, and you only have 5 CAL's in Per Server mode, customer number 6 is going to get DENIED, and get PI**ED. Per server licensing does no good in a web server scenario.

FROM MICROSOFT Win2k Server Docs, located here->http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/server/help/default.asp?url=/windows2000/en/server/help/sag_LICEconcepts_121.htm:

In Per Server licensing, client access licenses (CALs) for a particular server product are allocated to a server running the product. The number of CALs allocated to the server determines the number of concurrent connections that can be made to that server.

The number of connections to the server determines the number of CALs being used at a given time, not connections to individual share points or printers. For example, if you are logged on to a workstation and you connect to \\Server\Apps and \\Server\Public from that workstation, it is considered a single connection and uses only one CAL. However, if you log on to two different workstations using the same user name and connect to the server from both, it is considered to be two connections and uses two Per Server CALs.

With Per Server licensing, you must have at least as many CALs dedicated to a server product as the maximum number of client computers that will connect to that product concurrently. If a network has multiple servers, each server licensed in Per Server mode must have at least as many CALs dedicated to it as the maximum number of clients that will connect to it at any one time.

After the limit is reached on a server, it does not allow additional connections. Clients attempting to connect to the server display an error message. Connections made by administrators are counted in the total number of concurrent connections, but after the limit is reached, administrators are still allowed to connect. This permits administrators to continue to manage the server even though the maximum number of allowable connections has been exceeded. Other users can connect only after enough clients (including administrators) have disconnected to get below the limit.

Per Server licensing is the appropriate mode for a network that has only one server. Per Server may also be the most economical licensing mode for servers that are used only occasionally. For example, a company with 200 employees may use Network and Dial-Up Connections on a Windows 2000 Server, but anticipate that not more than 50 employees will dial in at any one time. In this case, the company should license Windows 2000 Server in Per Server mode and acquire 50 Windows 2000 Server client access licenses for that server. Per Server mode is usually the most economical licensing mode for special-use servers, such as dial-up, Internet, or bulletin board servers that clients access only occassionally.