DataBase over WAN: ASP vs. Terminal Server Costs?

[Arno R]

Hi all,

I am involved in a project where a client needs a new database over a wan (30 or more locations).
The client is a health-care organisation that 'services' mentally disordered people.
They use Win2003 Server at the moment. All the client PC's are Win2000 or Win XP.

At this moment there are two different approaches/ideas considered.
-- to develop an ASP-web application. (not by me)
-- to develop an Access97-TerminalServer application. (by me)
The developing, licencing and the maintenance-costs are very important in the decision-making-process.

Until this moment I never went the 'ASP-Route', so ASP is not an option (for me).
If they want me to do the job I will propose the A97-TS approach.
I can deliver the Access97 runtime (I own the ODE) so there is no problem with that.
(There will be some installation-issues with the Access runtime but I think I can handle that)

I read in this ng that TS would be a good approach in a wan-scenario.
However I have NO idea of the TS-licensing costs.

Thanks,
Arno R

[Rick Brandt]

Arno R wrote:

Hi all,

I am involved in a project where a client needs a new database over a
wan (30 or more locations).
The client is a health-care organisation that 'services' mentally
disordered people.
They use Win2003 Server at the moment. All the client PC's are
Win2000 or Win XP.

At this moment there are two different approaches/ideas considered.
-- to develop an ASP-web application. (not by me)
-- to develop an Access97-TerminalServer application. (by me)
The developing, licencing and the maintenance-costs are very
important in the decision-making-process.

Until this moment I never went the 'ASP-Route', so ASP is not an
option (for me).
If they want me to do the job I will propose the A97-TS approach.
I can deliver the Access97 runtime (I own the ODE) so there is no
problem with that.
(There will be some installation-issues with the Access runtime but I
think I can handle that)

I read in this ng that TS would be a good approach in a wan-scenario.
However I have NO idea of the TS-licensing costs.

Terminal Server licensing is complex so ultimately you should dig through
Microsoft's articles on this, but I can tell you that each user "connecting " to
the Terminal Server needs a license to do so unless you purchase the kind of
license for your server that is "per processor" rather than "per connection".
The former while simpler sounding is a lot more expensive targetted at sites
that want hundreds or thousands of users (not your situation).

Older versions of Windows Server Edition granted one connection license if the
user doing the connecting was using NT 4.0 or higher of an operating system.
With the newer versions of Windows Server that is no longer the case.

Once connected they also need licenses for any apps they run. If you install
the Access app on the server using the Access Runtime then you are off the hook
there. If you use full Access then every connecting user must hold an Access
license. If using the Runtime watch out for things like using Outlook to send
messages or doing merges to Word. Those features would require that the remote
user have license to those pieces of software.

Bottom line is the TS solution would get you up and running a lot faster and
will allow you to retain the rich Access interface that you have now, but it is
not a free lunch.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[David W. Fenton]

"Arno R" <ar***********@ tiscali.nl> wrote in
news:43******** ************@dr eader2.news.tis cali.nl:

I read in this ng that TS would be a good approach in a
wan-scenario. However I have NO idea of the TS-licensing costs.

Rick partly answered this, pointing out that there are licensing
issues. But those costs are small -- $40 or so. I know that the
educational price for TS licenses is more like $32 each, so perhaps
healthcare gets a discount, too.

But the real cost of TS is in providing the infrastructure, having a
powerful enough server to handle the appropriate number of
simultaneous users, and having the appropriate WAN bandwidth in
place. Now, if the latter is already available, there are no costs
associated with rolling out a TS app, but if the bandwidth of the
existing WAN is insufficient, it can cost plenty ot upgrade.

One of my clients greatly improved performance of their Terminal
Server by putting in a gigabit switch. I'm not entirely clear where
in the network connection this is, but it vastly increased the
snappiness of TS response time, and it was already exellent.

But you need a lot of RAM per user. I don't know what the current
official figures are, but I always figured on 128MBs per
simultaneous user, which is probably very conservative (i.e., that's
probably more than enough).

You might also consider adding the Citrix extensions to allow users
to run the TS session in the web browser, as that eliminates the
need for installing the Remote Desktop client on all those
workstations (though most of them will already have it).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Arno R]

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bwa y.net.invalid> schreef in bericht news:Xn******** *************** ***********@216 .196.97.142...

"Arno R" <ar***********@ tiscali.nl> wrote in
news:43******** ************@dr eader2.news.tis cali.nl:

I read in this ng that TS would be a good approach in a
wan-scenario. However I have NO idea of the TS-licensing costs.

Rick partly answered this, pointing out that there are licensing
issues. But those costs are small -- $40 or so. I know that the
educational price for TS licenses is more like $32 each, so perhaps
healthcare gets a discount, too.

But the real cost of TS is in providing the infrastructure, having a
powerful enough server to handle the appropriate number of
simultaneous users, and having the appropriate WAN bandwidth in
place. Now, if the latter is already available, there are no costs
associated with rolling out a TS app, but if the bandwidth of the
existing WAN is insufficient, it can cost plenty ot upgrade.

