1 18 19 20 21 22 Previous Next 1,981 Replies Latest reply on Aug 21, 2012 2:40 PM by scowse Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
      • 285. Re: Start new threads?
        Frank.Heidbuchel Novice

        for me they can fire someone or more over this idea.

        i never saw a product release get this mutch negative feedback even before the product was availeble for testing.

        you think vmware is big and smart enough to not do stupid thing like this.

        • 286. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
          tietzjd25 Enthusiast

          JDLangdon wrote:

           

          odonnellj wrote:

           

          The worst thing to do is to start negotiating vRAM levels. The whole concept is absurd and should be scrapped and an apology given.

           

          Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't vRAM the amount of RAM that is allocated to a VM upon bootup?

           

          If that is correct then upon bootup, my VM with 16GB's of RAM assigned to it is using 16GB's of vRAM.  What happens to my licensing cost if I limit this same 16GB VM to 2GB's upon bootup and use 14GB's of SWAP space?  Did my licensing cost just go down?

          No it's Memory used, not memory allocated.

          • 287. Re: Start new threads?
            c33jbeckwith Novice

            rjb2 wrote:

             

            John,

             

            We certainly wish we could be talking about the technical aspects of the new version, and I'm sure you'd like to be doing that as well, but VMWare's decision has placed the focus squarely on the pricing issue - we don't need another thread at this point. It is quite clear now that VMWare has alienated a lot of loyal customers; many of whom have been advocating for your product both within their companies and among their peers in the field. I guess we can assume that the risks were calculated and that the cost of the casualties would be less than the gain to be had by such an aggressive price increase.

             

            I am amazed by the number of articles, blog postings, and responses that have been generated all over the web as a result of this decision. VMWare obviously had a lot of loyalty, or this decision would have gone virtually unnoticed. It is also clear that customers already felt that they were paying a premium price for a very good product, and contrary to your assumptions, there are a large number who would now have to pay significantly more to continue with VMWare. We are one of those customers.

             

            Change is inevitable, but in addition to setting the vRAM entitlements too low, VMWare failed to provide a soft landing for their existing customers to transition gracefully to the new model. Instead, it appears that you are squandering a lot of customer good will, and are forcing otherwise happy IT professionals to spend their valuable time on a very negative topic.

             

            I have tried to respond in a sincere and non-emotional way to this situation after thinking about it for a day, but it doesn't feel any better this morning, and there is little chance that we will reach the point of acceptance unless there is some recognition by VMWare that adjustments will need to be made to support the customers who have helped make VMWare successful up until this point.

            I could not agree more.  VMware had two ways to go, make licensing less expensive and bring more potential users into the market, or make it more expensive and potentially alienate their user base.  They chose the secondd approach.  My personal opinion is they chose wrong.

            • 288. Re: Start new threads?
              Frank.Heidbuchel Novice

              I just wonder....

               

              is there a reason they announce this now...

              in the middle of the holidays...

              months from VMworld...

               

              it makes me think...

               

              maybe they knew it would generate a lot of negative feedback...

              so announce it, in the most calm month...

              so people are less negative over it, when vmworld starts.

              • 289. Re: Start new threads?
                medic29 Enthusiast

                The pooch is screwed on this one...  Either ESXi 4 will remain in place as long as can be worked with or MS/Zen will be the best option for the money spent.

                • 290. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                  RogerThomas Novice

                  4 ENT Edition lic = 128 vRAM in use..... Are you not designed for N+1 failover?

                   

                  Sorry by why do all the supports of VMWARE seem to think that just because people have consolidated work loads they have also moved to HA based clusters?

                   

                  Within my enironment I do not run HA or even a central cluster - why do I need to? I can use SQL mirroring for ms failover is the main node goes down and all my work loads are also built as active/passive systems or resource pools with automatic failover/distributed workload.

                  • 291. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                    derekb13 Novice

                    Joe Tietz wrote:


                    Please don't take offense on what I saying here. But 2 extra lic for enverment that size should not be issue. If friend is using those number of memroy he is the reason why VMware needed to put new lic requements in.

                    If you think it's "not an issue", can I have them send the invoices to your attention, and you'll pay for them? Cuz, y'know, it shouldn't be an issue, right?

                     

                    It is an issue, though. Y'know why? Cuz I'm paying for SnS, and I expect "the hardware and software I paid for" to continue working after the upgrade. Not to suddenly have to say to management "Yeah, y'know that stuff that's been working just fine? Yeah, I need more money because they are insisting I buy more licenses to keep it running. No, no, nothing really changed significantly, they just want to reach deeper into our pockets."

                     

                    Here's what the response will be: "Pound Sand."

                     

                    And VMware didn't NEED to put any new lic requirements in. Look at their financials, my friend, they're a publicly traded company, so it's easy to do. Record profits, sales through the roof. They don't NEED to do this, they're not going to go bankrupt tomorrow if they don't do this. They're simply getting greedy. Plain and simple.

                     

                    But the bottom line is: Your N+1 argument is, frankly, poodoo, and you and everyone else needs to just stop reiterating it, because it's ONLY valid in an environment that only has one live server and one standby server. Everyone else is probably going to need more licenses.

                    • 292. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                      DANCHUFT Novice

                      Has anyone read this excerpt from the licensing PDF;

                       

                      I have received an alert from VMware vCenter that I have

                      exceeded the available pooled vRAM, but the product did

                      not prevent me from deploying a new virtual machine.

                      What is going on?

