1 81 82 83 84 85 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.
      • 1,230. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
        hellraiser Enthusiast

        Any more news re: licencing?  I received a carefully worded email from VMware this morning thanking me for my feedback and stating that there will be some changes and an announcement would be made some time this week....  I know about the rumoured changes from a few days ago, but does anyone have anything more tangible?





        • 1,231. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
          Marcel1967 Enthusiast

          Justin Devereaux wrote:


          Any more news re: licencing?  I received a carefully worded email from VMware this morning thanking me for my feedback and stating that there will be some changes and an announcement would be made some time this week....  I know about the rumoured changes from a few days ago, but does anyone have anything more tangible?





          At August 4 there will be a webinar for VMware Partners with details on changes in the licensing based on customer and partner feedback. No details on the exact changes but I guess the posting about higher entitlements and the limit of 96GB per VM are correct. 

          • 1,232. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
            Ace007 Enthusiast

            Surely VMware will think again about the licencing strategy, as many of the customers are not happy. I hope they will give some good news in future to their customers.

            • 1,233. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
              tomaddox Hot Shot

              SeanLeyne wrote:


              Paul Whyton wrote:


              ...Let us hope this is the major turn around that we are hoping for:





              If the details of Gabe posting are true, then it is an improvement but it is still not enough.


              If you need more vRAM you should not need to buy a full product license -- product license should be about feature set, not about capacity.


              A separate vRAM SKU is required, one that is not tied to product level and not subject to SnS.


              Let's not let VMware off the hook and settle for only half a solution.

              I partially agree with this comment, but I think even Sean's post doesn't go far enough. One of the elements of VMware's licensing structure I always appreciated was the simplicity. Introducing any sort of virtual capacity into the licensing scheme makes it more complicated. Basically, VMware is asking the customers to do more work or be charged more money. Either way, the TCO goes up. Even if VMware doubles the vRAM capacity of each license, the principle remains problematic, and I still plan to push back on it until we get something more compatible with our existing license structure. Back-of-the-envelope calculations showed us paying roughly 3x the cost we paid for vSphere 4. With the vRAM entitlement doubled, we'd still be paying 1.5x.


              A 50% price increase is still not acceptable, especially when it increases the cost of our existing environment. Basically, VMware is still trying to slip in a gigantic price increase, just a smaller one than before.

              • 1,234. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                SeanLeyne Novice

                Paul Whyton wrote:


                Why not just go vRAM Std, vRAM Ent, vRAM Ent Plus and purchase in blocks of say 50GB?

                Because vRAM is not about feature set.


                Don't confuse the fact that the different product levels will likely have different initial allocations. That is a marketing/product positioning issue.


                vRAM is about my ability to host VM of the size that I need to.  If I am running Enterprise+, I should not be paying a premium to add more capacity over some one running Enterprise!  I have already paid a premium for the feature set, after than the amount of vRAM I need is purely a function of my usage.


                After all, under v4 I could have a E+ host with 128GB of RAM or a host with 1TB of RAM and VMware didn't care.


                Now that they are seeing that Moore's law is working against their capitalist needs, they are changing their licensing model to capture more $$$*.


                After all, 2-3 years ago a CPU had 4 cores, today you can buy a CPU with 12 cores (or 10 cores/20 threads).  Later this year, you will be able to buy a CPU with 16 cores.  All the while, the price of VMware per socket was changed that much.  So, they are getting less $$$ for the benefits they are giving their clients.



                * please don't not read this as an endorsement of the change.  Personally, I think VMware is fighting against the current.  There are very few vendors in the computer market who haven't had to reduce their pricing/margins over the years or have had to live with the fact that people are able to do more with the software than they could before due to improvements in computer/CPU design.

                • 1,235. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                  jose_maria_gonzalez Master

                  Q: 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.


                  So I guess it is up to us to go out there and buy more licenses to be compliant or not ... if you had sized the servers right it is more likely that you won´t.


                  My two cents anyway.





                  My Company http://www.jmgvirtualconsulting.com

                  My Blog http://www.josemariagonzalez.es

                  My Virtualization Web TV Show http://www.virtualizacion.tv

                  • 1,236. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                    aroudnev Enthusiast

                    I think that we will not see migrations to V5 in the next 2 years at all (a very - very little), and it will be exact answer to the new model. After Vmware will see drop in sales, they can rethink but it will be too late.


                    Show me ANY reason why I would like to migrate to this new Vmware5 with this new dumb licensing model? V4.0 (and 4.1) works pretty well, have all features required next 2 - 3 years, and has a smart licensing allowing necessary growth. V5 has licensing which prohibits any growth at all, and have a very few unnecessary (for most users) features - just bells and whistles, not real features (I notice only 2 interesting things in the whole announcenemn). So people can stay with V4 next few years and if licensing will not change, migrate to other vendors then (who will be extremelly happy and for sure will offer special deals for such migrations).


                    >> We may hate the new model,  but we still have to comply with the law and maintain compliance with the EULAs for vs5 deployments.

                    From: Dracolith<mailto:communities-emailer@vmware.com>

                    To: Alexei Roudnev<mailto:Alexei_Roudnev@exigengroup.com>

                    Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:06 PM

                    Subject: New message: "vSphere 5 Licensing"

                    • 1,237. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                      aroudnev Enthusiast

                      Absolutely. I can understand per-core licensing, I can understand pRAM licensing, even if it stay the same as today and require much more money gto go with modern not-covered-yet systems (> 6 cores or > 256 GB pRAM). This is is well understandable and not prohibit Virtualization.


                      vRAM model prohibits virtualization in the long term. The only case when uit may work is cloud provider but then they should license vRAM only and nothing more (no hosts not cpu no cores). It will never work for small businesses or middle size enterprises.