One of my clients greatly improved performance of their Terminal
Server by putting in a gigabit switch. I'm not entirely clear where
in the network connection this is, but it vastly increased the
snappiness of TS response time, and it was already exellent.

But you need a lot of RAM per user. I don't know what the current
official figures are, but I always figured on 128MBs per
simultaneous user, which is probably very conservative (i.e., that's
probably more than enough).

You might also consider adding the Citrix extensions to allow users
to run the TS session in the web browser, as that eliminates the
need for installing the Remote Desktop client on all those
workstations (though most of them will already have it).

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

Thanks to both of you (David and Rick)
I went to M$-website and there I read that a 20-user CAL of 20-user device CAL is $ $2,979.00 ??
http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/in...49add&type=ovr

Do I need CAL's per simultaneaus user or per location (device)?
There are 30 locations but probably never more than 15 simultaneaus connections at a given time.

Arno R

[David W. Fenton]

"Arno R" <ar***********@ tiscali.nl> wrote in
news:43******** ************@dr eader2.news.tis cali.nl:

I went to M$-website and there I read that a 20-user CAL of
20-user device CAL is $ $2,979.00 ??
http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/in...iew=22&pcid=4e
9986a1-21eb-4a1d-b863-d5ec3dc49add&ty pe=ovr
Eh? That's $151/user, not at all what my clients have been paying.

Oh, I see -- that's a license for Win2K3 Server + 20 CALs. If you've
already got Win2K3 Server installed, you need to buy only the CALs.
Do I need CAL's per simultaneaus user or per location (device)?
There are 30 locations but probably never more than 15
simultaneaus connections at a given time.

I was just checking and it seems that MS has changed the licensing
since the first of the year (the last time one of my clients was
buying), and the prices are now closer to $50/60 per seat.

There are two types of licenses:

1. per device -- each PC connecting uses a license.

2. per user -- each user connecting uses a license.

Neither one is concurrent user licensing -- a user logs on and they
use up one license. When they log off, that license remains
allocated to their PC or their username.

Also, the Win2K3 license server software does *not* deal well with
per user CALs -- they don't show up in the licensing usage stats.

So, you need an appropriate number of licenses to support your
entire user population. If you have 10 users at each of 30 sites,
then you need 300 CALs.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Arno R]

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bwa y.net.invalid> schreef in bericht news:Xn******** *************** ***********@216 .196.97.142...

"Arno R" <ar***********@ tiscali.nl> wrote in
news:43******** ************@dr eader2.news.tis cali.nl:

I went to M$-website and there I read that a 20-user CAL of
20-user device CAL is $ $2,979.00 ??
http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/in...iew=22&pcid=4e
9986a1-21eb-4a1d-b863-d5ec3dc49add&ty pe=ovr

Eh? That's $151/user, not at all what my clients have been paying.

Oh, I see -- that's a license for Win2K3 Server + 20 CALs. If you've
already got Win2K3 Server installed, you need to buy only the CALs.

Do I need CAL's per simultaneaus user or per location (device)?
There are 30 locations but probably never more than 15
simultaneaus connections at a given time.

I was just checking and it seems that MS has changed the licensing
since the first of the year (the last time one of my clients was
buying), and the prices are now closer to $50/60 per seat.

There are two types of licenses:

1. per device -- each PC connecting uses a license.

2. per user -- each user connecting uses a license.

Neither one is concurrent user licensing -- a user logs on and they
use up one license. When they log off, that license remains
allocated to their PC or their username.

Also, the Win2K3 license server software does *not* deal well with
per user CALs -- they don't show up in the licensing usage stats.

So, you need an appropriate number of licenses to support your
entire user population. If you have 10 users at each of 30 sites,
then you need 300 CALs.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

David,
I will have to check on their Win2K3 licenses with the admins of the other organisation.
I guess when they use Win2K3 they will have licenses.

Now I see also other prices on the MS-site; I guess this is what I need :
==>> Microsoft® Windows® Server CAL 2003 English Microsoft License Pack 20 User CAL: $799.00
http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/in...f81d7&type=ovr

This is more like the $40,- you mentioned earlier.
I think the organisation only needs access for 1 user per location at a give time so I will need about 30 CAL's then.

Thanks,
Arno R

[lylefair]

Idel Ramblings ....

If your db will not be huge, and your needs are reasonably
straightforward you could rent an MS-SQL Server (internet enabled) db
for about $40 USD per quarter ($160 a year). You could develop in an
ADP.
Yes, I know that I have said I no longer use ADPs but I think they can
be useful when the application is not too demanding. As you have
discussed using ASP, I am guessing that the application is not too
demanding.
As well, it is chiefly security which makes me avoid ADPs (and a little
kinkiness). But security on an Internet Enabled MS-SQL server (not
using intergrated security) is an entirely different situation than
security on the company server MS-SQL server.

You seem like quite a smart person. Why not do ASP? The ASP part of the
ASP is quite small. Most of the ASP will be Script. While I use
JavaScript, most developers (I think) use VB Script. This is almost a
direct one-ro-one port over from VBA. So why not take the learning
opportunity?

[Arno R]

"lylefair" <ly***********@ aim.com> schreef in bericht news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

Idel Ramblings ....

