vSphere 5 Licensing

[SuperSpike]

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?

[mikeyes]

Joe Tietz wrote:

From what I saw, prices have drop per license. This could help off set prices, the prices on SMB have not changed though.

VMware statnce is Ess + or Ess was ment for SMB with less then 20 servers... 144/20 is almost 8GIG memeory per server.....

What about licenses currently under maintenace.  Dropping the price on new purchases doesn't help when my maintenance licenses are devalued.

[Frank_Heidbuche]

interesting,

this VDI licensing

this vmware desktop host...

when is someting a desktop...

is a citrix xenapp server on this a desktop?

a server with RDP enabled...

or only desktop OSses???

is linux a server or desktop OS?

the doc says this:

Q. Are there any restrictions with vSphere Desktop?
A. vSphere Desktop can be used only to host a desktop virtualization environment.

[tietzjd25]

Pascal Watteel wrote:

interesting,

this VDI licensing

this vmware desktop host...

when is someting a desktop...

is a citrix xenapp server on this a desktop?

a server with RDP enabled...

or only desktop OSses???

is linux a server or desktop OS?

the doc says this:

Q. Are there any restrictions with vSphere Desktop?
A. vSphere Desktop can be used only to host a desktop virtualization environment.

On VDI from what I understand is if VMware reads it as Desktop OS. Windows 7, XP, SLED and so forth it will run.... If reads that it's server os that server will not start.

This is my understanding up to today. But of course all this could change in next 60 days or not at all.... Again I seen MS charge more many of time.... Intinal outrage fades and pepole keep on buying the products.

[Gabriel_Chapman]

From what I can tell, VMWare appears to be completely caught off guard with the licensing push back, or simply didn't anticipate the ripple effect it would cause from their much larger SMB market, as opposed to the larger cloud types. My reasoning for this is the lack of a calculation tool for upgrade path on the same date that they make the announcement of the licensing change. I tend to see this new scheme as a trial balloon thats being floated, of course this one was made of lead. I really do hope they listen to their customers and make appropriate adjustments to the license model. Hell even Oracle listened to customers when it came to their support for Oracle on VMWare and insistence that the only supported virtualization platform they would accept was Oracles.

The cost increase for the groups who can do external chargeback isn't a big deal, they will simply raise their prices to offset the licensing increases and sell it based on "new features". For those of us who use the product internally and cannot pass the costs onto some third party, the price increases hurt. How VMWare missed this is beyond my comprehension, but I'll assume it has something to do with being a market leader.

This said, as much as the new improvements are a nice addition to the platform, I can't justify migrating just yet, nor would I. I can't see a huge adoption rate of a fresh release, at least with it being untested. So I will wait 6 months post release before even approaching management to do the upgrade, and who knows what will change in the licensing structure between now and then.

[WillL]

Hopefully VMware will listen, so goes to whole industry. Only time will tell......

At least it's no vCPU entitlement, it could be worse

[mikeyes]

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.

Could not have said it better myself.

[sergeadam]

20 VMs may be what VMWare wants, but that is not reality.

We bought 3 servers with a total of 224GB RAM and Essentials Plus for a specific project, realizing that we’d have enough capacity to also virtualize the other servers in that datacentre. The server specs according to the vendor will require 124GB for that project alone. I know full well that I won’t actually utilize all that RAM, but if I have any kind of performance issues, I need to conform to the vendor specs. So it leaves me 20GB for my other servers. My 2 options are to upgrade to Standard or go Hyper-V. Seeing as I already own Windows Datacenter...

[Rumple]

My recommendation, as as much as I hate to say this, is to follow Microsoft Windows Server model.

vRAM Model in increments of 32G for standard 64G for anything higher.

pCPU (sockets) are licensed at a higher cost...

At some point with M$ licensing you switch from per Windows server licenses to per socket datacenter because its cheaper.

This would give us smaller guys a lower cost then trying to pay per socket for all hosts, and allow the bigger guys to do whatever they wish with their hardware.

It kind of falls into the same idea as the Microsoft SPLA...I pay per user for windows CAL's and my costs gradually climb, but once I get big enough I switch to Datacenter (and my costs flatline)...

[rjb2]

Joe Tietz wrote:

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.

Happily not in compliance?

[rjb2]

CCJNL wrote:

Some new info out about how VDI licensing will work.

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

Yes, and the new desktop licensing provides you with unlimited vRAM!!!........but they also make it clear in more than one place that it is too bad if you are running a big VDI cluster using vSphere 4 licenses - these will be upgraded to the new throttled versions if a customer uses their SnS entitlement to upgrade.

"This offer extends only to the purchases of new vSphere licenses. All eligible vSphere 4 (or earlier version of vSphere) licenses used for desktop virtualization will not be upgraded to the vSphere Desktop SKU. These licenses will be migrated to the corresponding vSphere 5 edition and not to vSphere Desktop."

[rjb2]

.....just in case we didn't get the point when they made this clear the first time - existing customers will be subject to the vRAM throttle on their VDI clusters

Q. Are there any restrictions with vSphere Desktop?
A. vSphere Desktop can be used only to host a desktop virtualization environment. This offer extends only to the purchases of new vSphere licenses. Existing vSphere licenses would be upgraded to corresponding vSphere 5 editions, subject to vSphere 5 pooled vRAM entitlement and not to vSphere Desktop.

[chadwickking]

Yeah,

They sure did there homework.

If we woud've migrated to our new vSphere environment we stood up we would end up buying 47 more licenses.

I honestly think we got screwed over.  Yeah most "VRAM" capacities maybe covered due to their "Numbers" doesn't mean we get the capacity we used to have availible anymore.