                      • 1,238. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                        aroudnev Enthusiast

                        YOu are not correct. VMware already proposed vRAM model for cloud providers - and they ALREADY lost these providers (most if not all use XEN but not VMware - maybe, 5 - 10% of all clouds are VMware based; and now guess, why? - http://www.cloudbzz.com/vmware-should-run-a-cloud-or-stop-charging-for-the-hypervisor-or-both/ )


                        If they continue the same way, they will lost entreprise  and small business customers, too.

                        • 1,239. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                          aroudnev Enthusiast

                          The developers in VMware believe that it all was a mistake and should  be changed; but who really listen to engineers when you have so many (smart) sales?


                          And anyway, it is ALREADY TOO LATE - the HUGE harm is already DONE.

                          • 1,240. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                            ClueShell Novice

                            Open a SupportRequest for Licensing Issues get escalated and explain.


                            Or evaluate HyperV and XEN because they catch up.


                            If VMware wants to be like Titanic they shall be.


                            I for one would like to stay with vAnything but not for 200 to 300% increase in licensing costs.


                            And I changed my mind about vRAM or pRAM licensing whatever. Some poster after me has it right. RAM should never be tied to SnS or Edition Level, because we already PAID for being at that level. What's okay is that per vCore licensing. You should get amount of Cores like currently allowed for your edition, and you should be able to add cores in the same manner. Standard means 6 cores for a standard license price. So if you happen to upgrade your AMD box or move to a newer denser INTEL box you must add licenses. And all of a sudden - this makes sense again and would be accepted by large customer base. More power (does not matter scale-out or scale-up) more licensing costs.


                            I'm so tired of all this crap. I just want to upgrade, be on a version that gets fixes first et all.

                            • 1,241. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                              hmtk1976 Enthusiast

                              Licensing cores doesn't work either due to different processor architectures.  Just license the edition per socket and sell blocks of pRAM which you can keep indefinitely without paying SnS.  That's something I could live with (if the blocks were decently sized).  If VMware would want us to pay SnS for pRAM they would also have to increase the blocks in size following increasing memory usage.  But then we would have to trust VMware to do a decent analysis of relevant numbers.  Oh well, it was jsut a thought...

                              • 1,242. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                Baddos Enthusiast

                                Paying SnS for vRAM doesn't make sense at all. You should still have your support covered via the socket licenses and vcenter licenses anyways.

                                • 1,243. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                  meistermn Master

                                  My Favorit Hyper-V, KVM +Fusionio + IP-Storage Appliance !!!

                                  • 1,244. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                    Dracolith Enthusiast

                                    aroudnev wrote:

                                    I think that we will not see migrations to V5 in the next 2 years at all (a very - very little), and it will be exact answer to the new model. After Vmware will see drop in sales, they can rethink but it will be too late.


                                    Too late?   Not really...    VMware has a top notch product today, and a lead by a couple years over the

                                    competition.    If their sales drop, and they reverse and reduce prices in time, by a sufficient amount

                                    their sales will increase.   However, the premium they will be able to charge will be less  than they

                                    have been able to charge for their product in the past.


                                    In other words --  it will take a larger price reduction than mere "reversing" to repair the damage,

                                    if they go with this vRAM stuff,

                                    but the damage is not infinite in magnitude,   and their  "experiment"  with vRAM could turn out

                                    to be profitable,  if someone in their management is right, and their sales revenues doesn't go down.


                                    There is a small possibility we could all be wrong about vRAM,  and  it doesn't significantly impact their

                                    sales in the long run.  


                                    On the other hand,

                                    If they lose 90% of their sales in the next year, and then get rid of vRAM, make vCenter Std $1000, and

                                    slash Enterprise+ to  $1000/socket or  $0.1 per Mhz,  12 months later,    VMware would become relevant

                                    again in short order.


                                    This will be dictated by basic laws of economics.  In other words;  if VMware's

                                    sales do go down,  they likely wind up having to slash their prices

                                    by much more than they increased them  (if their objective becomes to recover sales

                                    and maximize return on capital).


                                    There is a certain capacity of demand in the market for virtualization software.

                                    That demand can be readily met by VMware and by some VMware competitors



                                    VMware cannot command a price premium for that alone;  to the extent that

                                    competitors provide that functionality,  the rational buyer will take the lowest price.


                                    VMware vSphere has some unique features, functionalities, tools, technical

                                    characteristics,  and track record/good will that are more beneficial than what

                                    other virtualization solutions have.


                                    There is a certain amount of demand  for the unique characteristics of VMware,

                                    which is also their competitive advantage;  those unique characteristics must have

                                    value and be maintained.


                                    However, if  VMware's sales do drop  with a price increase,  it will mean that

                                    the price increase is so great that the market response is a drop in demand

                                    for the unique characteristics of VMware's product  in response to the price increase.



                                    One of those characteristics though is VMware's reputation;  if that loses value,

                                    it has  a lasting effect on how their product is perceived.



                                    The other possibility, is competitors will begin to meet more and more of that demand

                                    for what are currently uniquely  VMware features,  by introducing innovations and

                                    functionalities of their own.

                                    1 81 82 83 84 85 Previous Next