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?

[MindTheGreg]

Actions > Stop Email Notifications

[cvbarney]

You are right, it was due to my Firefox browser. When I reconnect with IE I saw the very disappointing answers...

C: I'm being affected with upscaled.......

VMware: Run the tool...

On every question of customer who is being affected. No solution or possible change icreasement of vRAM.

And one of the most important for me isn't answered:

Q: As RAM chips get large and cheaper over the next couple years does VMware plan on adjusting the RAM entitlements to match this?

VMware: Don't have this information at this point

Waste of my time this webcast.

[wuffers]

cvbarney wrote:

Waste of my time this webcast.

I might attend the next one just for kicks. How can they be so resolutely obtuse on this? It's like they are not even acknowledging people's concerns, and are just giving canned responses. No more licensing evangelists or tweets about how 95% of customers aren't affected by this, please.

[rbtwindude]

Really?

what a meeting.. webinar! Did anyone get anything out of this?

They did talk about a tool, but I haven't seen a tool, only a couple scripts by non-VMware employees. These scripts only look at today and compare some environments but not what has been planned or purchased or DR/BC environments.

One guy stated "we can improve our utilization of vSphere under the new license model and that it was less restrictive." What does that mean? Hmm good thought so if true then show us, give us proof of this. What numbers support this and where did these numbers come from?

I am just totally lost with this and confused on how it will affect the users. At some point it will affect us. The VMware forum (VMTN ) is full of lost people and no one is willing to have an "open honest discussion" about this! That makes no sense to me, if VMware doesn't understand this model then how can they expect customers to?

The numbers seem like car salemen.. funny numbers!

Can someone please explain how this works and KIS (keep is simple)! Explain as EXSi 4.1 and then Vshpere 5 license model.

1 host

2 physical sockets

4 cores per socket (8 total)

512 gigs of RAM

VM Server OS - 2008 R2 (8gb per)

So I look at the above like this - 2 x 4 = 8 x 4 VMs per Core = 32 x 8 GB of Ram per VM = 256 Gigs... the license will be expensive!

First and formost, I don't see how this amount of RAM would be used.. maybe 40:1 vm Ratio?

Thanks!

[kcucadmin]

rbtwindude wrote:

Really?

what a meeting.. webinar! Did anyone get anything out of this?

They did talk about a tool, but I haven't seen a tool, only a couple scripts by non-VMware employees. These scripts only look at today and compare some environments but not what has been planned or purchased or DR/BC environments.

One guy stated "we can improve our utilization of vSphere under the new license model and that it was less restrictive." What does that mean? Hmm good thought so if true then show us, give us proof of this. What numbers support this and where did these numbers come from?

I am just totally lost with this and confused on how it will affect the users. At some point it will affect us. The VMware forum (VMTN ) is full of lost people and no one is willing to have an "open honest discussion" about this! That makes no sense to me, if VMware doesn't understand this model then how can they expect customers to?

The numbers seem like car salemen.. funny numbers!

Can someone please explain how this works and KIS (keep is simple)! Explain as EXSi 4.1 and then Vshpere 5 license model.

1 host

2 physical sockets

4 cores per socket (8 total)

512 gigs of RAM

VM Server OS - 2008 R2 (8gb per)

So I look at the above like this - 2 x 4 = 8 x 4 VMs per Core = 32 x 8 GB of Ram per VM = 256 Gigs... the license will be expensive!

First and formost, I don't see how this amount of RAM would be used.. maybe 40:1 vm Ratio?

Thanks!

you dont get 32GB per core, you get 32GB per socket. i.e. 64GB "Pooled" so for a single host with 8GB Guest VM's you could have 8 VM's. or 4:1 - 4 VM per Socket.

that's at the Enterprise License Level.

Current 4.x Model:

you would need 2 Enterprise Licenses and could allocate as much vRAM as you wanted upto and supassing 512 GB of ram

5.x Model:

you would need 2 Enterprise Licenses to cover your Socket count.  2 x 32 = 64 GB of vRAM "Allocated" licensable.  "NOT USED, but ASSIGEND to a VM".

to license more vRAM than 64GB you would need to buy additonal Enterprise Licenses. (512-64= 448GB pRAM unuseable due to license contraints) to License 448GB of vRAM 448/32 = 14.  VMWare would like you to buy 14 additonal Enterprise Licenses to allocate vRAM equal to the pRAM you have in your 2 socket host.  assuming you did not want to overcommit pRAM.

[GaryHertz]

rbtwindude wrote:

Can someone please explain how this works and KIS (keep is simple)! Explain as EXSi 4.1 and then Vshpere 5 license model.

