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
AndrewFerris
Contributor
Contributor

True but that's list price territory for Datacenter and I hope you're not paying list.

Andrew

Reply
0 Kudos
lawjm
Contributor
Contributor

At the Microsoft launch wave they said Hyper-V was going to be $5 a license. Datacenter is much much more.

Reply
0 Kudos
kcucadmin
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

TysonL wrote:

Sadly, VMware has damaged the confidence that I and my team have in them. We have been forced to look at them with a critical eye and realize that VMware will try and screw us if we aren't watchful.

I for one have stopped looking forward to new versions of vSphere. Instead I will look at new versions with a critical eye and consider whether features will be worth the new licensing costs that VMware may impose.

VMware, I used to love you. Now you are just another software company.

I want to echo these sentiments.  VMWare i was truly in awe of the capability and reliability, and ease of transition you brought to the table when it came to Virtualizing our environment.  It's a shame to see the hard work of so many Engineers and Developers squandered over the pure greed that was vram licensing entitlements.  I have lost all "TRUST" in vmware, and in no way can consider to lock in SnS for multi years now, because you just have no idea what is going to happen year to year.

I think it will take many months for the full effect of this flub to be felt.  But the writing is on the wall.  Move over IBM, Novel, Palm, Yahoo. VMWare is about to join you on the pile of squandered potential.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."—President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

VMWare shame on you...

Reply
0 Kudos
bobbach
Contributor
Contributor

I was discussing the new licensing scheme with a buddy who reminded me of some important history regarding VMware.

Back in the ESX 2.5 days a license covered 2 sockets and dual core processors were just taking hold.

When ESX 3 arrived we needed a license for every socket and four cores were becoming the norm.

With vSphere 4 we were given more features and had to pay extra to get them with Enterprise Plus.

What might make better sense than this vRAM debacle is to license cores in place of sockets, say in 4 core increments. I would prefer to see that VMware take current customers core count and call that the upgrade entitlement and then base all future purchases on the new 4 core increments, that seems logical and fair.

They make more money, get more in sales and maintenance, we get predictability, scalability, manageability and flexibility back without trying to mess with how much RAM we can afford to allocate to a VM, tiering with another platform or shutting down VMs overnight and on weekends to keep the annual vRAM usage down. We can even keep VMs separated based on function instead of combining them to save memory in order to offset the new model.

Do I really like paying more, especially with all of the belt tightening? No. But this is a much fairer and more forthright way to keep VMware and us, their customers, in a relatively happy partnership.

Reply
0 Kudos
Manish9
Contributor
Contributor

hi,

i have checked the below blogs and found that VMware has changed the licensing and price, check the below article for more information

http://www.google.co.in/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=New+VMware+vSphere+5+Licensing+%26+Pricing+Up...

or

http://blog.srinfotec.com/?p=211

Reply
0 Kudos
myitanalyst
Contributor
Contributor

Now that I have seen their changes I will add my thoughts to the many others...

The latest changes are an improvement over what they had (for certain use cases), but in the end I find the licensing method to be inadequate and more complicated than it needs to be.

I also find that folks using ESXi 4.x with current SnS agreements are getting screwed.  We pay for multiple years of SnS so we can be freely upgraded to new versions only to now have to pay more on top of that.  I have not consulted an attorney, but it is possible there could be a class action lawsuit by all those who have an existing SnS.  Could be totally wrong as I have not read all the details in the agreements, but one does not expect to have to pay more after paying for multiple years of SnS.  Just flat out wrong.  At the minimum they should grandfather anyone who is under current SnS.

There are many use cases (some sited here) where us customers are taking a serious financial hit just to move to V5 (even though under current SnS).  The order of magnitude of this hit (although better than a day ago) is still very large.

Will VMWare reconsider the licensing after already making one change?  Probably not.  My guess is the will wait and see if there is a falling out large enough for them to re-consider in a future version.

It would have been better for them to let everyone know they are making changes and did a bit more study and actual discussion with many existing customers (including ones posting here).  Perhaps they could have came up with something easier to swallow and still allow them to increase their already record earnings.  Nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is a point in this capitalist market where you push it so much that your competition comes in and takes your business right away from you.

Will they fall like many others have in the past and get left behind... probably not.  But if it takes falling on your face to cause you to get back up and tread more carefully then so be it.  Competition is good and now the competition has their foot in the door... where previously many would not even think of examining another vendor.

Keep listening VMWare...

Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

"What might make better sense than this vRAM debacle is to license cores in place of sockets"

No it doesn't.  CPU's change too fast.  Now you 4 and 6 core are common for Intel and 8 and 12 core are common for AMD.  Who knows what upcoming CPU's will exactly be like?  Per core isn't a solution.  Maybe XenServer 6 Beta now installing on my pc is...

Reply
0 Kudos
JAndrews42
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Wow, FUD, confusion, hysteria still reign. And people have "lost trust" in VMware due to proposed licensing changes.  Really? and you're going to embrace Microsoft as the pinnacle of trust?  Such short memories in the IT world!

Even with v1 of the licensing changes I could not find a client (incl Fortune 100) who would actually be impacted by it, tho of course many are "outraged" over the loss of something they never used.

Please let me know the followup on the class-action lawsuit, that is going to amuse me for quite some time.

Also, VMware (as mentioned by a few official blogs) did discuss this with their customers, I remember the surveys when they went out and discussed it with clients.

If VMware no longer makes financial sense for the project - use what does.  Why rant and rave and go on a tear?  If it works and is within budget, use it - if not, don't. 

Reply
0 Kudos
rjb2
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

JAndrews wrote:

If VMware no longer makes financial sense for the project - use what does.  Why rant and rave and go on a tear?  If it works and is within budget, use it - if not, don't.

I only want to add that I hope those who are still unhappy about the pricing will talk to VMWare about their specific situation. My experience has been that they were quite reasonable and took the time to understand and to find a way forward on the business side. Basically, don't let this thread be your sole communication about this matter.

Reply
0 Kudos
tomaddox
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

JAndrews wrote:

Wow, FUD, confusion, hysteria still reign. And people have "lost trust" in VMware due to proposed licensing changes.  Really? and you're going to embrace Microsoft as the pinnacle of trust?  Such short memories in the IT world!

Even with v1 of the licensing changes I could not find a client (incl Fortune 100) who would actually be impacted by it, tho of course many are "outraged" over the loss of something they never used.

Also, VMware (as mentioned by a few official blogs) did discuss this with their customers, I remember the surveys when they went out and discussed it with clients.

If VMware no longer makes financial sense for the project - use what does.  Why rant and rave and go on a tear?  If it works and is within budget, use it - if not, don't. 

If there's "FUD, confusion, and hysteria," it's because VMware created them. Microsoft may have shafted other tech vendors, but, as a customer, I've never had problems with them.

With v1 of the licensing changes, our licensing costs would have literally doubled overnight, so I guess you weren't looking very hard.

VMware never brought this issue to our attention. Not once. Never. So, seriously, STFU.

As to your last point, yeah, that's pretty much what we all have in mind, so thanks for pointing out what's already said. Your grasp of the blindingly obvious is refreshing. We're going on a tear because we have all historically enjoyed working with VMware and are appalled at this current state of affairs, but clearly that's hard for you to understand.

Back under your bridge now.

Reply
0 Kudos
tomaddox
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

rjb2 wrote:

I only want to add that I hope those who are still unhappy about the pricing will talk to VMWare about their specific situation. My experience has been that they were quite reasonable and took the time to understand and to find a way forward on the business side. Basically, don't let this thread be your sole communication about this matter.

For my part, I was told that yesterday's announcement would "address ALL your concerns," which is pretty far from the truth.

Reply
0 Kudos
kmcferrin
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

myitanalyst wrote:

I also find that folks using ESXi 4.x with current SnS agreements are getting screwed.  We pay for multiple years of SnS so we can be freely upgraded to new versions only to now have to pay more on top of that.  I have not consulted an attorney, but it is possible there could be a class action lawsuit by all those who have an existing SnS.  Could be totally wrong as I have not read all the details in the agreements, but one does not expect to have to pay more after paying for multiple years of SnS.  Just flat out wrong.  At the minimum they should grandfather anyone who is under current SnS.

I suspect that the reason that they didn't abandon the per-socket bits were specifically to avoid a obvious suit.  Now they can say that if you were previously licensed for X quantity of sockets that they're giving you the upgrade to X quantity of sockets via SnS. Since they didn't license vRAM previously they'll probably get away with it.

Reply
0 Kudos
JAndrews42
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

You seem to be taking this pretty personally Tom. Do you think They singled you out?

Reply
0 Kudos
kmcferrin
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

lawjm wrote:

At the Microsoft launch wave they said Hyper-V was going to be $5 a license. Datacenter is much much more.

What launch?  Windows 2008?  Hyper-V has been completely free ever since it launched in November of 2008.

