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?

[ClueShell]

Dear VMware please just give us

64 GB per socket for Standard

128 GB per socket for Enterprise

256 GB per socket for Enterprise+

Ok everyone? that will do for the next 3 years to get used to vRAM licensing

[rjb2]

ClueShell wrote:

Dear VMware please just give us

64 GB per socket for Standard

128 GB per socket for Enterprise

256 GB per socket for Enterprise+

Ok everyone? that will do for the next 3 years to get used to vRAM licensing

Nope, Enterprise still out of proportion.

Version	vRAM per CPU	Per GB vRAM
Standard	64	$                  15.61
Enterprise	128	$                  22.46
Enterprise Plus	256	$                  13.65

[lawjm]

Not sure if they ever charged a penny. I’m just repeating what I was told at the Microsoft launch wave event in Nashville. But this article would seem to indicate that there was a (negligible) price for Hyper-V at one time, thus supporting my statement. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/08/hyper_v_free_download/

Now then, back to the topic at hand…

--John Law

[myitanalyst]

ShadowfaxS3 wrote:

Wow, FUD, confusion, hysteria still reign. And people have "lost trust" in VMware due to proposed licensing changes.

No hysteria here... Just looking at cold hard facts.  Not difficult to do the math.  And yes... they have lost the trust that many probably have too easily given them.  They are just like any other company subject to do things that will upset the customers in general.  The question is how do they handle it... and in the end each of us as a business will decide how we will in turn respond.

Really? and you're going to embrace Microsoft as the pinnacle of trust?  Such short memories in the IT world!

Funny... most folks do have a short memory... but so far I have never felt this sort of hit from a Vendor... even Microsoft.  Maybe a little when they changed licensing from concurrent to non-concurrent on one product.  That sucked.

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.

Either you didn't really look that close or you only looked at a couple of use cases that didn't fit.  But that's ok... if it doesn't effect you any then feel good about it and rejoice... but that is not the case across the board.

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

I would rather find amusement in old Sienfeld re-runs...

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.

I know we didn't see anything like this.  Our corporation with over $100,000 in vmware products and folks I do consulting with haven't heard anything from VMWare either.  Not saying they didn't at all as I have no certain way of knowing.  Just know we didn't and no one I have spoke maintaining VM Sites have either.

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.

Yes... many will switch to what makes financial sense.  HOWEVER... not everyone will lie down without a fight... or at least a tussle.  Perhaps you would lie there flat on your back if your situation was like that of many others here.  But there are many folks passionate about VMWare and would like to see it continue and one way to help them is provide them feedback... even if it is brutally honest.  And if they don't like VMWare's response they can go to the competitor.  I for one would rather get into a little tussle with VMWare and fight to keep this product a viable solution long term.

[ClueShell]

Its already late again here in Europe.

Would it "lighten up" when they left 'Advanced' in there and give this 128 GB and Enterprise 192 GB ?

[rjb2]

ClueShell wrote:

Its already late again here in Europe.

Would it "lighten up" when they left 'Advanced' in there and give this 128 GB and Enterprise 192 GB ?

192 for Enterprise would certainly make more sense when you look at it from the cost per GB perspective.

Version	vRAM per CPU	Per GB vRAM
Standard	64	$                  15.61
Enterprise	192	$                  14.97
Enterprise Plus	256	$                  13.65

Being able to add vRAM without being tied to a CPU license is what a lot of people would like to see.

[cmangiarelli]

lawjm wrote:

I may as well throw in here as well. First let me say that I really like vmware. It has saved me about 30% on hardware costs over the last three years. And, an actual 30% reduction in cost beats those inflated marketing numbers any day.

The problem I now face stems from me really liking the product. It does everything I want it to do. I can't think of a single feature I want that it doesn't provide. So...why should I upgrade? Im not going to pay more for the privilege of locking myself in a less flexible licensing model.

Holley purchased vmware licenses about 3 months before Microsoft's hypervisor was released. I decided early on that it didn't make sense to delay our virtualization project an additional three months just to evaluate a solution that was bleeding edge. But now Microsoft Hyper-V isn't bleeding edge, and since we are a Microsoft shop their virtualization costs are almost $0 for us.

