Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Create Post

Windows 2012, SQL 2012, SQL 2014 and SolarWinds products compatibility matrix

Level 15

We used to have an OS/SQL compatibility matrix for all product consolidated in this blog, but many of you have requested that we track this more formally, so here it is in a Success Center article: Windows Server 2012, 2016, and 2019 and SQL Server 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2017 Support

We are going to update this matrix as thoroughly as possible.

Feel free to continue to post your comments and questions about the matrix in this thwack blog post.

FYI, the latest and greatest versions for each products, are here

Level 10

Very good list, Thanks! It becomes a great list if it also shows the most recent version number for each product.

Level 15

Tks for feedback. I've added a link below the table that helps with that.

Level 13

Thank you! Very helpful for our SQL transition to 2012.

Level 9

Is there any intention to update this list?  I just got an email that new FoE 6.7.0 supports Server 2012 and I'm curious about the other couple of products that we use that don't list support yet.  Does SAM 5.5 officially support it?  Will UDT 3.0 support it?

Level 10

I believe Web Help Desk will add support for 2012 server in the upcoming version 12.0.

Level 9

Are there any updates to this listing?

Specifically around previously asked SAM 5.5 & UDT 3.0 (released yesterday, 5/15/13), and Alert Manager (or did I miss that in the list?).

Level 7

Is the latest FoE supports Windows Server 2012 now?

Level 12

Guys, small correction - SQL 2012 is supported from NCM 7.1.1

Level 7

Helpful list indeed, i do have a couple questions about a SolarWInds DB and SQL 2012 ,hopefully can be answered in this string:

I'm migrating and moving my SolarWInds DB from SQL 2008 to SQL 2012:

Q1 - My SolarWinds SQL 2008 is currently running mirroring, once migrated to SQL 2012 will it/can it run SQL 2012 Alway's on Availability group? meaning SQL 2012 high availibility/disaster recovery (replacing mirroring).

Q2 - Once migrated to SQL 2012 do I run the DB as SQL 2012 (110) compatibility mode or it has to
run as SQL 2008 (100) compatibility mode on the SQL 2012 Server?

Thanks in Advance.

Level 17

SW - is windows 2012 R2 supported?


Level 15

Not yet.

Most products are working on this and we'll update this post when we have more information

Level 17

Q1- While we know of some customers using Always-On Availability groups in 2012, we have not performed complete testing on it, thus cannot claim support. We will look to have this testing complete for a future release.

Q2- Native 2012 mode would be appropriate.

Level 8

Anyone happen to know if the new NTA v4 will run on 2012 R2, even though it is currently not showing as supported?

Or perhaps know when NTA v4 could possibly be certified on R2?

I am in a situation where I have to build out a new Orion server (we are currently on a 32-bit 2003 server), so I would like to build out a 2012 R2 box to replace it, but suppose I can't if NTA just won't run. In my mind, it just doesn't make sense to not make it an R2 box

Level 12

SolarWinds Failover Engine v6.7 Release Notes

Supported Operating Systems

SolarWinds Failover Engine supports the following operating systems:

  • Windows Server 2003 x86 Standard or Enterprise, SP1 and SP2
  • Windows Server 2003 x64 Enterprise SP2
  • Windows Server 2003 R2 x86 Standard or Enterprise
  • Windows Server 2003 R2 x64 Standard or Enterprise
  • Windows Server 2008 x86 or x64, SP1 and SP2 Standard or Enterprise
  • Windows Server 2008 R2 and SP1 Standard or Enterprise
  • Windows Server 2012 x64 Standard and Datacenter

So the answer is YES (not R2 yet though)

Level 17

It is indeed. The matrix above has now been updated to reflect this.

Level 8

Awesome! Thanks so much!

Level 10

Excellent Post. Thanks.!

Level 17

is the new NCM release going to support 2012 R2?

Level 18

Yes, this is something we're working on: What We Are Working On For NCM After 7.2



Level 11

How about Orion DB support on a 2012 SQL cluster?

Level 17

We do have many customers utilizing SQL failover clustering.

Level 8

Is there any ETA for when Serv-U will support 2012R2?

Level 15


this is something we are looking to do. I updated What We're Working On - Serv-U FTP Server, Serv-U MFT Server & FTP Voyager to mentioned it explicitly.



Level 14

Great post. I like summaries. Many thanks. But why is it always the specific that I'm looking for that's never included?

How about the Additional Web Server? I guess it'll be the same as for the NPM, but it would be good to have an official response.

If the post becomes a dynamic doc, perhaps the AWS could be incorporated.

Level 17

Correct - Requirements for AWS and APE are the same as core platform requirements.

Level 7

Is LEM Agent now supported on Windows 2012 R2?

