1 85 86 87 88 89 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.
      • 1,290. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
        kmcferrin Novice

        E.W. wrote:


        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.



        In my experieince business virtualize for a few different reasons:


        1.  Consolidate more hosts onto fewer hardware devices to more fully utilize the hardware you have and save on hardware costs, energy, cooling, etc.

        2.  To gain access to extra features like HA, vMotion, etc that make the life of the IT department a little easier when it comes to patching and keeping things running.

        3.  To gain access to the DR capabilities that virtualization brings.

        4.  To build a more dynamic data center environment.


        Then there's the whole hosting company/service provider side that doesn't seem to apply to you.


        My question for you is "Why do you want to virtualize?  What is the ROI?"  If the ROI isn't there (and there are certainly small companies for whom virtualization would be nice and helpful but doesn't offer the ROI) then you may not want to go there.


        All that said, be aware that VMware isn't the only game in town when it comes to virtualization.  If you don't like what you see then look at the other vendors in the space and see if their offering doesn't make more sense for you.

        • 1,291. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
          kmcferrin Novice

          goppi wrote:




          We are a consultant company focused on the SMB market and the Essentials Plus Kit

          was what most often fit our customer's needs.






          We will not upgrade a single customer to ESX5. For most of them

          we would simply not be able to do that without leaving the Essentials





          Surely you will let your customers make that decision for themselves?

          • 1,292. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
            hmtk1976 Enthusiast

            kmcferrin wrote:


            hmtk1976 wrote:


            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.


            I am unclear what this has to do with virtualization.  Surely if they have a virtualization solution in place then they already have properly licensed their Windows Server VMs?


            With the money we save on SnS we can buy SCCM VMM or System Center Essentials if we go the Microsoft way and still come out far cheaper.

            • 1,293. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
              LockAze Novice

              I also work as a consultant, and from a customers view you tend to see this: Here is what we will tell you that you need. If you buy it from VMware it will cost you xxx$ but if you buy it from say Microsoft it will cost xxx$ less for you. And you won't have the memory limitation. What do you think the customer will choose?


              So basicly VMware will have to give something that Citrix or Microsoft doesn't offer (that given, they do have a better product) to a price that is not so far away from say microsoft or Citrix. But when they are more expensive, and they cripple away their best selling point (overcommitment) then I can't go to the customer and say: VMware has the best solution and it's reasonally priced because of the fact that they have a great overcommitment functionality. I now would have to say: You could go with VMware, but since memory is cheap and getting cheaper by the month, maybe Microsoft or Citrix is the way to go, they're cheaper and if you need more memory just buy it and cram it in your server... Problem solved. or if you go for VMware you could first maybe buy more memory and then buy a new expencive license so that you are actually allowed to use this extra memory.


              I do not now what kind of genious that thought up this idea, but from my place... It just made the competitors a lot more interesting.

              • 1,294. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                Rumple Master

                Heh..thats what I get for responding to a thread in the middle of the night, when I had better things to do, like sleep :o)

                • 1,295. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                  JAndrews42 Enthusiast

                  Changes have been made, call your partner or check back after 2pm PDT 8/3/11

                  • 1,296. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                    bobbach Novice

                    Unlike a lot of the folks in this thread I will come out and say I am excited about vSphere 5.


                    Multicore FT and Storage DRS are the cornerstone of a much more resilient platform. We have wanted these features since we started with virtualization on ESX 2.5. Much of our dual datacenter design was built knowing that these technologies would come, we have been getting ready for them for a long time. We have been telling management that their investment just keeps paying off and will continue to show value


                    Now that they are coming and we should be getting ready to realize a lot of the promise of ESX/vSphere, VMware has changed the rules of the game yet again. I understand that they need to keep shareholders happy even with the expanded employee base and shiny new facilities they have have to pay for. I'm also sure that they are betting that there are a lot of us out here that will stay the course, and dig deeper to pay for the promise delivered.

                    I'm not sure that they are right.


                    Shareholders understand reinvesting in a wildly sucessfull business, and customers understand when they are being pinched. Neither customers nor shareholders want to see other platforms begin to see more R&D time or production resources.


                    We have become used t there being a single pane to tell us what we need to know in vCenter, we have grown accustomed to supporting one virtualization vendor. But given how much memory we plan to add to our environment in the next year or two we may need to look at other solutions. Mixed environments are never perfect. Remember the Novell/Microsoft shop days or the conversion period from Token Ring to Ethernet? Neither Novell nor Token Ring faired well in the end.


                    Do we expect price increases? Sure we do. We expect fair increases in our maintenance costs and upward movement in initial purchases. We do not expect to be paying a new model every time a metric pushes ahead. Maybe next they'll charge us for network throughput, or virtual storage, the number of cores under FT etc.


                    VMware has every right in the world to charge us however they want. As custodians of our organizations data, we have an OBLIGATION to make sure that we protect and make that data accessible in as cost effective a manner as possible.