                      A: Only vSphere Essentials and Essentials Plus implement hard

                      enforcement of vRAM capacity. VMware vCenter Server

                      Standard will not prevent you from exceeding the available

                      vRAM capacity; it will only signal that the licensing of the

                      environment is out of compliance. VMware licensing policy

                      is that customers should buy licenses in advance of use,

                      so we recommend monitoring the vRAM consumption and

                      extending the available pooled vRAM capacity before

                      exceeding it. In this example, to become compliant you should

                      immediately add enough vSphere licenses to cover the high

                      watermark of consumed vRAM capacity.

                       

                      http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf

                      • 293. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                        rickardnobel Virtuoso

                        Jon Tackabury wrote:

                         

                        Currently we are using ESXi (free) and have been trying out the Essentials kits to allow use to use VCB to make our backups easier to manage. This was going to cost us around $1k-$2k total for both hosts. If we upgrade to VMware vSphere 5, ESXi only allows for 8GB RAM, which is crazy.

                         

                        It is still somewhat unclear if there is a 8 GB vRAM limit on the free version.

                         

                        VMware is saying both that, but on same time claims a single VM running on the free vSphere Hypervisor could use up to 1 TB of memory!

                         

                        See this: http://rickardnobel.se/archives/620

                        • 294. Re: Start new threads?
                          JustinL3 Novice

                          rjb2 wrote:

                           

                          John,

                           

                          We certainly wish we could be talking about the technical aspects of the new version, and I'm sure you'd like to be doing that as well, but VMWare's decision has placed the focus squarely on the pricing issue - we don't need another thread at this point. It is quite clear now that VMWare has alienated a lot of loyal customers; many of whom have been advocating for your product both within their companies and among their peers in the field. I guess we can assume that the risks were calculated and that the cost of the casualties would be less than the gain to be had by such an aggressive price increase.

                           

                          I am amazed by the number of articles, blog postings, and responses that have been generated all over the web as a result of this decision. VMWare obviously had a lot of loyalty, or this decision would have gone virtually unnoticed. It is also clear that customers already felt that they were paying a premium price for a very good product, and contrary to your assumptions, there are a large number who would now have to pay significantly more to continue with VMWare. We are one of those customers.

                           

                          Change is inevitable, but in addition to setting the vRAM entitlements too low, VMWare failed to provide a soft landing for their existing customers to transition gracefully to the new model. Instead, it appears that you are squandering a lot of customer good will, and are forcing otherwise happy IT professionals to spend their valuable time on a very negative topic.

                           

                          I have tried to respond in a sincere and non-emotional way to this situation after thinking about it for a day, but it doesn't feel any better this morning, and there is little chance that we will reach the point of acceptance unless there is some recognition by VMWare that adjustments will need to be made to support the customers who have helped make VMWare successful up until this point.

                          In addition to my previous post http://communities.vmware.com/message/1790602#1790602, the comments by rjb2 fit inline exactly with my thoughts on this who fiasco.

                           

                          -J

                          • 295. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                            AXI Novice

                            Sorry, its memory allocated

                            "entitlement to offer customers the greatest flexibility for vSphere

                            configuration and usage. vRAM is defined as the virtual memory

                            configured to virtual machines. When a virtual machine is created,

                            it is configured with a certain amount of virtual memory (vRAM)

                            available to the virtual machine. Depending on the edition, each

                            vSphere 5.0-CPU license provides a certain vRAM capacity

                            entitlement. When the virtual machine is powered on, the vRAM

                            configured for that virtual machine counts against the total vRAM

                            entitled to the user. There are no restrictions on how vRAM capacity

                            can be distributed among virtual machines: a customer can

                            configure many small virtual machines or one large virtual machine.

                            The entitled vRAM is a fungible resource configured to meet

                            customer workload requirements."

                            http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf

                             

                             

                             

                            • 296. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                              Frank.Heidbuchel Novice

                              ye, another thing to monitor.

                              • 297. Re: Start new threads?
                                tietzjd25 Enthusiast

                                I guess the only other point of view I can offer is I have done over 50 deployments in the last 3 years in SMB market. Off top of my head less then 10% of them will have buy more licenses.  As many of them are not going to buy anything over 4 GIG memory chips because of the cost of 8's and 16's are so high.

                                 

                                I see this figure this will hit large enterprise harder, I could be wrong. We will have see how it all shakes out.

                                 

                                Again this lot less expensive then when Microsoft change there virtualization license..... And many I mean many corporations don't license that correctly.

                                 

                                VMware will not like this comment but it's clear in documents.

                                 

                                The only hard limit is in ESS and ESS+!!! If your running other versions it's just a SOFT limit! So like many corporations that correnlty get around MS license will most likely do the same for VMware.

                                • 298. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                  Frank.Heidbuchel Novice

                                  one think i find amusing...

                                   

                                  you can run a 1TB VM, but then limiting everything on memory.

                                  thats like buying a bugatti veron, and then rewrite the limit in there to let it run at 80KMh when the think can do 418Kmh

                                  • 299. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                    jontackabury Novice
                                    It is still somewhat unclear if there is a 8 GB vRAM limit on the free version.
                                    VMware is saying both that, but on same time claims a single VM running on the free vSphere Hypervisor could use up to 1 TB of memory!

                                     

                                    From that article, it sounds like ESXi will support 1TB of RAM, but only allow you to allocate 8GB to running VMs. Not very useful at all.

                                    1 18 19 20 21 22 Previous Next