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
J1mbo
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

> At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just  causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months

Totally agree with this.

> at the same time the number of physical CPUs required to run  the workload will continue to fall as they gain more and more cores.

This may or may not be true as the primary driver for multi-core processors has been the speed of electricity (at 3 GHz, in one cycle it travels only a few inches).  So it is not feasible to increase clock rate, hence the scale-out approach instead.  In other words, core count won't necessarily reduce CPU count, since application complexity historically has grown at a similar rates.

Reply
0 Kudos
GVD
Contributor
Contributor

sergeadam wrote:

J1mbo wrote:

vMotion was included with Essentials Plus since 4.1.

I know. But maritz refernces the great features in the Essentials kit. I'm just pointing out that some of those features are more nice to have as opposed to have to have. He is seriously overestimating the value of his product. 

The Essentials Plus kit still provides you with features and capabilities that would cost you three times more if you were using normal vSphere Standard and vCenter Foundation licensing.

For companies like mine, it's clearly a very solid choice for some projects, although Citrix Xenserver is getting closer & closer.

Also, I'm pretty sure that if you only want HA out of the essentials plus bundle, that you could script it yourself using the normal & much cheaper essentials bundle.

Reply
0 Kudos
ZeroGravity2011
Contributor
Contributor


This may or may not be true as the primary driver for multi-core processors has been the speed of electricity (at 3 GHz, in one cycle it travels only a few inches).  So it is not feasible to increase clock rate, hence the scale-out approach instead.  In other words, core count won't necessarily reduce CPU count, since application complexity historically has grown at a similar rates.

Are you sure that this is the primary reason? I've always thought the reason for the clock rate ceiling was related to heat dissipation and power. I've both seen and have read of clock rates going well beyond 3GHz but required additional cooling and power beyond what is practical.

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

Agreed, but still any other physical cpu that you install will amount to

n-cores.

Historically VMware did not care much about oh 1 GHz oh 2 GHz oh we're

at 3.8 GHz the price increase if any was small. What they certainly did

care, and began to notice, is the core count increased and they still

licenses sockets. Im my opinion that was their mistake to not try to

switch to core licensing.

VMware wouldn't cost much more if we're at 10 GHz per core if

workstation also ran at 8-10 GHz because obviously we'd need the

performance then for Windows 2020 haha.

Licensing per core is certainly a better way right now and depending on

where the proc vendors are heading about performance (per core or more

ghz or both) VMware can adjust their licensing again. Licensing vRAM is

just ridiculous, because software always runs faster when it can cache

or fit everything in RAM.

Reply
0 Kudos
icontrolyourpow
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months time as the average amount of RAM used by systems (and can be installed into a system) increases. At the same time the number of physical CPUs required to run the workload will continue to fall as they gain more and more cores. The result will be the same - having to purchase CPU licences that are not required to be assigned to CPUs within the environment.

It seems that all VMWARE plan to do is remove this year's pain point and kick it down the road so that each VMWARE customer suffers at different times of the year rather than all at once.

If anyone does a 3 year plan for their future VMWARE requirements it's still a rather costly product.

Today's investors, C-level businessmen, government, and so on don't care what will happen three years from now. They care about how much money they can put into their pockets before the end of the day. The rumored non-solution will do exactly what it is intended to do. It will take enough wind out of the sails of the argument that costs will go up significantly on 08/12/11 to keep investors calm. Costs will still go up a lot, but for fewer customers. Engineers going to managers saying, "...but in 2014 we'll be right back here again" will be met by check writers in upper management who couldn't care less because the American culture of C-level cronyism ensures a new job somewhere else every 2-3 years regardless of performance, qualification, or aptitude.

Reply
0 Kudos
rgard
Contributor
Contributor

Per core will only continue to work until the architecture changes drastically. Intel is working today on CPU’s with hundreds of cores for the server. They all don’t perform the same function, so you can’t really count it as a core as it is thought of today. There was a previous post by someone who also knows about the project. A switch to licensing by core will not continue to work indefinitely, as they are working on a drastically different approach.

Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

rjb2 wrote:

DSeaman wrote:

I have a reliable contact that provided me with some possible licensing modifications that will be announced next week. Changes include increased vRAM entitlements, and a cap on vRAM licensing per VM to help control costs for large VMs. Of course these are just internal rumors and are subject to change until formally announced, so use a pinch of salt for the time being.

http://derek858.blogspot.com/2011/07/impending-vmware-vsphere-50-license.html

But the good news is that it seems the uproar is being heard at VMware, and some changes are likely.