Personally I think current contract customer should get there current physical capacity in VRAM for upgrading.  As for the licenscing base it really should've been more like 32/64/128/256 since most servers are now spec'ed at that base line. 

Considering VMware wants to help you get to the "cloud" by removing limits on CPU and Memory for VM's they take a step forward and add to it a great cost.  You cannot say one thing and do another and still say its all good because our numbers show everyone may come out a little ahead.  Your lucky to break even and as many have proved its not right sizing VM's anymore because we GO BY SOFTWARE VENDOR STANDARDS - Hell the "EFF" O Vmware. No, memory was never an issue prior... but now it most CERTAINLY is!

With that being said I too agree with the conspiracy theorist about Paul Maritz, Hell hes probably still on MS payroll, lol (that was joke :smileysilly:)

Anyways I suppose we will just wait and see what comes to pass.  Yes, it does seem like a Novell move "We have the best directory service in the world" *Plane comes crashing down shorly after*. Vmware "We do have 50% market share" *MS grins evily in the background, Netfilx Jacks up prices, and Citrix buys cloud.com* - LOL

To all the people commenting and trying to justify the license hike everyone on these forums are proving you wrong - but I am glad you show interest in caring - really. Jacking up prices from what have been the normal for years simple because you have a market share is a fatal mistake.  Maybe VMware just needs to fire some overpaid CEO's before the federal government has to bail them out - lol.

Honestly it should be the darn leaders and people behind the thinking and consideration of the licensing on this forum taking the heat and trying to defend it.

[hjmiii]

Ditto to Chadwick's comments above. The 48GB limit on Ent+ is ridiculous given that the sky was the limit before. I just upgraded a 6 host cluster to 96GB per socket because 48GB wasn't even taxing last year's Intel Westmere 6core CPUs. Even with HA taken into account I had a target of upwards of 70GB per core to allocate by the end of this year. This model nearly doubles my licensing cost.

And those saying this is your opportunity to right-size your guest memory allocations have never lived in a real enterprise IT environment. In a cloud environment where self service is a core tenet, you allocate what the customer pays for. Even where you do have control of the allocation I've found that good Windows guest behavior relies on having more RAM than is needed. If windows even thinks it's getting close to it's max physical ram it'll start paging, and performance will take a major hit. It doesn't matter how well the host is sharing memory.

[allenb1121]

How in the world will this work?!

View is licensed per-VM, not per-CPU.

For example, if I buy View support for 100VMs, I can run that on 2 hosts or on 10 - so long as I don't exceed 100VMs.

I'm throughly confused as to how this will be implemented....

Allen Beddingfield

Systems Engineer

The University of Alabama

[rbtwindude]

VMware vSphere 5 may just be the turning point! The cost of going virtual just got higher (vRAM license) and may be a turning point. In some cases it may be more cost effective to go or stay physical than to go virtual! Hold on, to all them cloud and Hyper-V arguments.

Your Question now should be if the vSphere 5 features are worth the upgrade and/or cost!

I'm UCS - vBlock with Cisco B230 Blades with 256 Gigs of RAM in each! Wow what a license cost!

[Zahni]

He He,

Microsoft strikes back:

"Microsoft: New VMware Pricing Makes VMware Cloud Costs 4x Microsoft's"

http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/231001635/microsoft-new-vmware-pricing-makes-vmware-cloud-costs-4x-mic...

There's a cloudy day..

[kattrap]

I am a VCP3&4, a VMware champion since 2.5 days. I run a VM-volitile university virtual hosting environment (can host 150VMs one month, 200 the next) as well as consulting for SMB-Enterprises via a consulting company.

I downloaded XenServer today.

Perhaps it was a premonition that my blog is vKoolAid. Tuesday we were asked to drink up.

[hellraiser]

That's uncanny, today I downloaded Hyper-V

JD

[sliptrap]

I just downloaded hyper-v today as well. We started a VDI deployment this year using view and we bought the "Add on" licenses becuase we already had exisiting ESX hosts but now we are only about 30-40% thru our deployment and already over the max vRam limit with the new licensing model. This is the 2nd time VMWare has screwed us over, last change was the introduction to Enterprise+. We had already bought the highest tier to ensure we got all of the features and then they did that. There is a reason we dont deal with EMC storage anymore and it looks like the EMC execs have started to get their fingers into the VMWare licenseing now.

[abbasi]

I have to say I am floored with this new lic model.  I did the  quick calculations. 

We own 96 Ent+ lics which are allowed 48 GB vRAM each =  0.46 TB of vRAM. 

We currently have allocated 1.9TB of RAM in the environment.   This means we would have to quadruple our VMware lics to 395 Ent+.

So we would have to buy  300 more Ent+ lics at a cost of approx 1 million$ and that is to simply maintain  what we have, we cannot add another machine.   That is simply not going to  happen.  I have no idea what VMware is thinking but it is now much cheaper for  us to dump VMware and use Microsoft Hyper-V because we bought MS Datacenter  Edition so to move to move to MS is 0$

This is absolutely ridiculous.

____________

EDIT

I just did a recalculation.  I was off one decimal point as pointed out Andrew Hald

We have approx 600 machines allocated a total of 1.9 TB of RAM.  So my total vRAM is 1.9TB
We own 96  ENT+ lics that means I can run 4.6 TB of vRAM

So we can approx double our vRAM usage.  But with our current server consolidation plans for 2011-2012 this puts us very tight when I thought we would have 3-4x the capacity as we are currently migrating from 2 CPU blades with 32 GB RAM to 2 CPU blades with 96 GB 

This also means we may not have any vRAM available for our VDI project