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?

[Frank_Heidbuche]

as a longtime defender of vmware...

i can't believe i'm doing this..

but i'm downloaden Xenserver now, to test in my vmware workstation....

What is vmware thinking...

I can't believe that multiple people of vmware saw this passing by, and none of thing said:" we'll this doesn't look good"

[chanaka_ek]

Abosolutely... This is a cheap shot from VMware..... They are now indirectly discouraging the followings through this license model,

• Increased VM densities
  
• Benefitting from memory reclamation techniques properly
  
• Using anything other than enterprise plus license (its only for those on the ent plus license that the cost increment would be comparatively lowest)
  
• Virtualising servers that have a high memory foot print
  

I really hope that they have some strategy behind this decision that is not quite obvious from the outset. because otherwise they could be shooting themselves in the foot by pricing themselves out of the SME market and creating room for Hyper-V who is catching up fast and have far less greedy licensing terms..

I might actually ditch my plans for vcdx and look at Hyper-V instead to diversify a bit....

[ats0401]

I was VERY excited to see the release of vSphere 5. But then I read the new licensing models....

now I feel like throwing both my VCAP certificates in the trash. What a total f*ckup!

I think it is worse that it is based on allocated ram and not physical ram.... I thought the whole purpose of memory overcommitment was to

allocate more then you actually have????? So it will cost even more???? What is the point in having a high consolidation ratio then???

Anyone surprised that this annoucement came from Paul Maritz,,, a former Microsoft executive who was considered their number 3 guy....

[bilalhashmi]

I understand the frustrations over this. But try and add the cost saving since you deployed VMware in your DC. And is it unfair to have a share from the profits organizations have enjoyed due to increased VM densities? Even with the new model, you will still be better off with being virtual. Now should you ditch VMware and go with another tool like Xen or Hyper-V, is really a choice that an organization should make after doing some cost benefit analysis.

There are BMWs and Mercedes in the market and there are Kia and Hyundi as well.. In my opinion VMware is still a much more advanced platform and there is no hard in paying a premium to enjoy the fruits. We never complain about driving overly priced cars or other toys we overpay for.. do we?

Follow me @ Cloud-Buddy.com

[RajuVCP]

I too completely agree with Hashmi, am confident that VMware is not going to be on the track of Microsoft (Monopolizing their own Product)

Regards

Raju Gunnal

http://www.tech2solution.com/forum

[vintera]

@bilalhashmi

i m sorry but this fanboy s#!t is an absolut crap. the v5 licencing model will kill almost every medium-enterprise business budget pla

[SuperSpike]

Bilal wrote:

I understand the frustrations over this. But try and add the cost saving since you deployed VMware in your DC. And is it unfair to have a share from the profits organizations have enjoyed due to increased VM densities? Even with the new model, you will still be better off with being virtual. Now should you ditch VMware and go with another tool like Xen or Hyper-V, is really a choice that an organization should make after doing some cost benefit analysis.

There are BMWs and Mercedes in the market and there are Kia and Hyundi as well.. In my opinion VMware is still a much more advanced platform and there is no hard in paying a premium to enjoy the fruits. We never complain about driving overly priced cars or other toys we overpay for.. do we?

Follow me @ Cloud-Buddy.com

If you were a Mercedes customer for years and then had to pay 2-3 times  more for the next model (especially one with very limited additional  features), you'd be pretty upset and consider buying a different brand.

I understand your analogy but it is not apples to apples. Memory allocation charging completely contradicts any implied savings from TPS or memory compression algorithms. VMware spent a lot of marketing time touting these features as advantages over the competition.

[ats0401]

Bilal,

Are you actually suggesting vmware has a right to a slice of a companies profit because their product they purchased helped them get some cost savings??? That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

Raju, considering the CEO of vmware was microsoft's number 3 guy for most of his career, I wouldn't be confident about that AT ALL.

[aarondovetail]

This is horrible, you can put like 300+GB of memory in most 2-CPU socket servers these days, this licensing model is based off like 2006 figures? With my current licensing on DL380 G7 servers it looks like I'll be able to use about 50-60% of the memory I actually have if I upgrade to vSphere 5. WTF

[Frank_Heidbuche]

well saying we should pay more now, because we had some good years virtualizing doesn't seem right to me.

xen and hyper-v give you more bag for your buck, greeping up to vmware.

for me the gap is closing, simply put because i can't afford the vmware licensing anymore with my IT budget.

[rickardnobel]

SuperSpike wrote:

Memory allocation charging completely contradicts any implied savings from TPS or memory compression algorithms.

This seems so unlogical, that we have features that could make the VMs see more memory than they really consume on the host level, but still there is a license "punishment" for doing these savings. If the license model would be based on the hardware consumed RAM it would make a lot more sense at least.

[bilalhashmi]

I understand your analogy but it is not apples to apples. Memory allocation charging completely contradicts any implied savings from TPS or memory compression algorithms. VMware spent a lot of marketing time touting these features as advantages over the competition.

I agree, however I still think the new premium to leverage overcommitment is still cheaper than running more server physical servers. If you think other tools are cheaper, well that has pretty much been the case in the past as well. However, VMware's hypervisor is much more advanced and with other tools like SRM and vCD etc VMware becomes more attractive in my opinion. Keep in mind a running cost of a server is more than just its hardware cost. Again, one should do a cost benefit analysis, write down a list of capabilites one will have with vSphere vs other tools and dertmine where they stand.