1 host

2 physical sockets

4 cores per socket (8 total)

512 gigs of RAM

VM Server OS - 2008 R2 (8gb per)

So I look at the above like this - 2 x 4 = 8 x 4 VMs per Core = 32 x 8 GB of Ram per VM = 256 Gigs... the license will be expensive!

First and formost, I don't see how this amount of RAM would be used.. maybe 40:1 vm Ratio?

Thanks!

Using your numbers as I understanf them.  Your actual configuration doesn't match what you plan on needing.

4.1

You have two physical sockets so you will need two licenses.  Your total memory exceeds 256GB so you will need to purchase 2 Enterprise Plus licenses.  If you reduced your RAM down to 256GB you could purchase 2 licenses from less expensice versions further reducing your costs.

5.0

Memory restrictions are gone on the versions listed below so you have greater choice of version you purchase.  You are allocting 256GB of vRAM to your guests so you will need the following number of licenses.  Total vRAM / vRAM Entitlement.

Standard

256GB/24GB = 11 licenses

Enterprise

256GB/32GB = 8 licenses

Enterprise Plus

256GB/48GB = 6 licenses

[kcucadmin]

here is a simple model for people to use:

Assume 2 socket (6 core cpu) system: Requires 2 Licenses. w/HT you have 24 Logical CPU's and the Follwing vRAM Pools to allocate to VM's.

Enterprise+ = (48x2) 96GB vRAM Pool

Enterprise= (32x2) 64GB vRAM Pool

Standard=(24x2) 48GB vRAM Pool

Assume Windows Server 2008 R2 64bit  Base OS

base config as follows: 4 vCPU, 4GB vRAM is a pretty common config i would assume.

VM to Host Ratio's

Enterprise+:  24:1

Enterprise:  16:1

Standard:  12:1

VM to Socket Ratio's (or VM to License Ratio however you want to look at it)

Enterprise+: 12:1

Enterprise: 8:1

Standard: 6:1

I can see how VMWare thought these entitlement numbers would be ok.  However when you take into account that 64bit OS's are becoming more and more common, and APPs are being developed to access larger memory spaces 4GB servers are quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Every Single one of my 64bit SQL Servers has 12+GB vRAM allocated, i have several w 32GB vRAM allocated.  Exchange 2010 servers are the same way.

so when you move the BASE OS model to 8GB of vRAM your ratio's look more like this

Enterprise+:  6:1

Enterprise: 4:1

Standard: 3:1

with servers shipping with more and more RAM becoming the norm, and OS and Applications utilizing more and more RAM becoming the norm i find it odd that by "Upgrading" i'm actually reducing my consolidation ratios.

nobody is going to find the Feature Set of Standard with a consolidation ratio of 3:1 compelling enough to select it over Hyper-V or XEN.

and at 4:1 or even 6:1 the Features of Enterprise and Enterprise+ are priced at a very high premium over other solutions.

maybe my understanding is wrong or my assumptions about base VM memory allocation are off. but I bet Microsoft and XEN Sales reps are getting cheat sheets at this very moment on how to sell against this new model.

vmware...  is on the path of IBM and Novell right now.

remember OS2? bet not many people do.  IBM had a clear winner, then Microsoft blew them out of the water with WinNT only cause it was cheaper...

it was less feature rich, was not as stable, had all sorts of issues but it was cheaper and it was GOOD ENOUGH.

remember sometimes GOOD enough is all it takes.

[GaryHertz]

Bilal wrote:

Pricing with pRAM model will be a conflict of interest for VMware. Why would they enhance memory overcommitment in the future if they know they can charge more by forcing users to put in more pRAM in the servers. IMO vRAM is the right approach, however, the entitlements have room for revision.

They would enhance memory overcommitment in the future to stay ahead of the competition.  This was one of the advantages vSphere has over other platforms.   As it stands now with the current licensing scheme they may as well eliminate it from the feature set to save the little overhead it puts on the system.

vRAM entitlements cost more than physical memory.  Why do I care how much physical memory VMware is saving me when I can't use the memory I have in my system now?  Using the two licenses I currently own I only have access to 96GB using 5.0.  With 4.1 I have access to 256GB +.  Please tell me about my memory savings again.

I paid about $24,000 for a dual socket, 8 core/socket, 256GB server about a year ago.  The cost today would be even less.  The current vSphere licensing will cost me about $18,000.  If I add SnS costs over four years to the price my VMware costs are more than the price of the server.

[egray]

One vCenter Server can handle multiple pools, there is no need to set up multiple to accommodate different editions.