In a way you kind of argued against yourself.  You said that implementing VMware saved you 30% on hardware costs but then said the switch to HyperV would be almost free.  In actuality, a conversion to HyperV is going to cost you money, but probably not as much as licensing VMware.  VMware originally enticed you to scale-up, spend less on hardware but use it more efficiently.  HyperV encourages you to scale-out since it can't (currently) handle the consolidation ratios VMware can give you (and for all I know, maybe you aren't taking advantage of that).  Since you've already scaled down to save money with VMware, the switch to HyperV might cost you money to purchase additional servers, MS DC licenses, new management tools, more support and it might also cost you "TIME" as your admins have more physical assets to manage and use more "RESOURCES" (cooling, power, rack space, etc).  I'm sure kmcferrin will gladly expound how free the hyperv software is, but nothing is truly free.  Consider the hidden costs for conversion and then determine how much you will actually save.   Once you know what your true savings are going to be, then determine if running VMware is worth paying that premium.

As for upgrading, nobody is saying you have to other than to worry about the end of life dates for the software.  If you want to drop SNS, then go for it, but also determine how much it's going to cost to just get support when those gremlins rear their ugly heads inside your hosts.

[hmtk1976]

Switching to another platform may cost more in hardware and a migration itself will cost money but it may also save money in the long run.  That's up to each for his own to decide.  For most of our customers the scenario would probably be comparable to changing tires.  Keep using them until they need to be replaced and then see what's the best value on the market.

[lawjm]

More like: Dear VMware. Don’t attempt to add an additional constraint to the license. I wish to continue licensing the software in the way we previously negotiated and I feel that how much ram I put in a box and how much I assign to a guest machine is, quite frankly, none of your business. –John Law

[tomaddox]

JAndrews wrote:

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

Actually, let me qualify my last response: I do take it personally when people attempt to belittle and whitewash my legitimate concerns, which has been done by posters on this forum and, I would say, by the VMware reps.

[tomaddox]

lawjm wrote:

More like: Dear VMware. Don’t attempt to add an additional constraint to the license. I wish to continue licensing the software in the way we previously negotiated and I feel that how much ram I put in a box and how much I assign to a guest machine is, quite frankly, none of your business. –John Law

This.

[VidarK]

From http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf:

"VMware vSphere customers with an active SnS contract are
entitled to upgrade to VMware vSphere 5 at no extra charge."

Can someone from VMware please tell me how this can be done AT NO EXTRA CHARGE for a server with 2 cpus and 256GB ram already oversubscribed and running vSphere 4.1 Advanced?

I'm sending a private message to a few VMware employees posting in this thread and expect an answer to this question.

[myitanalyst]

VidarK wrote:

From http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf:

"VMware vSphere customers with an active SnS contract are
entitled to upgrade to VMware vSphere 5 at no extra charge."

Can someone from VMware please tell me how this can be done AT NO EXTRA CHARGE for a server with 2 cpus and 256GB ram already oversubscribed and running vSphere 4.1 Advanced?

I'm sending a private message to a few VMware employees posting in this thread and expect an answer to this question.

YES... I need the answer to this as well!

[lawjm]

Spot on. I have a 5/1 guest to host ratio and already own the Data Center licenses for all my processors. You are right about hard costs vs. opportunity costs, it’s why I don’t want to make a switch. It’s easier on me to continue running with what I have. But there comes a time when you must replace your SAN, and your physical boxes. When that time comes it’s not that much more work to change virtualization platform when you are already replacing the Hosts and SAN. –John Law

[lawjm]

Excellent Analogy. –John Law

[tomaddox]

VidarK wrote:

From http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf:

"VMware vSphere customers with an active SnS contract are
entitled to upgrade to VMware vSphere 5 at no extra charge."

Can someone from VMware please tell me how this can be done AT NO EXTRA CHARGE for a server with 2 cpus and 256GB ram already oversubscribed and running vSphere 4.1 Advanced?

I'm sending a private message to a few VMware employees posting in this thread and expect an answer to this question.

I expect the answer will be something like "you just need to right-size your VMs to be in compliance."

[Bigi201110141]

With vSphere 5 we can now save money on common configurations.