Follow me @ Cloud-Buddy.com

[Rumple]

I have no problem with the licensing if:

#1 – drop the whole CPU thing and just call it vRAM licensing model…since the CPU doesn’t matter..why confuse the matter..make 1 unit=x vRAM and call it done…

#2 – Make me pay for actual UTILIZED ram...we all know Vendors and Microsoft require you to have 2-4 times more RAM then you really need, we get screwed over by vmware to meet those requirements (even though we all know the RAM is not being utilized).

[embusa]

Even as an enterprise plus license holder this new licensing plan screws me.  I cannot figure out for the life of me why they wouldn't offer add-on vRAM licenses to make the pricing more reasonable.  I had to read the section about increasing the vRAM pool a couple of times before it sank in.  Going to my boss and explaning in need more vCPU licenses even though I'm not buying a new machine just doesn't make sense.  I feel like they could at least help existing customers by allowing us to buy additional vRAM at a discounted rate or anything to make this less painful.  Not offereing incremental vRAM licenses in this license model is completely mind boggling.

I agree with the previous commenter that said this was an attempt by VMware to get additional money out of customers on full support.  The vmware.com front page should mention that running a "mega vm" will cost you $120,000 in software licenses!  My VMware story just got incredibly difficult to maintain.  This is complete BS.

[StylusEater]

> Anyone else completely shocked by this move?

Not really. Quarterly profits are a strong motivator. If VMware doesn't bump pricing they will be unable to keep profits tracking the density curve.

Now, the obvious question is why not start making improvements to KVM. At a minimum, report bugs and help test. Alternatives are a strong motivator to curve this type of behavior. Just a thought.

[Full_Halsey]

This sounds like an old sales trick to me. Anyone bought a flat screen TV lately? The salesman will start off by showing you the $3000.00 3D version then work you down to the $2000.00 model when you had actually intended on spending $1000.00 to begin with. My expectation is VMware is gong to hit us with sticker shock, get us all really peeved off, and then come back with a better upgrade price, which was what they had intended on in the first place. This will give everyone the impression that they care about their customers and want to keep our business.

As for other posters thinking this is fair for VMware to profit share in data center consolidation savings, I do NOT AGREE. If VMware wants to profit from my company, I suggest they buy stock in us, not meter out ability to virtualize.

I'm cancelling my VMworld trip. There is absolutely no reason to spend thousands of dollars on travel and conference expenses on a product I can't upgrade to.

[chanaka_ek]

Either you are a disguised VMware employee or on their payroll somehow you wouldn't make a stpuid remark like this.

I agree with the fact that you should pay a premium to use a premium product. (hell thats why I myself paid a premium out of my pocket to do the certification for VMware) but the fact of the matter is they were ALREADY CHARGING a god damn_ premium before this prise hike and people were already paying a premium (in your terms, a big slice out of their cost savings) to vmware and now they want more??  I can even understand them raising the prices as per the inflation but this cap is highly disproportionate (see my calculation at http://communities.vmware.com/message/1789875#1789875).

Anyhow if you've got some sense, you too should be worried as this means Hyper-V market share will grow especially in the SME market and my Vmware certification and (presumably) yours will not yield much result in the SME market.

Also what about the VDI market where memory overcommit and VM densities are the main objectives and this pricing model will make it more expensive? No matter how you slice it, VDI is never cheaper than  thick clients when you add all on top and the only excuse so far has been the fact that we can make it a little cheaper through increased VM densities. but with this pricing model, you can kiss that good bye.

Andy: Did you see what happened to Nokia?? out goes symbian, in comes windows mobile (heck there were even rumours about MS buying nokia out). All the more reasons never to underestimate MS. (Where's my Hyper-V book?? )

[bilalhashmi]

Mark Hodges wrote:

…

#2 – Make me pay for actual UTILIZED ram...we all know Vendors and Microsoft require you to have 2-4 times more RAM then you really need, we get screwed over by vmware to meet those requirements (even though we all know the RAM is not being utilized).

Why not size your VMs to what they will use? Why cry over something that can be controlled. If you will be fine with them charging you for utilized RAM, then just provision the VMs appropriately. Now factors like TPS, ballooning, swaping and compression can be used as they will always change. The only static number is the configured memory. So just configure the VMs appropriately.

Follow me @ Cloud-Buddy.com

[stevieg]

it unfair to have a share from the profits organizations have enjoyed due to increased VM densities?

This statement probably sums up VMware's own thinking, but it is a flawed one. We make savings from increased VM denisties, not profit.

So if we've made savings over the course of a few years, we should now go to the CFO and saying we now need extra money because VMware have changed the goalposts and now demand a share? We're a University, so perhaps we should ask our students if they think that their tuition fees should be given to VMware, or whether they would prefer us to use the nearly-free alternative? I think I know what they would say.

Steve

[Frank_Heidbuche]

well i can understand premium...

but for my server i just to pay around 14.000€  licenses per server for premium vmware ent plus.

versus 5000€ for xenserver platinum.

so a difference of 9000€ for premium i can understand.

with the new licensing this would become 25.000€ versus 5000€ eur...

well vmware is still beter, nicer and more features...

but worth 20.000€ per server????? for premium

thats not premium, thats just living in a ivory tower not listening to your customers.

thats like telling all your customers well you drive a mercedes, but we want you to pay as mutch as a ferrari for it.

well how many people drive a ferrari.... a lot less people that drive a mercedes...

i can tell you that.