Re: Maximum user limit with sbs2003 R2

I am wondering that if I add device CALs for a
few more general workstations could I provide access to email for the
residents of my nursing home?


Sure, you can do this. You you can define your 'organization' the way you want. These folks - managers, nurses, residences, are all under one roof and clearly belong to the same 'organization'. I wouldn't even give it a second thought, just do it.

I have a seniors activity centre with an SBS and 5 workstations. Everyone who lives in the same seniors community may use the activity centre, and can have an account on the SBS should they wish to. The only thing they can't do is access the SBS remotely, as that would require user cals rather than device cals.

The paid staff and management have user cals.

--
Les Connor [SBS MVP]


"Sally Mathews" <SallyMathews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:75A2F3E9-4EE0-434C-B5A9-0807D39D83AE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One more question, if I may.

Is there then no limit to the amount of mailboxes that I can add to the
server? Only the main mailboxes (those with their own computers like
managers) would have much content there. The other mailboxes would be set
with small limits like 20MB. I am wondering that if I add device CALs for a
few more general workstations could I provide access to email for the
residents of my nursing home?

"SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:

inline

"Sally Mathews" <SallyMathews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EB25726B-6893-4848-AB82-112BDB30A591@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> How about this scenario:
>
> I have a SBS2003 server with 25 CALS.

> I have 24 workstations of which 20 of
> them are used by one specific person.

When I first read this I thought you were saying one specific person uses 20
workstations, but on subsequent reading (and after another few sips of
coffee) I believe you mean 20 people each have a designated workstation.

So far there is no indication of whether a 'user' or 'device' CAL would be
better but whatever type you need 20. Depends on use. ie. do people have
PDAs? Do people log in from home? These may be a mix of user vs device.

> The other 4 stations are general use,
> and have another 50 people that log in and out of them throughout the
> workday. (not all in one day). These are nurses aids that have to > check
> staff messages by web based email. So I have a total of 75 people with
> actual accounts on the server but only 24 actual seats for them to sit > in.

If these additional people use _only_ these four ws's their use can be
covered by 4 'device' CALs.

> Do I need to purchase more CALs or am I still within the limits?

You don't mention what type of additional CALs you purchased, device, user
or a mix of both?

> To recap: only 24 people will ever be logged in at one time.

The number of people logged in at any time is irrelevent. There is, of
course, some relationship between licensing, number of available devices and
methods and the number of people this actually allows to be accessing the
system but if anything these limits are physical rather than legal. eg. if
you had 5 PC's assigned 'device' CALs and no other method of connecting to
the server it would be difficult in the extreme to somehow have 6
connections running.

>
> "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Licensing changed SBS2000 to 2003. In 2000 the license count was based >> on
>> simultaneous connections to the server, 2003 counts differently.
>>
>> in 2003 you have a choice of 'user' or 'device' CALs.
>> The general rule is that if a user uses more than one device (say, >> office
>> PC, PDA, home PC) they should be assigned a 'user' CAL.
>> If a device is used by multiple people it normally makes sense to >> assign
>> a
>> device CAL to it.
>>
>> Only one of the 'device' or 'user' needs a CAL.
>>
>> I like a 'call center' scenario:
>> We have 5 'management' people. Each has an office, a PDA, and needs
>> access
>> from home. 5 User CALs.
>> We have 10 'office' people. Each has a desk and PC but come end of day
>> they
>> forget about work. Turnover is sortta high, we tend to hire young
>> secretarial workers due to the basic nature of the jobs. Senior staff >> is
>> a
>> smaller goup and have been with us for a long time, there's nowhere >> for
>> secretarial to advance in our organisation. We use 10 device CALS to
>> cover
>> their workstations.
>> The main callcenter area is shiftwork, 60 PC's are shared by 120 >> people.
>> The
>> shifts overlap a little and outside these periods we're unlikely to >> use
>> 40
>> PC's at a time but at peak times 50 are in use (unless we have high
>> absentee
>> rate). At no time are all in use, the additional PC's allow a little
>> flexibility in where people sit. Outside rostered times these people
>> don't
>> even acknowledge they work here. 60 Device CALs.
>>
>> Everyone signs on using their own account so there are (more than) 135
>> users
>> defined on the server.
>>
>> This system is maxed out, 75 CALs are in use (including the original 5
>> which
>> came with the server).
>>
>> "Joe Sykes" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:ulCXO6fVHHA.4832@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >I have a server with sbs 2k on it and need to change the domain >> >becauase
>> >two comapnies are merging. The total number of users will be 75 once >> >the
>> >merge takes place. I also have a spare machine with Windows 2003 >> >server
>> >standard and SQL 2000 available.
>> >
>> > I was hoping to do a migration from the sbs2k box to sbs2003 R2 on >> > the
>> > current Windows 2003 box.
>> >
>> > I thought this would be the easiest way to do it instead of >> > formatting
>> > the
>> > Windows 2003 server and rebuilding the network with Server 2003, SQL
>> > 2000
>> > and Exchange manually.
>> >
>> > The problem is I am hitting the 75 user limit. Is that a hard limit
>> > (only
>> > 75 concurrent users allowed) or a suggested limit to the number of
>> > users?
>> >
>> > If I have to rebuild the server manually are there tools available >> > to
>> > migrate the settings from the sbs2k server?
>> >
>> > Any suggestions?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Joe
>> >
>>
>>
>>




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is there a samba server for windows?
    ... > connections only, and does not support CALs. ... > the need to use workstations as a server for data under ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.networking)
  • Re: Maximum user limit with sbs2003 R2
    ... that have dedicated workstations and occupy a user CAL. ... I have a SBS2003 server with 25 CALS. ... I also have a spare machine with Windows 2003 server ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Terminal Service Application Mode in Win SBS 2003
    ... the goal to use Office 2003 through TS from each workstations is ... Another information I've got is that Office 2003 has Enterprise CALs ... licenses for larger users, so it'll cost less money on CALs licenses ... sessions and access their data/Exchange on the SBS server that way. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: CALs exceeded. Effects?
    ... The workstations should belong to the SBS domain. ... A licensing ... getting logged on either the server or the client PCs. ... Have not bought the additional CALS yet ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: "The session was disconnected because no Terminal Server Licensing Server could be found."
    ... You write that you bought 25 CALs, but did you also bought 25 TS ... A W2K TS Licensing Server cannot handle 2003 TS CALs, ... doesn't understand the new licensing types (Per user versus Per ... > Dataserver is still the DC and Terminal Licensing Server. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services)
Loading