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
DSTAVERT
Immortal
Immortal

I hardly think VMware is being punished.  They just reported record sales growths.  If VMware's revenues where declining you might have an argument.

If every one's prediction about how large their servers are or will become over the next few years and how VM dense everyone wants them to be VMware would stand to loose revenue since there would be fewer VMware license sold.

In regards to MS server licensing, the 1 workstation CAL allows me to access an unlimited number of servers.  Datacenter allows me to install an unlimited number of servers on a host. As hardware becomes more powerful I can install more servers on less hosts so I require less server licenses.

The only reason you have more servers is to service the number of CALs. You don't just add servers for the fun of it. You spread the load across some number of servers. Those CALs are the pay for use that allows Microsoft to be profitable.

-- David -- VMware Communities Moderator
Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

Microsoft licensing is relatively easy.  You pay a CPU license or you pay a CAL per user or per device.  Both are easy to count and easy to defend to management if you need to buy more.  It's not as easy to determine how much vRAM you'll need a year from now.  New versions of applications that do not exist yet may have higher memory requirements.  Or workloads may increase requiring more RAM.  Do you know what management will say when you have?  You didn't "right size" your servers!  It's a lot easier to say that business is going great, more people are being hired and you need CALs for them.

Reply
0 Kudos
tomaddox
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

DSTAVERT wrote:

If every one's prediction about how large their servers are or will become over the next few years and how VM dense everyone wants them to be VMware would stand to loose revenue since there would be fewer VMware license sold.

The only reason you have more servers is to service the number of CALs. You don't just add servers for the fun of it. You spread the load across some number of servers. Those CALs are the pay for use that allows Microsoft to be profitable.

In regard to your first point, yes, that's exactly why VMware is trying to turn the screws on their customers. Others in this thread have commented on that point, so I'm not going to rehash previous arguments. On the flip side, VMware makes a healthy revenue stream from SnS, so it's not like their existing stream is going to dry up; they might not gain revenue as quickly as they might like, but neither are they going to lose that much.

As to your second point: no. There are many reasons we have more servers, but they mainly revolve around the isolation of processes, workloads, business groups, access rights, etc., as well as the provision of additional resources beyond what a single server can provide. I have never, ever deployed new servers for the purpose of providing CALs. The very notion is ludicrous and makes me wonder what it is you actually do. In point of fact, it's pretty clear that most of the people who defend VMware's new licensing scheme don't actually work in IT based on their comments in this thread.

Reply
0 Kudos
wdroush1
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

DSTAVERT wrote:

Using that logic we can expect the providers of the hardware (CPUs, Memory, disks etc) and the providers of all the software we need to install (OSs, applications etc) to apply the same idea. So we can expect them all to be charging far more in the future than they do today as all their products will be more complex. or do you think that VMWARE should be the only one to profit from Moore's Law? The reality is VMWARE is already profiting from Moore's Law as it is deployed in many sites because the hardware has already gone beyond the requirements of single server installs, so companies now consolidate.

As it is VMWARE are now trying to increase my costs by a factor of 20x as I have large amounts of RAM assigned to 3 simple VMWARE systems that include 3 database servers with 96GByte of RAM each. These systems have need to go beyond the dual quad core CPUs currently installed. The RAM is installed because it is/was cheaper than adding faster disk sub-systems, but now it's cheaper for me to install Fusion-IO SSD cards or even dedicated database servers than pay VMWARE's new licensing!

And using your logic you shouldn't need to pay Microsoft a per seat license since you've already purchased the server license. The Microsoft license model says if you are going to use more of the services the software provides you pay for the privilege. If Microsoft did not have a per seat model how do you think a server license would be priced if companies could buy that monster server and one Windows Server license. It would either be out of reach of the smaller company or they would need to come up with a model that allowed for use based pricing. Per seat licensing makes the software viable for a range of situations. You pay for use. Why should that not be the same for VMware. Since servers are becoming larger and capable of unbelievable VM densities it doesn't seem fair that we as customers should punish VMware for making a product that can make use of that capability.

Perhaps the real problem is the software that runs our businesses. We should demand that software be written that uses less resources.

To be honest with a lot of their software you have a choice of chosing per-socket pricing or CAL, depending on if you want more servers for a small amount of people, or servers that are going to service a lot of people (and pay per server).

Flexible (albeit complicated) licensing can be nice.

Reply
0 Kudos
wdroush1
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

tomaddox wrote:

DSTAVERT wrote:

If every one's prediction about how large their servers are or will become over the next few years and how VM dense everyone wants them to be VMware would stand to loose revenue since there would be fewer VMware license sold.