According to this article, which references Derek's post, the new licensing changes will be announced tomorrow (Wednesday)

http://www.crn.com/news/data-center/231003052/vmware-set-to-unveil-vsphere-5-licensing-changes.htm

from the article:

"However, VMware has communicated the vSphere 5 licensing changes to channel partners, who confirmed the Wednesday announcement and appear impressed with the adjustments the company has made.

"The deal is done at this point and customers will be thrilled," said one VMware partner with knowledge of the changes, who requested anonymity.

So basically those bloggers are going nuts about unsubstantiated rumors and rehashing what anonymous partners and sales creatures are saying.

I'll wait for some fact to see whether VMware actually cares.  The increased vRAM limits and hard limit on vRAM in Essentials (Plus) are still dealbreakers as far as I'm concerned.

@ icontrolyourpower

Cynical but true 😞  However if you could convince those manager types that this new licensing will hurt the bottom line and thus decrease stock price, you might kick them into action.

vRAM and per core licensing do not work.  If VMware is truly intend on charging by RAM they should sell CPU licenses per edition without RAM allotment and sell pRAM blocks that are not tied to an edition and don't need to be covered by SnS.  And get rid of that silly SKU called Enterprise.  It's far too expensive compared to Enterprise Plus for what you get.  Give everyone who has Enterprise (and Advanced) with SnS now a free upgrade to Enterprise Plus.  That would mollify those who hard 3.5 Enterprise + SnS.

Reply
0 Kudos
kmcferrin
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

rgard wrote:

Per core will only continue to work until the architecture changes drastically.  Intel is working today on CPU’s with hundreds of cores for the server.  They all don’t perform the same function, so you can’t really count it as a core as it is thought of today.  There was a previous post by someone who also knows about the project.  A switch to licensing by core will not continue to work indefinitely, as they are working on a drastically different approach.

You are correct.  Assuming that the rumored "per-core" licensing plan is the next solution, it is little better than "kicking the can down the road", to borrow a phrase from a recent political discussion.  Core density per socket will increase, of course, and when someone goes to replace their current quad-core servers in a few years and their only options are 16, 24, and 32 core CPUs then they will scream bloody murder about it again.  It resolves the short-term pain, but opens them up to another pain point in the future.  But then when you look at VMware licensing changes through the years this is always what they have done.

I think that when you get down to brass tacks VMware is in a bit of a bind here.  They've been very profitable for years, but they have yet to work out a licensing model that allows them to charge for anything other than physical resources.  Any model that they choose (licensing physical CPU sockets, cores, RAM, etc) is going to need constant revision due to increasing core and RAM density.  Citrix is only slightly better off in that they license per physical host and will eventually see diminished revenue from their model as well (though they have a fantastic growth rate right now, so they can ignore it for a time).  VMware is also somewhat handicapped by the fact that their only source of revenue is in virtualization software, whereas their competitors also sell operating systems (Microsoft and RedHat) or application delivery solutions (Citrix) that were very profitable before virtualization came along.  VMware's competitors aren't made or broken by the price of virtualization licensing, only Vmware is.  If I am a VMware customer then I have to look at their past licensing moves and try to figure out what the future looks like, and the future is murky at best. I certainly HOPE that VMware has learned from their current fiasco and engages with customers better as they revise licensing models in the future.  We'll see.

Reply
0 Kudos
Baddos
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

RogerThomas wrote:

At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months time as the average amount of RAM used by systems (and can be installed into a system) increases. At the same time the number of physical CPUs required to run the workload will continue to fall as they gain more and more cores. The result will be the same - having to purchase CPU licences that are not required to be assigned to CPUs within the environment.

It seems that all VMWARE plan to do is remove this year's pain point and kick it down the road so that each VMWARE customer suffers at different times of the year rather than all at once.

If anyone does a 3 year plan for their future VMWARE requirements it's still a rather costly product.

If history repeats itself, vmware will have a totally different model before 3 years time anyways.

Reply
0 Kudos
aroudnev
Contributor
Contributor

What I mean - I don't understand why anyone wants to migrate to VMWare 5 at all, while we all have excellent VMware 4.1 without this dumb vRAM? But this means that we can drop support subscription which don't make sense any more since we are not migrating to the version 5.

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

For the time being, and I mean the next 3-5 years I don't see

"specialsed core" chips from AMD or Intel going to mainstream servers.

If the world does not dramatically change, the same chips need to run

(or interpret/translate) x86 instructions to something other (like the

VLIW transmeta thingy or Itanium for that matter) those chips will

certainly be able to present something as similar to cores today or else

they'll break SMP and other stuff which would break or hamper

virtualisation on this platform.