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

Right-Sizing well sucks. I buy RAM and PROCs and basta. I give the VMs that much RAM as is available and makes sense until more VMs need the same machine. That is Small-Business-Right-Way-To-Do-It (tm)

Reply
0 Kudos
bobbach
Contributor
Contributor

"Who knows what upcoming CPU's will exactly be like?"

Exactly my point.

VMware has always been sold by something resembling CPU power. Why change now?

In future editions they may license by other than four cores, but the reality is that Heinlein was right, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

While we have the right to upgrades when we pay our maintenance, VMware has a reasonable right to protect its future. Given the current scheme I wouldn't likely ever buy more VMware, just bigger and better hardware. VMware is completely justified in wanting a piece of its expanded capabilities and usage. I simply disagree with the vRAM model being added to the CPU model. It just plain complicates and limits the usefullness of the software. I'm sure that every right thinking engineer and technical person at VMware feels the same way. This is the brain child of some bean counter that lacks any idea of how economics work, or what the exposure VMware has to its competition. Likely whoever approved this wouldn't even be able to tell you what their products really do. Bean counters have their place, but the idea of charging based on vRAM should be a foot note of an idea shot down in a meeting more than a year ago.

Reply
0 Kudos
myitanalyst
Contributor
Contributor

I suspect that the reason that they didn't abandon the per-socket bits were specifically to avoid a obvious suit. Now they can say that if you were previously licensed for X quantity of sockets that they're giving you the upgrade to X quantity of sockets via SnS. Since they didn't license vRAM previously they'll probably get away with it.

I think they will as well... Not that I would initiate a lawsuit at all or even participate... just pointing out this is the sort of thing that lends itself towards something like this.  But I am sure they have put a lot of legal effort into protecting themselves.

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

My VMware reseller just pulled a cool stunt. They're ranting too against VMware but thought it wouldn't be that worse.

But their interpretation (although far from reality as I understand the licensing scheme) is as follow:

the vRAM entitlements per edition per socket whatever are PER VM.

So basically with vStandard you can have as many VMs you'd like just not a single one using more than 32 GB of vRAM.

IF that would be true I would immediatly stop ranting and even excuse for ranting, but then again this would be the biggest hillarious miscommunication in IT services ever.

Reply
0 Kudos
kmcferrin
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

myitanalyst wrote:

I suspect that the reason that they didn't abandon the per-socket bits were specifically to avoid a obvious suit. Now they can say that if you were previously licensed for X quantity of sockets that they're giving you the upgrade to X quantity of sockets via SnS. Since they didn't license vRAM previously they'll probably get away with it.

I think they will as well... Not that I would initiate a lawsuit at all or even participate... just pointing out this is the sort of thing that lends itself towards something like this.  But I am sure they have put a lot of legal effort into protecting themselves.

I wonder if that's not the next stop.  Up through 4.1 they licensed per socket (either singly or in twos).  Now with 5 it's licensed per socket, but witha  vRAM entitlement per socket, so they simply upgrade all of your 4.1 sockets to 5.0 sockets and you buy the extra 5.0 licenses to cover your vRAM allotment.  Then when 5.1 (or 6.0, or whatever they call it) comes along, they do away with the per-socket licensing altogether and go to a pure vRAM model.  "If you were entitled to 8 TB under the 5.0 model, we'll give you the entitlements to 8 TB under the 6.0 model, and as an added bonus we're doing away with the per-socket part of our licensing model in order to simplify licensing!"

The orignal complaint with the 5.0 licensing is that the vRAM per socket entitlement was too low.  Now that they've squelched that complaint (mostly, anyways) nothing stands in their way.  And the worst part about it is that they can now price RAM packs however they want.

Reply
0 Kudos
tomaddox
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

JAndrews wrote:

You seem to be taking this pretty personally Tom. Do you think They singled you out?

I don't feel singled out. Quite the opposite, I feel that VMware has demonstrated a blanket disregard for their customers, and I just happen to be covered by the blanket. The reason I'm so irate is that, especially having dealt with a significant number of "enterprise solution providers" over the years, I found dealing with VMware to be quite pleasant and reasonable and that the Virtual Center product was a good value despite its relatively high cost. Now I'm finding that VMware is not communicating and that the value proposition has suddenly worsened drastically. If VMware is just going to turn into EMC or NetApp or CA, with a deliberately obfuscated licensing structure and a "hands-off" approach to customer satisfaction, why would I want to do business with them if I don't have to?

Reply
0 Kudos