[Dracolith]

Go back to statistics 101.  You have a margin of error ~9%.

You only have 9% assuming a representative sample.  If your sample is non-representative,  the actual error may be much much larger.

So a valid question is... which customers did VMware gather data from, and in what manner did they pick them?

I suppose if  95% of their customers are VMware Workstation/VMware Fusion buyers with no production ESXi deployment,

the move to vRAM in  ESXi  will not effect 95% of customers.

OR   "the current level of entitlements will satisfy the requirements of over 95% of our customer base.

[As soon as they finish purchasing the additional licenses from us,  they will be 'satisfied'  based on 'our definition of satisfied']"

To be any kind of decent too, especially considering the confusion of vRAM and people's inability to distinguish "cost now, vs cost later" and people thinking they'll be paying less (hah, no, sorry, vRAM licencing is still pCPU bound) shows that basically you need to gather infrastructure and license numbers and crunch it yourself to be any kind of accurate.

At the very least VMware's argument that they are simplifying licensing is total bunk.

If they were simplifying it, you  wouldn't need  "special tools"   to   "analyze it",

and by analyze it they mean   "present you the data the way VMware wants you to see it",

so that it 'looks like'  up front it might not cost you much.

Meanwhile, the licensing is more restrictive,  and has removed your ability to fully utilize your hardware --

it is essentially a major reduction in  vSphere PER-LICENSE  / PER-APPLICATION  consolidation efficiency,

artificially introduced....

[rbtwindude]

rbtwindude wrote:

Can someone please explain how this works and KIS (keep is simple)! Explain as EXSi 4.1 and then Vshpere 5 license model.

1 host

2 physical sockets

4 cores per socket (8 total)

512 gigs of RAM

VM Server OS - 2008 R2 (8gb per)

So I look at the above like this - 2 x 4 = 8 x 4 VMs per Core = 32 x 8 GB of Ram per VM = 256 Gigs... the license will be expensive!

First and formost, I don't see how this amount of RAM would be used.. maybe 40:1 vm Ratio?

Thanks!

Using your numbers as I understanf them.  Your actual configuration doesn't match what you plan on needing.

4.1

You have two physical sockets so you will need two licenses.  Your total memory exceeds 256GB so you will need to purchase 2 Enterprise Plus licenses.  If you reduced your RAM down to 256GB you could purchase 2 licenses from less expensice versions further reducing your costs.

5.0

Memory restrictions are gone on the versions listed below so you have greater choice of version you purchase.  You are allocting 256GB of vRAM to your guests so you will need the following number of licenses.  Total vRAM / vRAM Entitlement.

Standard

256GB/24GB = 11 licenses

Enterprise

256GB/32GB = 8 licenses

Enterprise Plus

256GB/48GB = 6 licenses

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GREAT THANKS! I have Enterprise Plus licenses..

I'm just trying to figure out how to use the most RAM, I think 15:1 or 20:1 depending on the VM server is a good and not to too risky!

so it looks like

in 4.x i need 2 + 2 entprise plus

in v5 i need 2 + 6 enterprise plus.

Will have to buy more! Cost goes up PERIOD! that is Apples to Apples -WOW

[rdhughes]

A couple of points I would like to add here...

1) We have been implementing VMware for over 5 years. We did not but hundreds of CPU's up front. We have been buying them as we grow our virtual infrastructure. We now have hundreds of CPU's. Many are fully depreciated and we only pay SnS. We budgeted for growth a project at a time, a year at a time, etc. WHAM! Welcome V5!!! Now I will need to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital as well as SnS in the middle of the 2011 budget year. What does this mean?

No vCloud money left.

No SRM Money left.

No virtual Storage Appliance money left.

No automated chargback money left.

No Operations Center money left. (ha...did anyone get the invite to that one? useless now)

No money left for Appspeed.

No money left for budgeted growth. No new capacity. Shuts down growth. Ouch!

What are those other new products announced with V5? useless. I am paying hypervisor taxes.

Of course, every one of VMware's Partners are going to love it too since capital will be limited for them as well. (I can only ask management for so much).

In fact I will be paying off this upgrade for another 3 years. The impact will be like back in 2000 when everybody stopped buying hardware and software to catch up with the depreciation on all of the Y2K stuff.

Mid-Year unbudgeted capital for zero new capacity?

2) 5.7vm's per socket?

Come on VMware. You know statistics are lies and damn lies. (98% of lawyers make the rest look bad... scratch that. make it MBA's in this case or whoever missed their homework on this one....

Let me point out that in a True production site. Not a statistical site. Real life servers are used differently.