The only reason you have more servers is to service the number of CALs. You don't just add servers for the fun of it. You spread the load across some number of servers. Those CALs are the pay for use that allows Microsoft to be profitable.

In regard to your first point, yes, that's exactly why VMware is trying to turn the screws on their customers. Others in this thread have commented on that point, so I'm not going to rehash previous arguments. On the flip side, VMware makes a healthy revenue stream from SnS, so it's not like their existing stream is going to dry up; they might not gain revenue as quickly as they might like, but neither are they going to lose that much.

Mainly this, if we still go with VMWare, we'll be paying for SnS, continously, forever, and I don't see me having to call them on anything unless they have some kind of bug in v5.

So basically it's thousands of dollars for them for sending us an invoice and that conforting knowledge of having them on call. I can't not making a killing off this model no matter how much consolidation we get out of our systems.

Reply
0 Kudos
GaryHertz
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

DSTAVERT wrote:

If every one's prediction about how large their servers are or will become over the next few years and how VM dense everyone wants them to be VMware would stand to loose revenue since there would be fewer VMware license sold.

You will need to explain this one to me because I don't get it.

When I upgrade to that monster 288 core server I will need to purchase 24 Enterprise + licenses using 4.1 licensing.  Core architecture will improve by then so I should be able to get more VMs per core but the largest area of VM growth will be in core count. I'm currently paying for units of 6 or 12 cores.

If VMware needs to adjust pricing because of the improvements of future server designs and the value VMware brings I certainly don't have a problem with that.  Just don't punish your existing customers that have been paying SnS so that they have an upgrade path to new versions.  I didn't say no cost upgrade because the cost of the upgrade is covered by SnS which isn't cheap and will go up as prices increase. Under the 4.1 licensing I'll be buying additional licenses when it is time to do my next hardware refresh.  Contrary to the popular myth, cores don't come free.  You have to pay for them in packs of 6 or 12 depending on ESXi edition.

VMware already had a way to address increased core counts under 4.1 (see above).  They didn't need to switch to vRAM to address a problem that didn't exist.  Who knows, in the long run I may be better off with unlimited cores under v5.  But right now I will take a big hit if I upgrade to v5 because even with the increased entitlements I will need to purchase additional licenses in order to upgrade.

DSTAVERT wrote:

In regards to MS server licensing, the 1 workstation CAL allows me to access an unlimited number of servers.  Datacenter allows me to install an unlimited number of servers on a host. As hardware becomes more powerful I can install more servers on less hosts so I require less server licenses.

The only reason you have more servers is to service the number of CALs. You don't just add servers for the fun of it. You spread the load across some number of servers. Those CALs are the pay for use that allows Microsoft to be profitable.

I totally disagree with this statement.  I might want to isolate my test and production servers.  I separate servers by application.  I might create file servers by department or location.  I might cluster servers that in the past I didn't.  In the past when I was tied to physical servers I often combined servers together as much as possible because I couldn't afford to separate them out.

The number of my users has not increased over the past 5 years but the number of servers has.  It did when I had physical servers and it has even more since I've virtualized my environment.  A huge advantage of virtualization is the flexibility it gives me to create servers by function without regard to cost.  With vRAM a huge part of that flexibility is lost and with it the value of VMware.

From start to finish I migrated 50 physical servers and added 20 additional servers to four dual socket servers.  My MS server licensing went from 70 to 8.  My SQL licensing went from 18 to 8.  When we get these new mamoth servers I'll be able to reduce my licenses down to 4 or maybe 2.  I haven't added 1 CAL.  Over the last three years my VMware licensing has grown from 2 to 4 Enterprise licenses and then to 8 Enterprise + licenses plus the 4 Enterprise licenses.  If I choose to upgrade to v5 at a miniumum I will need to upgrade the 4 Enterprise licenses to Enterprise +.

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

My partner/reseller in Switzerland just told me that I am the first customer to complain / report in about the vTax.

They have lots of enterprise and enterprise+ customers who did not yet notice or care about it.

So there will definitly be a 2nd and even 3rd wave or tsunami of bad votes about vTax.

Besides next week seems to be the last week to license EOL product skus. Everyone who wishes to step up to license the old vSphere 4 acc kits or upgrade licenses.

So to speak get v4 advanced now, get v5 enterprise as a gift and optionally get the ent to ent+ upgrade for a few bucks extra.

At best with 3P-SSS.

The ent and ent+ folks did get screwed again but the rest this is possibly the best thing to do if leaving is not an option and for most it simply is not.