Level 11

Nice article

Level 7

Please update the table. NCM 7.3 is out as is SQL Server 2014 and SQL Server 2014 Express.

Level 18

Thanks for the heads-up. I've updated the table.


Level 7

Please update the table for the LEM agent.  Per SolarWinds Technical Support:

Update for Case #624126 - "Is LEM Agent supported on Windows 2012 R2?"

Linwood,  Thank you for contacting SolarWinds Technical Support.  My name is Curtis Ingram and I will be working on this case with you.

The LEM Agent will work on Windows 2012 R2, and we've seen version 5.3.1, 5.7 and 6.0 work on 2012 R2.

Product Manager
Product Manager

Thanks, I've updated.

Level 8

Concerning Microsoft SQL Products, if you are planning a new installation, be aware that the documented SQL recommendations appear to be incorrect.

We are preparing to stand up a new Orion installation with a stand alone database server.  Per the documentation at SolarWinds Knowledge Base :: What kind of SQL Server licensing does SolarWinds require?, I expected to purchase a server SQL CAL and a user CAL for each person that I expected to connected to SolarWinds.  Microsoft  (Chris Jardine) came back and told us that we must either purchase core licensing, or we must purchase a device license for each Cisco device and for each device that connects to the Cisco device.  In effect, each and every device that is on our network.

Unfortunately, this means that the SolarWinds documentation is incorrect and the TCO of this implementation just went way up.  Below is an excerpt from the email that we recieved this morning.

Subject: RE: SQL Server Licensing Documentation/Fort Bend County TX


Hi Carol-


Shortly after the initial SQL conversations with Madison I did send the request to the Microsoft Licensing Desk for further clarification. Below is the information they provided. I have attached the product use rights (PUR) referenced below.


“Hi Chris,


This is a multiplexing scenario.  The SQL Server should be licensed Per Core.  The other alternative is to license all of the end points with SQL Server CALs…not just the cisco devices, but all devices that connect to the Cisco devices.  From a cost perspective licensing Per Core is a much better alternative.


The use rights document is the Product Use Rights
(PUR).  The use rights for the Server + CAL model, when it comes to the
CAL requirement are quite simple


Page 28- April 2014 PUR



You have the rights below for each license you acquire.

  1. You must assign each license to a single
  2. For each license, you may use one Running
    Instance of server software on the Licensed Server in either a Physical or
    Virtual OSE.
  3. You may use the additional software listed
    in Appendix 3 in conjunction with your use of server software.


  1. Except as described here and noted in the
    Product-specific license terms, all server software access requires CALs.

Page 11- April 2014 PUR


Hardware or software you use to pool connections, reroute
information, reduce the number of devices or users that directly access or use
the product, or reduce the number of operating system environments (or OSEs),
devices or users the product directly manages, (sometimes referred to as
“multiplexing” or “pooling”), does not reduce the number of licenses of any
type that you need.


When you combine the two:


•        All Server
access requires CALs


•        Multiplexing
does not reduce the number of licenses of any type that you need

…the result is any number of devices that are being
routed by a smaller number of devices…which then connect to the server SW…does
not reduce the number of CALs required.”



Level 13

Outch! If that is the correct interpretation of the PUR, I would imagine that many SW users are illegally licensing their SQL server... And at the price of a SQL Core license, it would refrain some SMB to use an SW product...

Level 9

My first post, thanks!

Level 13

DanielleH, can you have somebody of your team to verify what kingcd received from Micro$oft? This would have a huge impact on licensing cost, therefore, SW product adoption...

Level 17

As stated in our KB (, Microsoft is the sole expert of its products, licensing structure, and related terms and conditions.  That being said, our extensive experience with a large consumer base does not match the information that you have been provided, specifying a device CAL is required for every device.  While we do not have a relationship with your Microsoft rep, we would be happy to follow-up with them should they require any clarification as to the Orion architecture. Additionally, we are obtaining further confirmation of our licensing assessment on our end.

Level 8


I would appreciate any constructive information that you can provide.  While I do understand that MS is the sole expert of their products, they are now interpreting their licensing to require either core cals, or a device cal for every device that is connected to Orion and to every device that those devices connect to (IE PC's, Printer, ect), regardless of whether those devices are actually seen by Orion or not.  In the meantime, I'm being forced to put in a $12,000 purchase order for the core cals.

Below is the last communication that I recieved from SolarWinds when I've asked for help in working this out with Microsoft.

Please note that I've been bringing this to SolarWind's attention for well over a month now, but my feeling is that SolarWinds either didn't see this as an issue, or was reluctant to get involved.  While I understand that "Microsoft is the sole expert of its products, licensing structure, and related terms and conditions.", I was hopeful that SolarWinds might be willing to try bring some sanity to the situation.  The TOC of your product has just gone up, or (per Microsoft), many of your customers are not legally licensed.  I would expect this to be of some concern to SolarWinds and your customers.