How? Let's see, we have zones or clusters for DMZ's, PCI clusters, areas where they are not as densely populated as internal clusters. We have extra capacity for HA. We reserve extra capacity for performance. We haven't oversubscribed memory since the days of V2 and 16gb servers. Of course statistically it may say we have 11:1 overall, but the workhorse production servers that we get the VALUE out of have 20:1 ratios.

3) 3gb per VM?

Dude! what are you thinking? (I am thinking the MBA who calc'd the stats must young and inexperienced)

What did we virtualize first? Yes! 1gb servers. Web servers. Low hanging fruit. The easy stuff.

What are we virtualizing today? 8gb servers, 12gb servers, 24gb servers, 32gb servers! All of the 1gb servers are gone!!!

Where did you get your stats?

VMware expects the user base to go beyond dev/test and into the mainstream production applications such as databases and then lays this on us???

What are you thinking? Right! Virtualization belongs in the labs and dev test.

Real production is for Physical Servers. I have not way to justify otherwise.

Do the business case!

[AlbertWT]

Yes, you are right mate, it seems that VMware tries to push everything to the cloud by making the so called vTax higher for the internal cloud user.

[vmwareking]

XenServer is per Host licensing.. Here is a vSphere 4.1 vs XenServer Cost Calc.. http://virtualizationandstorage.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/vmware-vsphere-vs-citrix-xenserver-cost-cal...

[wuffers]

rbtwindude wrote:

If someone wants to setup a true poll, maybe they can use this as a model:

1. What are you running VMware (options) 3.x or 4.x
2. What are you running (options) ESX or ESXi
3. Did you have a project to go to vSphere 5 before the new license model release (options) yes or no?
4. Did the new license (vRAM entitlement) change your mind on upgrading to vSphere 5 (options) yes or no?
5. Have you already bought new bigger and better hardware for your planned vSphere 5 deployment (options) yes or no?
6. Do you think that the new license (vRAM entitlement) will affect your current or future VMware plans (options) yes or no?
7. Has VMware changed your mind on virtualizing on another virtualization product (options) yes or no ?
8. Do you still have plans to move forward with vSphere 5 or have you put your project on hold (options) yes or no?

Then publish the results here on the VMTN forum....

Disclaimer - I do not work for any hardware vendor or software vendor!

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://wuffers.net/2011/07/18/vsphere-5-migration-survey

The form I'm using has statistics but I don't have it set up to display results right away. I'll post them when I get a number of responses and update as we go along. Please go fill it out!

[rickardnobel]

Your last question on the survey should perhaps be re-phrased:

"Do you still have plans to move forward with vSphere 5 or have you put your project on hold?"  Yes - No

What will yes really mean here? 

[wuffers]

Rickard wrote:

Your last question on the survey should perhaps be re-phrased:

"Do you still have plans to move forward with vSphere 5 or have you put your project on hold?"  Yes - No

What will yes really mean here? 

Lol, it's late. Good catch, changed the response types to "Yes (move forward)" and "No (on hold)".

http://wuffers.net/2011/07/18/vsphere-5-migration-survey

[bilalhashmi]

Just one suggestion:

"Which hypervisor are you considering or are currently evaluating based on this announcement?

Citrix XenServer

Microsoft Hyper-V

Oracle VirtualBox

Other"

You might want to add VMware as an option as well for those who wont be moving just to make this fair for everyone. Unless you are only interested in folks who are considering moving..

Already submitted by feedback

Follow me @ Cloud-Buddy.com

[wuffers]

Bilal wrote:

Just one suggestion:

"Which hypervisor are you considering or are currently evaluating based on this announcement?

Citrix XenServer

Microsoft Hyper-V

Oracle VirtualBox

Other"

You might want to add VMware as an option as well for those who wont be moving just to make this fair for everyone. Unless you are only interested in folks who are considering moving..

I've clarified it a bit by adding this helper text in the question "Leave blank if you are not considering other options (staying with VMWare)." since the question really relates to the one just before it. Thanks for the feedback.

Fill out the survey:

http://wuffers.net/2011/07/18/vsphere-5-migration-survey

[GVD]

You should probably include KVM as an option separate from "Others", considering it's one of the big potential up & coming players.

Also, most answers are not as straight forward as it seems. For some things I am forced to continue using vmware, but for others I will be considering Xen, Hyper-V and KVM alternatives. It's not really an XOR choice. You don't have to fully drop one and go with the other. But we are going from vmware exclusive to a mixed shop. Once 4.1 is EOL, we will probably only have a handful of vSphere 5.0 left.