                    In many cases that may require the movement of test/dev to another platform. Maybe tiered virtualization platforms will take hold. As the competing technologies integrate a similar feature set they may move up a tier or two. And perhaps sooner than we like to think we'll remember VMware in the same breath as Banyan VINES.


                    I for one hope that they see the error of their way. They can fix this.

                    Hopefully they have still have the vision and the corporate will to do so.

                    • 1,297. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                      goppi Enthusiast
                      Surely you will let your customers make that decision for themselves?


                      Of course.


                      But customers nearly always follow our recommendations.


                      And if we present the costs (meaning to leave the Essential path) I have no question

                      that most of them are not willing to go that route.


                      In SMB things are a bit different.

                      Virtualization is nice and gives flexibility but it is not essential

                      and from a ROI point of view it is no that convincing either.


                      We will keep our customers on 4.1 and meanwhile take the time

                      to look for alternatives.


                      In our business we try to focus on a single product for every aspect

                      to be able to offer high quality services and to be economic. As

                      the price gap between VMware and the competitors is getting quite

                      large our competitors which offer different solutions are getting

                      a competitive advantage.

                      • 1,298. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                        tomaddox Hot Shot

                        I haven't seen the official announcement, but VMware has apparently changed the licensing model slightly, incorporating these two changes:


                        1) vRAM entitlement is doubled per license level (96 GB for Enterprise Plus).

                        2) Individual VMs can never consume more than 96 GB of license cost.


                        So, we're still being shafted, just not as hard.


                        On the hilarious side, my VMware rep tried to sell the new licensing model as an advantage since it allows us to pool all of our licenses. As I explained to him, any licensing change which requires more work from me is not an improvement, no matter how they try to sell it.


                        The urgency of considering an alternative virtualization platform has been somewhat reduced, but we will still, in all likelihood, be moving our desktop virtualization initiatives to the Citrix Xen suite to ease our vSphere licensing.


                        To those who say that VMware needs to increase their prices to stay competitive, I would offer the following feedback:


                        1) They just brought in record profits based on the old licensing model.

                        2) If my company told our clients that we were going to increase their costs by 50-200% without a commensurate improvement in their return on investment, we would quickly find ourselves without clients. If we told them that it's because we need to maintain our level of profitability to satisfy our shareholders, I believe that we would hear the sounds of the worlds smallest violins playing just for us, because that's what I'm playing for VMware.

                        • 1,299. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                          hmtk1976 Enthusiast

                          Is there an official announcement?

                          • 1,300. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                            tomaddox Hot Shot

                            There's supposed to be one this week.

                            • 1,301. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                              bobbach Novice

                              I think they are still missing the point.


                              This scheme is trouble in as much as it is overpriced.


                              In their brave new world if we continue to run VMware, we will run VMs memory constrained and only add memory as a last ditch alternative.

                              So what should be a modest increase in operational expense for a maintenance price hike becomes a capital expenditure for more licensing. Furthermore, we will now be ordering servers with the minimum amount of RAM and then buying more when the need arises incurring yet more work and less flexibility.


                              The scheme is the problem almost as much as the price is.


                              Doubling the RAM now is akin to boiling a frog. Raise the heat a little now and a little more later. Before you know it the frog is boiled, or in the case of VMware, the customer fleeced.


                              Go back to the drawing board VMware, and beat the person who came up with this hairbrained idea about the head and shoulders with said drawing board.

                              • 1,302. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                BobEadie Novice

                                “Maybe tiered virtualization platforms . . . “


                                I like that idea – VMWare for Tier 1 production, and ‘other’ cheaper products for our ‘other’ servers.


                                But I would prefer to keep it all VMWare.






                                Bob Eadie

                                Computer System Manager

                                Bedford School

                                Bedford MK40 2TU

                                01234 362200

                                • 1,303. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                  bobbach Novice

                                  'But I would prefer to keep it all VMWare.'


                                  So would I Bob.

                                  I really wish this whole problem would go away and I could go back to beating the drum for vSphere.


                                  -- Bob

                                  • 1,304. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                    kmcferrin Novice

                                    BobEadie wrote:


                                    “Maybe tiered virtualization platforms . . . “


                                    I like that idea – VMWare for Tier 1 production, and ‘other’ cheaper products for our ‘other’ servers.


                                    But I would prefer to keep it all VMWare.

                                    I've had other vendors actually suggest that as a sales technique, and for some businesses that might make sense.  But then you get into the inevitable situation of having to support two different platforms, so it doesn't work quite as well in practice UNLESS you are planning to switch platforms and are simply starting with non-prod environments.


                                    The other issue is that in larger environments I would be cautious in having dev/test/qa environments running on a different platform than the intended prod environment.  If they aren't configured identically then how sure can you be that the behavior (and interaction of device drivers, integration components, etc) is equivalent?

                                    1 85 86 87 88 89 Previous Next