Maybe it's time to look at something like MySQL?

From: Phillips, Jennifer
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:35 AM
To: King, Charles; Shearrard Thomas; Hock, Rob
Subject: RE: SQL Server Licensing Documentation - Fort Bend County


Thank you for bringing our attention to this matter.  We are looking into your assessment and will get back to you shortly.


Jennifer Phillips  | Channel Account Manager
SolarWinds  |  IT Management, Inspired By You

From: King, Charles
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:22 AM
To: Phillips, Jennifer; Shearrard Thomas; Hock, Rob
Subject: FW: SQL Server Licensing Documentation - Fort Bend County

Jennifer / Rob,

We are being told that the only valid license scheme is to license for every device that will be monitored as well as every user accessing them system, or to purchasing processor licensing.  My interpretation is that we should be following your example in #2, below. 

If this interpretation that we are being given by Microsoft concerning your product and MS SQL licensing stands as true and correct, then it occurs to me that the examples in your documentation (see below) are blatantly incorrect.  

Unless there are no devices to be monitored, example #2 can never be used. 
Again with example #3, you would need to purchase device licenses for each device to be monitored as well as the license for the poller and (I assume) seats for the users that will access the Orion Web Console.

SolarWinds Orion products require a licensed Microsoft SQL Server 2005, 2008, 2008 R2, or 2012 database*. Microsoft licenses SQL Server through Client Access Licensing (CAL) or by the processor. With respect to SolarWinds Orion products, you may choose from three licensing options:
1.            License by the processor instead of using CALs.
2.            License by user CAL and purchase one user CAL for every user who will access the Orion Web Console.
Example: You have a five-person IT team who will be using Orion NPM. This scenario requires 5 user CALs.
3.            License by device CAL and purchase one device CAL for every Orion polling engine, as the polling engines are the devices that interact with your licensed SQL Server.
Example: SolarWinds Orion NPM and NTA are installed on the same server and you also have one additional poller somewhere else. This scenario requires two device CALs: one for the NPM polling engine and another for the additional polling engine.
Considering these three possible licensing options will help you find the most cost-effective SQL Server licensing method for your environment.

If this is true, not only should SolarWinds update their documentation, but the TCO of your product jumps up considerably, which I would think is a situation that SolarWinds would not want to see happen.  I am not trying to do anything illegal or get anything for free.  I’m trying to make sure that the interpretation of the licensing requirement is correct and I’ve not yet seen anything that shows that my (and SolarWinds’ documented interpretation (above) is incorrect.  The difference in the interpretation will cost us thousands of dollars, and if this is extended to others, will cost your other customers as well.

I would think that it would be in SolarWinds’ best interest that the examples above be correct, as opposed to the “every device must have a CAL scenario”.

I’m hoping that you and a technical representative will be part of the next discussion with SHI and can help us to get this clarified correctly.

Charles King
I.T. Infrastructure Manager

Level 12

Very informative. A great thank u kingcd

Level 9

User Device Tracker 3.1 is supported on Windows Server 2012 R2

Web Performance Monitor 2.1 is also supported on Windows Server 2012 R2

Level 13

kingcd, have you received any more information on this matter?

Level 8

No.  We ended up having to purchase the licenses.

As a result, the cost for the installation went up almost $12K more than expected, just for the additional MS seats..

Level 13

rob.hock, I'm doing a follow up on kingcd request regarding the MS PUR interpretation. Was some discussions made with your channel rep? In a scenario that we have, we would need to buy 3 core licenses (1 for prod, 1x Lab, 1x reporting).  That would have a great impact on the project. Is there anybody at SW that we engage and follow-up with regarding this issue?


Level 17

Unfortunately we weren't able to get a hold of the the same MS sales rep to provide clarification for them. SolarWinds interpretation of MS licensing terms has not changed: SolarWinds Knowledge Base :: What kind of SQL Server licensing does SolarWinds require?

If you receive a different answer from a MS sales rep, ask for another one. Likely you will receive an alternative answer the second time.

Level 8

"Unfortunately we weren't able to get a hold of the the same MS sales rep to provide clarification for them." 

I really hate to be argumentative, but I was not under the impression that anyone really tried to help me with this.  I honestly didn't see that anyone was willing to "rock the boat" with MS.

Once MS had made it's proclamation, all that I saw from anyone was the repeated "Microsoft is the sole expert of its products, licensing structure, and related terms and conditions.". 

"If you receive a different answer from a MS sales rep, ask for another one. Likely you will receive an alternative answer the second time. "

As to "asking another one", that's exactly what I was trying to do.  The discussion with Microsoft was escalated more than once and included at least 5 different Microsoft reps, several SHI reps, a few people from SolarWinds and NWN.  At one point, it was even suggested to me by one of the participants that we should consider using an entirely different product.  I eventually had to either find additional funding or abandon the implementation.