If your db will not be huge, and your needs are reasonably
straightforward you could rent an MS-SQL Server (internet enabled) db
for about $40 USD per quarter ($160 a year). You could develop in an
ADP.
Yes, I know that I have said I no longer use ADPs but I think they can
be useful when the application is not too demanding. As you have
discussed using ASP, I am guessing that the application is not too
demanding.
As well, it is chiefly security which makes me avoid ADPs (and a little
kinkiness). But security on an Internet Enabled MS-SQL server (not
using intergrated security) is an entirely different situation than
security on the company server MS-SQL server.

You seem like quite a smart person. Why not do ASP? The ASP part of the
ASP is quite small. Most of the ASP will be Script. While I use
JavaScript, most developers (I think) use VB Script. This is almost a
direct one-ro-one port over from VBA. So why not take the learning
opportunity?

Hi Lyle,
Since I never *really* used ASP's (exept for testing my own IIS-server for fun and understanding how it works)
-- I can not guarantee AT ALL that the app will work as expected.
-- I can NOT estimate the time that I would need to develop the wanted application.

When I develop in Access estimating time is difficult enough (but I get along), but more important:
-- I can guarantee the client that he/she will get an app according to his/her needs and according to my standards.
I often promise something like 'satisfaction guaranteed'.
While I am learning ASP or .NET I feel like I can't promise a thing . . ..
This would be a relatively big app for me (though not so demanding) and I would very much like to develop it.

Arno R

[David W. Fenton]

"Arno R" <ar***********@ tiscali.nl> wrote in
news:43******** ************@dr eader2.news.tis cali.nl:

"David W. Fenton" <dX********@bwa y.net.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:Xn******** *************** ***********@216 .196.97.142...

"Arno R" <ar***********@ tiscali.nl> wrote in
news:43******** ************@dr eader2.news.tis cali.nl:

I went to M$-website and there I read that a 20-user CAL of
20-user device CAL is $ $2,979.00 ??
http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/in...?view=22&pcid= 4e

9986a1-21eb-4a1d-b863-d5ec3dc49add&ty pe=ovr

Eh? That's $151/user, not at all what my clients have been
paying.

Oh, I see -- that's a license for Win2K3 Server + 20 CALs. If
you've already got Win2K3 Server installed, you need to buy only
the CALs.

Do I need CAL's per simultaneaus user or per location (device)?
There are 30 locations but probably never more than 15
simultaneaus connections at a given time.

I was just checking and it seems that MS has changed the
licensing since the first of the year (the last time one of my
clients was buying), and the prices are now closer to $50/60 per
seat.

There are two types of licenses:

1. per device -- each PC connecting uses a license.

2. per user -- each user connecting uses a license.

Neither one is concurrent user licensing -- a user logs on and
they use up one license. When they log off, that license remains
allocated to their PC or their username.

Also, the Win2K3 license server software does *not* deal well
with per user CALs -- they don't show up in the licensing usage
stats.

So, you need an appropriate number of licenses to support your
entire user population. If you have 10 users at each of 30 sites,
then you need 300 CALs.

--
David W. Fenton
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton dfenton at bway dot net
http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

I will have to check on their Win2K3 licenses with the admins of
the other organisation. I guess when they use Win2K3 they will
have licenses.

???

What matters is the licenses installed on the Win2K3 box serving as
your terminal server. The other sites don't matter one iota.
Now I see also other prices on the MS-site; I guess this is what I
need :
==>> Microsoft® Windows® Server CAL 2003 English Microsoft
License Pack 20 User CAL: $799.00
http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/in...t.aspx?view=22 &pcid=cb eaab2e-4d82-42a4-b0de-d3c9db9f81d7&ty pe=ovr
That's more like the pricing I'm accustomed to seeing, yes.
This is more like the $40,- you mentioned earlier.
I think the organisation only needs access for 1 user per location
at a give time so I will need about 30 CAL's then.

The good thing about the pricing is that you can buy 1 or 10 and the
price dosen't change. The bad thing about the pricing is that you
can buy 1 or 100 and the pricing doesn't change. I do assume there
are site licenses that support 100s of users that are cheaper than
buying the same number of individual licenses.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

"lylefair" <ly***********@ aim.com> wrote in
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com:

Idel Ramblings ....

If your db will not be huge, and your needs are reasonably
straightforward you could rent an MS-SQL Server (internet enabled)
db for about $40 USD per quarter ($160 a year). You could develop
in an ADP.
.. . . thus trading a fixed cost for a recurring cost, and also
buying into a host of SQL Server administrative responsibilitie s.

[]
You seem like quite a smart person. Why not do ASP? The ASP part
of the ASP is quite small. Most of the ASP will be Script. While I
use JavaScript, most developers (I think) use VB Script. This is
almost a direct one-ro-one port over from VBA. So why not take the
learning opportunity?

Programming browser-based applications is not in the same class of
tasks as programming an Access database. The UI design issues
require a complete paradigm switch, one that I, for one, cannot yet
do successfully.

Secondly, he gave his reason for not going ASP -- he'd be selling a
product he doesn't know how to build. That sounds ethical to me.

Are you not ethical, Lyle?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc