VMware Cloud Community
SuperSpike
Contributor
Contributor

vSphere 5 Licensing

I took a minute to read the licensing guide for vSphere 5 and I'm still trying to pull my jaw off the floor. VMware has completely screwed their customers this time. Why?

What I used to be able to do with 2 CPU licenses now takes 4. Incredible.

Today

BL460c G7 with 2 sockets and 192G of memory = 2 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
DL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 4 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses

Tomorrow

BL460c G7 with 2 sockets and 192G of memory = 4 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
BL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 6 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses


So it's almost as if VMware is putting a penalty on density and encouraging users to buy hardware with more sockets rather than less.

I get that the vRAM entitlements are for what you use, not necessarily what you have, but who buys memory and doesn't use it?

Forget the hoopla about a VM with 1 TB of memory. Who in their right mind would deploy that using the new license model? It would take 22 licenses to accommodate! You could go out and buy the physical box for way less than that today, from any hardware vendor.

Anyone else completely shocked by this move?

@Virtual_EZ
Reply
0 Kudos
1,980 Replies
dales123
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Wow what a stinker, Up to this point I've been very happy with all the versions of vc and vsphere I've worked with, I'm a VCP3 and have whole heartedly supported vmware as they are streets ahead of the competition.....

This however is extremely bad for them, I'm working on a virtualisation project for a rapidly growing company with offsite replication, and up until yesturday I knew exactly which hypervisor I was going to deploy... Not now though. I'm going to have to seriously consider the Hyper-V and xen as alternatives because I see the new licencing model as restrictive to the companys growth. Whilst the company is enjoying rapid growth that does not give me any entitlement to throw cash around like confetti and vmware appear to think that it is exactly like that.

Sorry guys I love your products and I hope you revert this licencing model PDQ but I cannot waste money on licencing when other products can do 90% of what yours can and this is the chance they need to catch up. If you dont sort this out then you will not be "the Cloud" provider that you announced you wanted to be.

Dale.

Kind Regards Dale VCP3+5
Reply
0 Kudos
sergeadam
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Frankly, NO.

Most SME are not. IF we have failover, it's likely a 2-3 host cluster with some extra capacity. Usually not enough capacity. And memory overcommitment.

The conversation with the C level usually goes like this:

Me: I need a SAN and 3 servers to virtualize

C: Do we really need 3 servers

Me: well, no. We actually need 2. I need the additional one for a hot stanby.

C: what happens if we go with 2?

Me: If we lose one of the 2, VMs migrate to the remaining one, and everything works slower until the failed machine is back up.

C: How often do servers go dwon?

Me; Not that often

C: Go with 2 then. 

Reply
0 Kudos
Frank_Heidbuche
Contributor
Contributor

hahaha that sounds just like a conversation with my C-level

no i know it's everywhere the same...

Reply
0 Kudos
DarkOneX
Contributor
Contributor

gmitch64

Who really has a 2 CPU system with only 72Gb installed in it these days? I mean really. Heck, even 18 months ago, I don't think we had any dual CPU boxes with this little RAM in them.

Heh, you'd be surprised we have many dual, quad, octo core machines with less than 32GB even 16GB in them!

Reply
0 Kudos
GVD
Contributor
Contributor

Hey jontackabury, you're making a mistake in looking at Essentials and Essentials Plus.

If you only have 2 servers with each 1 CPU & 32 GB RAM, than Essentials entitles you to use it fully.

The Essentials kit gives you 6 CPU licenses (to be used at a maximum of 2 per server) and a vRAM pool of 144GB (6x 24GB). As such, you have absolutely nothing to worry about for now. It's not because you don't have a CPU to match the extra memory to that you can't use the license!

Essentials at most allows for 3 servers with each 2 CPUs and 48 GB RAM. (boils down to 6 CPUs with each 24 GB RAM)

Essentials & E+ are also a kit, not single license costs. To license you servers with Essentials, you just buy one kit, not one per server. This comes down to 450 euros for Essentials (without SnS) and 4000 euros (+ support contract cost) for Essentials Plus.

Reply
0 Kudos
rjb2
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

There is a classic business book on pricing strategy and the lifecycle of a product. When I heard about VMWare's change, this immediately came to mind. Some of the ideas are presented at this link http://www.imakenews.com/strategicpricing/e_article000586549.cfm?x=b11,bbH759jg,w and may help to explain VMWare's position.

Here is an excerpt: My first thought was that this was "harvest" phase, but perhaps "retrenchment" is more accurate; the cloud is the focus.