Even if in the future there are only 32+ core servers. You NEED NOT

buy/license all cores for VMware. Thats my point! sure you have those

cores available and wish to use them (especially if the cores run at 1

or 2 ghz but you have many of them) but there will always be processors

with fast cores but not so many its the demand. So the best case you

have a 32 core single socket system with like a full TB RAM. You'd

license that many "2core" increments as you like you need not buy the

full 16x2 pack. VMware will just disable some cores so you're in

compliance. Modern EFIs and BIOSes and procs can do "downcore". So no

problem there will the electricity bill.

VMware could give you a "2core" grace increment. So to notify you "hey

at 22:00 during heavy load scenario X you exceeded your allocation, if

you were unsatisfied with the performance buy more licenses" Smiley Happy

Maybe I am dead wrong with my assumptions, but then again per core

licensing is currently their best bet. If the architecture is going to

something like the intel-cpu-many-core board thingy and that accelerates

something or is able to virtualize upon they can detect it (its an addin

card) and they can request a license for such things.

But just because such things are in the labs or in selected-hands-only

the general customer DOES NOT care and is just pissed off by the

upcoming licensing change.

My two cents (again).

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

Because then I want my 1/3 of the SnS cost we just renewed back.

1/3 goes to Software and 2/3 goes to Support in the SnS math.

Reply
0 Kudos
aroudnev
Contributor
Contributor

Absolutely. If they keep vRAM licensing, we will keep all plans on 4.0 and 4.1 and eventually will start to evaluate XEN. In no case I will go with vRAM licenses, even if they fit into my hardware temporary (except if free allowance became 24 and essential became 64 - it may work for a few years - theough even then I don't see any reason to migrate to 5 from 4). And I don't think that I am alone with this.

Of course, no support contract will be signed because it does not make any sense in the current situation.

Patching the big problem by the smal patches (minor increase in allowance) will not help them.

Reply
0 Kudos
J1mbo
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

I wonder if they considered USER CALs, at least for the SMB market.

Reply
0 Kudos
Rumple
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

VMware is also somewhat handicapped by the fact that their only source of revenue is in virtualization software.

I’d have to disagree with this…

VMware has Capacity IQ, Vmware has vShield App (upgrade to vShield), VMware has hundred of products…however not many people see the true value of them to be honest…at least in the core infrastructure environment.

When I am building out my cloud environment, I like the chargeback model, I like the vShield product lines, I like the vdirector…

When I am building out my internal data center…I do not require ANY of these products…because I am my own customer and big business never really does chargeback to themselves..not the way it works with hosting companies and all Security zones are handled by internal Network teams using Core Networking products.

Companies build their infrastructure like they lease cars for employee’s…they pay for the vehicle costs and insurance…75+ Percent do not charge their employee’s departments mileage or chargeback a portion of the insurance. All the costs are part of a G&A budget and that’s that.

The reason vmware needs the revenue from their hypervisor is because no one will buy their other products…

VMWare view…has huge competition from citrix. Trend competes with vShield App product line (deep security),

Citrix is able to give Xenserver away because they have customers who want to run Citrix…and XenDesktop is a natural companion…tie in their Cloud purchase to give you the who management piece and I think they have really put vmware into a bind…especially since their Cloud model is so F’n expensive compared to Citrix.

Their only saving grace I think in a lot of cases is that many big businesses run vSphere…which will tie in nicely to cloud providers running VSPP environments…

However make it too expensive for either party and guess what…Citrix will walk away with the price.

My own hosting environment is actually compised of 2 environments…gives me balanced compatibility and allows me to put all my infrastructure on a $73/month/host Xenserver Farm…vs having it on a vmware farm where I would pay will over $1000/month just to run DNS, AD, File Servers, Exchange Servers, etc…

Economically I think vmware is going to be in trouble as Citrix moves down this road of a complete solution for Cloud, Infrastructure, application, and Desktop integration, especially when you start typing in their Networking and Wan Acceleration products….

Citrix is building a complete solution…vmware is concentrating still on Infrastructure, Cloud and Desktop virtualization…

Reply
0 Kudos
devilz666
Contributor
Contributor

Even if they to recount on their rediculous vram scheme, they have already done so much damage to their reputation they may never recover fully.

I personally already have customers who have cancelled enterprise orders and are in no hurry to even look at vmware anymore and are evaulating xen as we speak.

The foolishness of vmware in doing the vram license shows they have absolutly no clue as to how customers use their products or their marketing/license team should be fired.

Vmware has shown no insight into protecting their smb market share, and I have no faith that the following version wont come out with some new rediculous license scheme yet again even if they up the current vram limits, why bother getting a 3 year support agreement when in 12/18/24 months time version Vsphere 5.5 might lower the vram limits again and require even more licenses?

Who knows, maybe the next version will all ofa sudden charge per virtual network port? or maybe they'll decide to remove some major feature and charge you extra for it?

