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?

[ph0bia]

I am very upset about this change in licensing.  Back in June we began the process of ordering new blade centers and a new set of blades to fill them which are 256GB units, at the exact same time and with the same reseller we were working on our VMware maintenance renewals.  The VMware guy at our supplier was fully involved in the renewal process and the blade order, and they said *nothing* to us about these changes.  When we found out and started asking questions, they started giving us the run around and trying to placate us about it, and while I am glad that they have now raised the limit it is still woefully insufficient.  I would also like to add that these are the same limits that were in the PDF document they sent to me about a month ago when I first started complaining about this, so it is almost like they already knew they were going to change the limit to 96GB.

If VMware doesn't revise this limit further (to UNLIMITED) for E+ and allow us to utilize our new blades fully with vSphere 5, then we simply will not be upgrading and will remain on v4, I will be recommending to our company that we push to have our maintenance renewal order reversed and get our money back, and we will begin moving to Microsoft.  I really don't want to do this, I love VMware's technology, but with this change in cost it simply can no longer boast the value that it once did and we can no longer afford to ignore M$'s aggressive pricing structure for virtualization.

I cannot understand why they are beating their loyal customers away with a stick, we are a fairly large and long standing customer and we give them huge money every year in maintenance -- this cash grab is a serious slap in the face and will not go unanswered if they do not come to their senses.

[ClueShell]

Shares of VMware have slipped from $106.02 to $87.28, representing a  loss of 17.7%, since the company reported earnings 18 days ago [or 22 days since licensing screwage]

Those bigger upset customers must have VMware stock :smileygrin: SELL SELL SELL leave the titanic.

If they only soon get settlets this crap. We give them our hardware list with redacted/censored prices and they shall give us those 256 Gigs or unlimited per box. If we don't keep SnS we loose the unlimited vRAM for enterprise plus.

[hmtk1976]

Bigi, with an attitude like yours no self respecting enterprise would hire you.  Come on, just look at what you just wrote!

[sewallgeek]

Has anyone discussed how the licensing will affect Essesntials bundles users? I understand you are limited to 3 hosts with 2 CPUs each for a total of 192GB of vRAM. But what if you run 2 hosts with 2 CPUs each? Does that limit you to 128GB or do you get 192GB no matter how many actual licenses you are using?

Basically are they adhering to the 32GB per CPU or just giving you a pool of 192GB as long as you do not exceed 3 x 2 CPU hosts?

[pavan009]

Not ONLY vmw whole share market of USA is down, don't blame vmw alone. even google down from 602->579, wat do u say abt this, even google posted better results,

[nuttervm]

I am also very interested in this question and have not seen any

clarification yet

[JAndrews42]

ESS/ESS+ give you a 192GB pool.

Note that if you have a different combination than three hosts with two CPUs you'll need to call VMware licensing to get you the appropriate license string.

[Bigi201110141]

The only problem with the licensing now is that vRAM is based on RAM assigned to VM and not actual RAM used. So much for the overcommit feature, makes it worthless.

vSphere 4.x runs great, people that have more RAM than currently will be licensed under the new model should stay with 4.x. Lets see how the numbers turn out in the next 18-24 months and maybee version 6 will be more RAM friendly.

[RohitKakkar7201]

Hi,

VMware has changed the Licenseing model , as per your below requirement

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 = 2 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
BL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 3 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses (You can add more 32 GB RAM in existing server)

So new vSphere5 licensing model is good for your enveroment

Check the new licensing model in below URL

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

regards

Rohit

[JAndrews42]

>BL460c G7 with 2 sockets and 192G of memory = 2 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses

>BL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 3 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses (You can add more 32 GB RAM in existing server)

No, you need one license per CPU, plus additional licenses to cover vRAM allocated past 32/64/96 (per CPU, taking the pool into account))

Your BL585 will need 4 licenses.

[Bigi201110141]

If I have (1) 32GB Host at 1 Socket

I have 1 Std License.

I have assigned 70 GB of RAM to VMs but actual usage is between 24-28GB and never above 32GB.

Do I need more vRAM licenses?

[Dracolith]

JAndrews wrote:

>BL460c G7 with 2 sockets and 192G of memory = 2 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses

>BL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 3 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses (You can add more 32 GB RAM in existing server)

No, you need one license per CPU, plus additional licenses to cover vRAM allocated past 32/64/96 (per CPU, taking the pool into account))

Your BL585 will need 4 licenses.

Not only that,  but   vSphere 5  licensing model is BAD for your environment in many cases.

The generalization that "vSphere5 is good for your environment" based on one example

is a totally unfounded generalization.