"Market Decline


Reduced buyer demand and excess capacity characterize this phase. If costs are largely variable or if capital can be easily reallocated to more promising markets, prices need fall only slightly to induce some firms to cut capacity. If costs are largely fixed and sunk, average costs soar due to reduced capacity utilization, while price competition increases as firms attempt to increase their capacity utilization by capturing a larger share of a declining market. Three options are available to deal with this challenge: retrench to one’s strongest product lines and price to defend one’s share in them, harvest one’s entire business by pricing for maximum cash flow, or consolidate one’s position by price-cutting to drive out weak competitors and capture their markets.

Retrenchment


A retrenchment strategy involves either partial or complete capitulation of some market segments to refocus resources on others where the firm has a stronger position. The firm deliberately forgoes market share but positions itself to be more profitable with the share it retains. Retrenchment is a carefully planned and executed strategy to put the firm in a more viable competitive position, not an immediate necessity to stave off collapse.

Harvesting

A harvesting strategy is a phased withdrawal from an industry. It begins like retrenchment with abandonment of the weakest links, but the goal of harvesting is a departure rather than a reallocation of resources. The harvesting firm does not price to defend its remaining market share but rather to maximize its income. The harvesting firm may make short-term investments in the industry to keep its position from deteriorating too rapidly, but it avoids fundamental long-term investments, preferring instead to treat its competitive position in the declining market as a “cash cow” for funding more promising ventures in other markets. ....."

Reply
0 Kudos
MB01
Contributor
Contributor

This is a bit too much. Typical EMC fashion. We are\were building a second data center based on VMware and now have to reconsider this. I have to add an additional $500k to a budget for this, for this year, when budgets are already approved.  I would like to have VMWare come in and explain that to my CTO\CFO because I do not stand a chance. I already have a call into my local rep

We have been architecting this based on what we knew today, who imagined a change like this!


This is painful...

Do I still take my team to VMWorld? or do I invest the money in researching alternatives.  We have fully loaded UCS chassis with ram maxed out...$$$$

I hope this is revoked or I may have a lot of rework to do...

My $0.02

Reply
0 Kudos
jontackabury
Contributor
Contributor

@GVD: Please forgive my confusion, but what does the doc mean when it says "24GB (144GB max)"? Does that mean I can only allocate 24GB to my VMs per host, or can I allocate 144GB per host?

Reply
0 Kudos
tietzjd25
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Jon Tackabury wrote:

@GVD: Please forgive my confusion, but what does the doc mean when it says "24GB (144GB max)"? Does that mean I can only allocate 24GB to my VMs per host, or can I allocate 144GB per host?

You can allocate 144GB of memory vs all 3 hosts.  So if you have 3 hosts 48 GB of memory, if you have 2 hosts you can have 72 GB of memory and if have single host you can have up to 144 GB of memory allocated.

Joe Tietz VCAP-DCD Solutions Architect
Reply
0 Kudos
jontackabury
Contributor
Contributor

I see, they really should remove that 24GB thing from the docs, very mis-leading. Smiley Sad Thanks for the clarification. Glad to hear it's not going to be as crazy-expensive as I once thought, still disappointed that when we expand it's going to cost us even more.

Reply
0 Kudos
sergeadam
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

It means the Essential kits allow you 24GB per CPU and comes with a 6 CPU limit (6*24).

Reply
0 Kudos
Baddos
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Jon Tackabury wrote:

I just wanted to throw my opinion in as a small VMware ESXi user. We currently have 2 servers with 1 CPU each and 32GB of RAM in each host. We run 6 VMs (4 on one host, 2 on the other). 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. The next level up only allows for 24GB RAM, so we'd be forced to spend $6k total for both hosts to be allowed to use all 32GB of our RAM. That's almost as much as I paid for the hardware! VMware, you've gone off the deep on this one. We don't have high requirements, and don't need many of the features that come with the higher versions of vSphere so we're looking at Hyper-V now as a replacement. Instead of VMware getting $2k from us, they tried to get $6k and now they're not going to get anything.

If I'm reading their pricing pdf correctly, you can get the essentials kit for $495 that would cover your exact situation. The kit covers 6 sockets with 24gx6 vRAM and vCenter which you currently don't have. Talk to your sales rep to get an accurate quote for sure.

Reply
0 Kudos
aarondovetail
Contributor
Contributor

Previously with Essentials you could have up to 768GB of RAM total (256 per host). Now with vSphere 5 you can only have 144....