We recommend Xen from now on (unless they do the same mistake as vmware, fingers crossed that doesnt happen)

Reply
0 Kudos
Jimbonx
Contributor
Contributor

This licensing makes VmWare Client shocked with the new licensing model.

If it is true they moved from cpu entitlement to vram entitlement model they should be add flexibility on this license model.

They must be add another license for expanding the memory not tight by the cpu license either.

this will be help for client that already invest on hardware with 2 processor socket and 192 GB memory.

they just need to add licenses for expanding the memory.

thanks

Reply
0 Kudos
DSeaman
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

VMware apparently has updated their VSPP licensing model for vSphere 5.0, according to: http://blogs.vmware.com/vcloud/2011/07/update-on-vmware-service-provider-program-vspp.html

I wonder if their change to reserved RAM with a minimum threshold will be the new model for non-VSPP licenses being announced tomorrow?

'We are changing the licensing metric for the cloud IaaS bundles from allocated virtual RAM to reserved RAM, to allow service providers to exploit the powerful memory oversubscription capabilities of vSphere (see below for details). Associated with this change, there is a 24GB reserved RAM price ceiling per VM and a minimum “floor” for reserved RAM to avoid excessive memory oversubscription (see details below)."

Derek Seaman
Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

@ Rumple

I agree 100%.  For Microsoft and Citrix virtualization is an extra source of revenue which might help sell their other products but they don't need it the way VMware does.  The products VMware sells besides vSphere are not of interest to the vast majority of SMB's and probably most larger companies can do perfectly without them as well.  For VMware's sake I hope that cloud providers like their product lineup because for my customers the Citrix and Microsoft products are as good as vSphere.  I'm going to upgrade a customers Windows Server Enterprise to Datacenter which would cost a whopping € 50 per server per year more in SA than they pay now.  With the savings of not paying SnS we can buy other interesting stuff.

Reply
0 Kudos
E_W_
Contributor
Contributor

Hi,

I read the license and pricing myself and had some trouble figure out the way to calculate

what I was planning.  (It's nothing big.  I've never seen so much talk about Mutli-gigabytes

in memory and multiple cores before.  The most I've read about were the desktop-style

dual cores.)

Background: I'm new to virtualizing.  I've only used VMWare Workstation.

I have been planning to migrate my workplace's infrastructure to a virtual one.  I even

downloaded ESXi and installed it on a lowly single dual core 3.06 system.  I had

trouble with it as the CPU was not recognized by the motherboard (salvaged from

a broken down system) and so I bought a new motherboard.  Then it didn't recognize

my onboard NIC so I had to get an Intel GT adapter, which ESXi recognized. Anyway,

my plan is to get Essentials (or Essentials plus) and have a go at virtualizing

the services at work.  Being the only IT person supporting two groups,  I really

need to find smarter ways of managing and maintaining these systems. And judging

the budget, it's going to be  along time before anyone in the management section

is gonna bother hiring someone to help me.

I spent probably four or five days going over this thread for the sake of understanding the

licensing and pricing scheme.  Little did I know I actually was reading a thread of

disappointed customers.   (Uh oh.  Not a good sign to see.)

From a person like me looking into this 'fray', it doesn't give me any good vibes

that VMWare is worth investing in.  Whether or not this is a fair call, I suppose it's

too early to establish.  In a sense, it isn't late as I haven't written any checks to

VMWare yet.  The product itself seems fantastic.  But feature wise, my boss

doesn't care.  It's the $$$ that means something.

So far, I've had a good experience in the community as a lot of people have

helped me understand this whole virtualizing task ahead of me.  Customer

support (particularly AFTER-SALES customer support is important for me).

I hate buying some product only to find the after-sales support bites.  (Been

there. done that.  I'm sure I'm not the only one here.)  Community support is

important though.  There could be work-arounds to issues; but if the problem

really requires the company's attention,  this is where the money investment

counts.

But the main factors of purchasing is to see whether or not the company cares

and/or understands the supposed customers they sell their products to.

Judging from this thread,  I'm sceptical.  My company would *never* invest

that much in the infrastructure (which is why the systems are self-built

towers).  Seeing so many *real world* configurations in this thread, and

looking back at the pricing/licensing pdf,  I question the decision behind the

vRam entitlements.   Even with Essentials, I'm only given a max of

vRAM of 144GB.  3 Hosts, that's 48GB per host.  Each host having

just 1 socket.   Hosting at least three VMs  Does it even make sense

for me to bother with virtualizing?   (Sometimes I wonder if I'm just interested

in Keeping up with the Joneses.)

No offense to anyone.

Ed

Reply
0 Kudos