This message is intended only for the individual named. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is forbidden. The sender does not accept liability for errors or omissions.

Reply
0 Kudos
wdroush1
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

ClueShell wrote:

They have lots of enterprise and enterprise+ customers who did not yet notice or care about it.

I think this is going to be the case 95% of the time.

What you'll see is people freaking out when they upgrade to v5, and suddenly have to buy more licenses in 6 months. Even people that are ok now (or simply can't do math) will think it's fine till they feel the pinch, then the'll be asking why so many people are using Hyper-V now.


Then the VCPs will start complaining that they have to cross-train Hyper-V (costing the more $$$), and how garbage it is, but whose fault is that really?

Reply
0 Kudos
RParker
Immortal
Immortal

aroudnev wrote:

What I mean -  I don't understand why anyone wants to migrate to VMWare 5 at all, while we all have excellent VMware 4.1 without this dumb vRAM? But this means that we can drop support subscription which don't make sense any more since we are not migrating to the version 5.

vSphere is still valuable as a product.  I am like you.  VM Ware is greedy, however they ARE a business, so they need to survive.  I don't like the new license either, VM Ware despite their recent attitude change for license is STILL trying to stick it to us (consumers) and find a way to get more money.

That being said, the licensing isn't as bad as you THINK it is, and initially I said the same thing as you.. There will be no vSphere 5.0 migrations, but looking closer vRAM isn't the same as Physical RAM, so if you realize that you are being charged for VM USAGE and not HOST RAM, it's not that bad, yes its different, yes it's more money (depending on ACTUAL usage) but I don't think many people will stay away as you and I think. 

vSphere has 2 features that ALONE will be enough to make people move, 300% increase in performance with the new file system, and SDRS, storage distribution.. that will be quite an increase in manageable VM's and performance.

There are many new features of course, but you said you don't understand, I think you are still angry at the INITIAL license change and not the RECENT changes (addendums).  vSphere is a BETTER overall product than anything out there, period.  YES it's true.  Is it worth the money?  Is is if you ALREADY invested in VM Ware.  As a NEW customer, do you want included management tools, performance tools, and a way to get a complete control of your VM's?  Yes, it's worth it.  If ALL you want is to host VM's and power them on/off.  Then ANY Hypervisor can do that.  VM Ware has the most COMPLETE features, bar none.  That's what you have to look at, not how much it costs.. that's why it's called VALUE.

Reply
0 Kudos
kcucadmin
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

RParker wrote:

vSphere has 2 features that ALONE will be enough to make people move, 300% increase in performance with the new file system, and SDRS, storage distribution.. that will be quite an increase in manageable VM's and performance.

300% increase in performance for the file system?  really?  come on, are you sure your not perhaps inflating that?  300% performance increase in what exactly?

Reply
0 Kudos
LucasAlbers
Expert
Expert

I was curious about your reference to the features that would drive an upgrade to it, notable the '300% performance" (VMFS5?):

"vSphere has 2 features that ALONE will be enough to make people move, 300% increase in performance with the new file system, and SDRS, storage distribution.. that will be quite an increase in manageable VM's and performance."

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

this business is binary, either you're a one or zero, alive or dead.

VMware with good license strategy = 1

VMware with vTax as it is now = 0

And honestly, Hyper-V is not something you want to shove an existing

VMware Ent/Ent+ customer into, even if its free as in beer. And don't

get me started with XenCrap that requires processor VT-x help to even

execute Windows 32 bit, that performance must be horrible. Still

investigating/evaluating.

Reply
0 Kudos
RParker
Immortal
Immortal

Robert Samples wrote:

RParker wrote:

vSphere has 2 features that ALONE will be enough to make people move, 300% increase in performance with the new file system, and SDRS, storage distribution.. that will be quite an increase in manageable VM's and performance.

300% increase in performance for the file system?  really?  come on, are you sure your not perhaps inflating that?  300% performance increase in what exactly?

It's math.  vSphere 4.0 was 300,000 IOPS.  vSphere 5.0 features boast over 1 million IOPS.

Unless I am having a bad day, 300,000 to 1 Million is 300%, ok so it's more like 233% but still..

Am I wrong?  That's on the vSphere 5.0 Features page, I can't find the VM Ware version but here is the re-published version..

http://www.trainsignaltraining.com/vsphere-5-features

Reply
0 Kudos
RogerThomas
Contributor
Contributor

RParker wrote:

Robert Samples wrote:

RParker wrote:

vSphere has 2 features that ALONE will be enough to make people move, 300% increase in performance with the new file system, and SDRS, storage distribution.. that will be quite an increase in manageable VM's and performance.