Let's assume you have lots of small VMs with relatively small CPU footprint,  because you are intentionally

creating as many VMs as possible for better application isolation,  and you utilize your RAM 100% with

some small amount of actual overcommitment of your physical hardware.   Try,  Today

BL460c G7 with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 192G of memory =  1 vSphere4 Enterprise Plus license
DL585 G7 with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 256G of memory = 1 vSphere4 Enterprise Plus license

Brand X whitebox server with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 512G of memory = 1 vSphere4 Enterprise Plus license

Brand X whitebox server with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 1TB of memory = 1 vSphere4 Enterprise Plus license

Brand X whitebox server with 1 socket populated (24 cores) and 2TB of memory = 2 vSphere4 Enterprise Plus licenses

Brand X whitebox server with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 2TB of memory = 1 vSphere4 Enterprise Plus license

Tomorrow,

BL460c G7 with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 192G of memory =  2 vSphere5 Enterprise Plus Licenses  (100% price increase)

DL585 G7 with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 256G of memory =  3  vSphere5 Enterprise Plus Licenses (300% price increase)

Brand X whitebox server with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 512G of memory = 6 vSphere5 Enterprise Plus Licenses (600% price increase)

Brand X whitebox server with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 1TB of memory = 11 vSphere5 Enterprise Plus Licenses (1100% price increase)

Brand X whitebox server with 1 socket populated (24 cores) and 2TB of memory = 22 vSphere5 Enterprise Plus licenses   (1100% price increase)

Brand X whitebox server with 1 socket populated (12 cores) and 2TB of memory = 22 vSphere5 Enterprise Plus licenses   (2200% price increase)

[Bigi201110141]

Let's assume you have lots of small VMs with relatively small CPU footprint,  because you are intentionally

creating as many VMs as possible for better application isolation,  and you utilize your RAM 100% with

some small amount of actual overcommitment of your physical hardware.

Do you give users 20 PCs as well to isolate their applications better?

[Dracolith]

Bigi wrote:

Do you give users 20 PCs as well to isolate their applications better?

No, but users do not run all their applications at the same time.    If they do, and there is a performance

impact, only the one user is effected, and IT can readily inform them of their errors, rather than there being

an impact for the entire environment.

Also,  users exist in ONE security boundary.     One user is not a member of both the accounting department

and the product engineering department.     On a  a non-virtualized environment,   both departments would very

likely share the same SQL server,  with the IT department responsible for its security and continued stability.

Justifying another server  for one team would be unlikely,  particularly when one department's use of resources

would be minimal, but it is better from a security and stability perspective  to have multiple isolated servers.

You don't make the Exchange server double as a SQL server and AD controller, and you don't  necessarily

use one machine to host all your websites, DNS, and AD,  unless you have physical servers,

and need to minimize their number to reduce hardware costs.

A selling point of virtualization is now you can separate as many server as proper,

and follow application vendors' recommendations about dedicated servers.

In a VMware environment you do this.      In physical environments,  you use

as few servers as possible to meet business requirements, for cost reasons.

[allenb1121]

PCs and servers cannot logically be compared in the way. Sorry, but the scenario he describes is very typical. One of the main advantages of virtualization is the ability to have many small single-purpose VMs, as opposed to large machines with apps stomping on the dependencies of each other all the time. Some companies have adjusted their licensing to accommodate this. For example, we are a SUSE Linux shop, and under their licensing model, we only have to buy one license per VMware host for unlimited SUSE VMs. This costs but a fraction of the cost to do the same with Redhat.

From your comments, I think you may have a different work experience than the rest of us. Nothing wrong with that, just keep in mind that there are many different ways to get the same job done, and that the way large enterprise users choose to accomplish it may differ drastically from the way small-medium organizations choose to.

Allen B.

[hmtk1976]

You said it more gently than I would have...

[JAndrews42]

>If I have (1) 32GB Host at 1 Socket

>I have 1 Std License.

>I have assigned 70 GB of RAM to VMs but actual usage is between 24-28GB and never above 32GB.

>Do I need more vRAM licenses?

Yes, assuming you will run the VMs for 12months and you don't have the server managed by a vSphere server with other hosts to pool with -

you will need two additional Standard licenses to meet your licensing requirements.  Note again, it is an honor-system, but VMware will know pretty quick if you send them your logs.

>For example, we are a SUSE Linux shop, and under their licensing model, we only have to buy one license per VMware host for unlimited SUSE VMs. This costs but a fraction of the cost to do the same with Redhat.

Have you looked into the SUSE license that now comes bundled with all version of vSphere?

[ClueShell]

@Bigi

I'm just in exactly this process because Win7 Enterprise gets you 4 VMs

and if you don't do all 4 VMs then you get the right to use 1 host (win7

thinclient) 3 vms on VMware withouth paying WDA or some crap just

Software Assurance.

[Petter_Lindgren]

As a long time user of ESX server (~10 years), I've gotten used to the feeling that VMware makes the licensing more expensive for every major version.

I really think that VMware dropped the ball here and the damage that they've done to themselves is irreparable. Many customers and partners are now seriously considering other vendors and many implementations has come to a standstill.

The only people happy about this change is probably Microsoft and Citrix because they will see a dramatic increase of customers very soon...

The new vRAM adjustments announced on aug 3rd is obviously a major improvement but it's still far worse than the licensing scheme for vSphere 4.

I wouldn't like to be the guy presenting the licensing changes at vmworld!

...in fact I wouldn't like to a be a VMware representative presenting anything at vmworld!

[AaronKratzmann]

I am currently working part time. I am in the office Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. If you require urgent assistance please contact the IT Service Desk on ext 6999. Regards, Aaron