I hope that planglois has better luck than we did.  I'll be curious to hear how it works out.

Level 14

kingcd -- let me try and help you out.  SQL CAL licenses are only required for consumers of data in a SQL database.  Microsoft posted a great article on SQL CALs.

Check out point 2 "Generally speaking – server to server communication does not require a CAL."  That pretty much summarizes the requirements for devices that are contributing data to the SQL database via NPM, SAM, etc.   Although the whole CAL question does arise when we consider users consuming data through the NPM or SAM interface.

Level 8

Thanks, but that shipped has sailed, as we’ve already paid the additional thousands in licensing to Microsoft.

It would have been nice if I had been able to get anyone from SolarWinds to actively participate in the discussion with the team of Microsoft Nazi’s that I was dealing with back when I was begging for such help months ago.

I was fully prepared to license according to our users consuming data through the NPM or SAM interface.

However, according to how Microsoft decided to interpret the SolarWinds installation, we needed to license based on the devices to be monitored.

We tried the approach that you mention below, but we consistently got the same response.

Microsoft’s definition of Multiplexing is as follows: “Hardware or software you use to pool connections, reroute information, reduce the number of devices or users that directly access or use the product, or reduce the number of operating system environments (or OSEs), devices or users the product directly manages, (sometimes referred to as “multiplexing” or “pooling”), does not reduce the number of licenses of any type that you need”

I still feel that we were let down by SolarWinds and that we were cheated by Microsoft.

My suggestion to anyone considering a new SolarWinds deployment is to make sure that you’ve got your ducks in a row before purchasing the SolarWinds product.

If you expect to have any issues with the wonderful folks at Microsoft, I’d suggest getting them involved early in the process, as they appear to expect their pound of flesh in the process.

As before, I also believe that SolarWinds owes it to their customers to have some type of joint statement from both SolarWinds and MS on the subject.

Charles King

I.T. Infrastructure Manager

(281) 341-4584

500 Liberty St.

Richmond, Texas 77469

Level 14

I bet Leon Adato would be willing to take this one forward to Solarwinds.  I would love to see a joint statement as well, more so that I can waive it in the faces of over zealous resellers who want me to buy 10,000 CALs for my servers 'cause that's not going to happen.

Level 18

This is already being discussed internally. I'm going to unofficially say that I'm sorry for what you ( kingcd ) experienced (both the vagueness and being cheated. However, this is honestly the first time I've encountered this kind of logic from Microsoft. Let me break it down this way:

From a database standpoint, the db is not connecting to the targets, nor are the targets connecting to the database. And even if they were, what is HAPPENING is that the device information (CPU, RAM, etc) is being recorded. Period. It's like saying you need 10,000 CALS if you are a hospital and want to record patient stats.

From a poller standpoint, once again, the targets are not connecting to the polling engine, the polling engine is initiating the connection and collection. And that's usually via ICMP and SNMP. So Microsoft would have to be saying that you needed 10,000 CALS to support your DOS batch file that does a ping of all your devices every hour.

In my past experience, the only CALS I had to worry about was for actual RDP sessions by monitoring staff to the polling engine, and the web server.

But I'm not usually the guy doing the purchasing of licenses or CALS so my experience may be skewed by overly-efficient purchasing staff.

Level 9

As far as I can tell from the PUR you do require a device CAL for any device that is monitored by the product using SQL for its backend. The analogy to a hospital and patients is different in that it is a manual process whereby information is manually entered into a database from written patient notes. In the example of an automated product like SAM, the data is injected into the database automajically via the product itself based on data polled or sent via the endpoint. It is unfortunate but a reality, hence why all of our SQL databases for these types of systems are now hosted as virtual guests on hosts fully licensed by physical core. This comes at a huge cost but service multiple systems now and is far cheaper than a Server/CAL model for us. Its definitely an issue though, even VMware are moving their products to be less reliant on MS licensing, hence the lack of SQL support for the vCenter Server Appliance.

I suppose from a SW perspective this licensing requirement should be made clearer but they wouldn't be the first software vendor to brush over this fact. As someone else mentioned previously, support for opensource databases is a good option and maybe SW could look to offer an ISV licensed SQL instance, whereby the SQL license is provided with the product but limited for use by that software only.

Level 11

Can a SolarWinds staffer please update this table, it looks to be out of date

About the Author
Francois has joined the SW product management team in Dec 2010. He has been in the network management space for about 15 years, first in a startup company, then in one of the big 4 and back to a human-size company. Despite his bizarre accent, he is a decent guy to talk to.