Reply
0 Kudos
CCJNL
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Some new info out about how VDI licensing will work.

http://blogs.vmware.com/euc/2011/07/vsphere-desktop-licensing-overview.html

Reply
0 Kudos
GVD
Contributor
Contributor

For Essentials, 24GB is the amount of RAM that is 'tied' to a sinlge CPU license. However, the Essentials pack is a kit, not a single license. The kit includes 6 CPU licenses, that can be used for instance across 3 servers, meaning that 3 servers with 2 CPUs and 48 GB RAM each are possible.

These are resources at your disposal across both your two servers that you currently own. You have 2 servers with each 1 CPU and 32 GB RAM. This is fine and falls within licensing terms. You could add another identical servers and still fall within licensing terms. However you cannot upgrade these three servers to double CPU and 64 GB RAM (32GB / CPU in this case). Or rather you can, but that would mean that you could not allocate all your RAM (hard limit! only 6x 24 GB RAM is assignable at any time).

Reply
0 Kudos
mikeyes
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

JDLangdon wrote:

People didn't stop using Novell because of a licensing change.  This was brought on because using Microsoft server products allowed for a tighter intergration with Microsoft dekstop products and application suites.

The only people who are going to be effected by this license change are the Fortune 500's and smaller who have invested in blade technologies.  Larger companies who have invested in larger servers (4 sockets) and who are already licensed as Enterprise and/or Enterprise Plus probably won't care either way.

People stopped using Novell just as much for money as for tech.  Microsoft priced themselves below Novell to win customers over and Novell did not fight.  They thought that their customers were so loyal and their product so good that no one would ever consider leaving.  They found out they were wrong.  Money usually talks in the end.  Companies can't print money so if you have a max amount you can spend and the product you want it outside of that range you are forced to use something else.

Reply
0 Kudos
tietzjd25
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Jon Tackabury wrote:

I see, they really should remove that 24GB thing from the docs, very mis-leading. Smiley Sad Thanks for the clarification. Glad to hear it's not going to be as crazy-expensive as I once thought, still disappointed that when we expand it's going to cost us even more.

jontackabury---  I think the maistake on VMware part here might been more in the past than what they are doing now. VMware always stated the ESS packages where ment for SMB with 20 or less VM's. They where hoping we would honor that request. Well I know many have not, so now they are enforcing it.

For everyone above ESS+ it is a  soft limit ... so upgrade and be happy..... I am possitve it's SOFT limit for reason... They want get feedback and see what the real impact is on the world. On ADV,ENT and ENT+ it's just reported if your using more than what is entitled right now.

I sure feedback of acctual numbers will change Entilments around in the future. 

Never seen such outrage over somthing I would consder little more then vRAM usage report.

Joe Tietz VCAP-DCD Solutions Architect
Reply
0 Kudos
mikeyes
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

JDLangdon wrote:

That's what I said, people who invested in blade technologies will be effected.  Companies with larger 4-socket servers will not be effected as bad unless they have gone above and beyond 132GB's of RAM per host.

Most SMB don't have 4 socket servers.  VM's usually need RAM not CPU.  Why increase your VMware license costs 2 year ago by purchasing 4 socket CPU servers when 2 socket quad core servers gave you all the compute you needed.  RAM was needed though so 2 CPU server packed full of RAM became the most common configuration.  This licensing change will affect more than blade owners.

Reply
0 Kudos
Geoff_l
Contributor
Contributor

So I am just now getting around to reading the licensing changes and OMG! this is going to be a problem for me. I have been fighting back managements interesting in exploring cheaper alternatives for VMWare and there has been a lot of push to exploring Hyper-V and XEN and this may be just what it takes to push us over the edge!

We are leaving Oracle and going to SQL because of their new creative pricing and its not unlikely this could happen here too...

I hope this pricing gets re-evaluated....this is disasterous to my plans!!

Reply
0 Kudos
RogerThomas
Contributor
Contributor

jontackabury---  I think the maistake on VMware part here might been more in the past than what they are doing now. VMware always stated the ESS packages where ment for SMB with 20 or less VM's. They where hoping we would honor that request. Well I know many have not, so now they are enforcing it.


They may have had an idea of the number of VM's but never made any claims about the memory resources those VMs could use. I have only about 15VM, in my production system but 3 of them are database servers (Active, failover Mirror and a replicated copy for reporting). Each of these is currently allocated 96GBytes of RAM, because RAM is cheap and it allows all reads to come from RAM, so greatly reducing the cost of the disk sub-systems.

The upgrade cost I am now being told I should pay means that I will end up sticking with 4.1 and then go with an alternative once they support larger memory maps. As I already have MS Server Enterprise for all 3 systems Hyper-V is a low cost option, even with the cost of the console.

Reply
0 Kudos