300% increase in performance for the file system?  really?  come on, are you sure your not perhaps inflating that?  300% performance increase in what exactly?

It's math.  vSphere 4.0 was 300,000 IOPS.  vSphere 5.0 features boast over 1 million IOPS.

Unless I am having a bad day, 300,000 to 1 Million is 300%, ok so it's more like 233% but still..

Am I wrong?  That's on the vSphere 5.0 Features page, I can't find the VM Ware version but here is the re-published version..

http://www.trainsignaltraining.com/vsphere-5-features

Well as a good PCI-E SSD card (such as the Fusion-IO device) can provide maybe 20,000 IOPS to VMWARE 4.1 (I know I have been testing one) I can't see to many people being that worried about this improvement for the next few years. I'm sure there are a few customers who have 40Gbit infinband disk farms attached to their servers, but maybe VMWARE should focus on charging more for this capablity rather than trying to charge everyone else more.

Reply
0 Kudos
wdroush1
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

RParker wrote:

Robert Samples wrote:

RParker wrote:

vSphere has 2 features that ALONE will be enough to make people move, 300% increase in performance with the new file system, and SDRS, storage distribution.. that will be quite an increase in manageable VM's and performance.

300% increase in performance for the file system?  really?  come on, are you sure your not perhaps inflating that?  300% performance increase in what exactly?

It's math.  vSphere 4.0 was 300,000 IOPS.  vSphere 5.0 features boast over 1 million IOPS.

Unless I am having a bad day, 300,000 to 1 Million is 300%, ok so it's more like 233% but still..

Am I wrong?  That's on the vSphere 5.0 Features page, I can't find the VM Ware version but here is the re-published version..

http://www.trainsignaltraining.com/vsphere-5-features

:smileyplain: so what you're saying is that we have to buy 3x the amount of hardware to get a 300% increase in performance, not that is magically going to pull 300% performance out of it's arse.

Which being as vRAM is actually pushing us away from super-dense clusters, it's another useless feature.

Thanks.

Reply
0 Kudos
J1mbo
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

Yes indeed, it is just representing an improvement in code efficiency/scalability.  It doesn't mean existing storage will go any faster!

Reply
0 Kudos
wdroush1
Hot Shot
Hot Shot

J1mbo wrote:

Yes indeed, it is just representing an improvement in code efficiency/scalability.  It doesn't mean existing storage will go any faster!

Yeah, but I just got my hands smacked for scaling up instead of out, VMWare stop playing with my emotions.

Reply
0 Kudos
J1mbo
Virtuoso
Virtuoso

Yes indeed.  Everything to do with v5 is really hypothetic now, in my opinion anyway.

Reply
0 Kudos
RParker
Immortal
Immortal

J1mbo wrote:

Yes indeed, it is just representing an improvement in code efficiency/scalability.  It doesn't mean existing storage will go any faster!

Yes but it DOES indicate that *IF* your storage supports it, VM Ware is up to the task.

I didn't say your STORAGE would be faster, I said vSphere 5.0 WILL be faster.. if your storage sucks, doesn't matter how many IOPS VM ware supports, your storage will be the weak link.  If you have a storage that supports MUCH higher IOPS then vSphere 5 can take full advantage.. so it *IS* faster in that regard.

Reply
0 Kudos
RParker
Immortal
Immortal

wdroush1 wrote:

:smileyplain: so what you're saying is that we have to buy 3x the amount of hardware to get a 300% increase in performance, not that is magically going to pull 300% performance out of it's arse.

Which being as vRAM is actually pushing us away from super-dense clusters, it's another useless feature.

Thanks.

I think you are being a bit obtuse.  If you have a Laptop if you have a SATA drive on it (5400 RPM) your OS supports SATA II 6Gb/s speed but your drive does not, then yes your OS will NOT go faster.

However if you have an OS that does NOT support that much throughput, putting a faster drive will NOT make a difference.  but your OS is obviously throttled by the drive and NOT the code efficiency.  Once you replace the drive (in this case your existing SAN DOES have capability for much higher IOPS) your OS can benefit from higher IOPS.

I don't see where you feel this is "pulling out of it's arse".  I think you need to remove the bone structure on top of your shoulders from with YOUR arse because you are either a TROLL or purposely trying to confuse and confound, in which case I am not giving in.

You can be as stubborn as you want, I am not going to explain HOW storage or IOPS work, I am only reporting what VM Ware stated as part of their feature set!

Reply
0 Kudos