Before on vSphere 4.x

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 128GB RAM = 4 Enterprise or 2 Enterprise + Licenses

now vSphere 5

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 128GB RAM = 2 Enterprise Licenses

Before on vSphere 4.x

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 64GB RAM = 4 Enterprise or 2 Enterprise + Licenses

now vSphere 5

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 64GB RAM = 1 Enterprise License

1. vmware should make people take training before bying vmware licenses. Some people dont know what they are doing and assign more ram then necessary thinking it cant hurt. You have to right size the vm giving it enough to perform great. Having the size of ram to big makes for longer snapshot and bigger snapshot size along with slower vMotion and etc.

2. Buying a Server with 256 or 512 GB is not a standard but a little extreme for now.

Several years ago 8-10 cores were not common vmware charged up to a certain amount. Same with RAM now. Eventually they will also raise the vRAM or something else as the 256 becomes more common.

3. No one is forcing people to upgrade to vSphere 5.x you can stay on 4. Why are people going nuts with going to Hyper-V or Xen just because they dont like the newest version licensing model. How do you know Xen or Microsoft will not upgrade their policy.

[ClueShell]

I'm still talking/emailing with a Tier II Salesforce VMware Partner guy. The India Frontline escalated directly without any word.

As much as I hate the new licensing rip-off and I really read and posted myself every imaginable workable alternative - it just plain pisses me off how I get treatet as a customer with active SnS.

And I neither want the enterprise features nor anything unreasonable. I just want to excercise my rights under current contract rules. They did license per socket, they did increase core counts - now changing to sockets + vRAM could not be forseen and is "in my opinion" just illegal no matter why they write in their EULAs

[ClueShell]

Bigi wrote:

Before on vSphere 4.x

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 64GB RAM = 4 Enterprise or 2 Enterprise + Licenses

now vSphere 5

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 64GB RAM = 1 Enterprise License

I don't think this is correct. You'd have still to license per socket?!

Further - You 'knew' in advance that you need to buy more than 2 Enterprise Lics to be compliant about your core count. Or upgrade to EntPlus as you mention correctly. You could have used 4 Standard lics too I guess.

Such a thing would have been fine with me, you want more cores well yes sure buy additional licenses or pony up more cash for the better editions.

but vTAX is well just a TAX and VMware is nowhere near in trouble since they have "the feature-richest" product with a proven track record.

Well they're ruining their image right now but the product still rocks.

[hmtk1976]

Bigi wrote:

With vSphere 5 we can now save money on common configurations.

Before on vSphere 4.x

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 128GB RAM = 4 Enterprise or 2 Enterprise + Licenses

now vSphere 5

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 128GB RAM = 2 Enterprise Licenses

Before on vSphere 4.x

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 64GB RAM = 4 Enterprise or 2 Enterprise + Licenses

now vSphere 5

2 Socket 8 or 10 Core at 64GB RAM = 1 Enterprise License

1. vmware should make people take training before bying vmware licenses. Some people dont know what they are doing and assign more ram then necessary thinking it cant hurt. You have to right size the vm giving it enough to perform great. Having the size of ram to big makes for longer snapshot and bigger snapshot size along with slower vMotion and etc.

2. Buying a Server with 256 or 512 GB is not a standard but a little extreme for now.

Several years ago 8-10 cores were not common vmware charged up to a certain amount. Same with RAM now. Eventually they will also raise the vRAM or something else as the 256 becomes more common.

3. No one is forcing people to upgrade to vSphere 5.x you can stay on 4. Why are people going nuts with going to Hyper-V or Xen just because they dont like the newest version licensing model. How do you know Xen or Microsoft will not upgrade their policy.

You should be the first to take that licensing training.

1. In vSphere 4 you needed either Advanced or Enterprise Plus to use those 8+ core CPU's.

Just SHUT UP about right sizing VM's.  VMware is not in the consulting business for my mail servers, database servers and what else.  If machines heavy on RAM are a problem when making snapshots or doing vMotion then VMware should do something with our SnS money to make things go faster. (something is not paying accountants and sales creatures to device silly licensing schemes).

2. Maybe not buying the server with that much memory in but certainly with the capacity.  It would be nice if you could us it as well.

A 6-core limit was ridiculous even in vSphere 4 when 8 core CPU's were already on the horizon.  Do you know when and how much VMware will raise the vRAM limits?  And if they do we'll probably need to install patches or upgrade to 5.x for no better reason than licensing.

3. People have PAID to get those upgrades so it's only natural that they expect that they can upgrade.  Are you too dense to understand that it's a problem when you don't get what you pay for?