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
admin
Immortal
Immortal

>While 192 GB vRAM is far less than 512 GB real RAM in 5.0 vs 4.1 Essentials (Plus) is still a viable product for small companies.

Technically, you were limited in theory to 768GB of RAM with ESS/ESS+ and could oversubscribe from there, up to 1.5TB total (supported).

So ESS+ degredation was 1.5TB -> 192GB  Smiley Wink

Don't tell aroudnev to apply oversubscription to my vRAM math above.

Reply
0 Kudos
aroudnev
Contributor
Contributor

NOW - maybe, in 2 years, they will not be able to do it. Exchange on 12 GB of RAM - is it a joke? Average Exchange has today 32 GB of RAM; average server has 8 GB. What it was intended don't matter; matter is that it changed from 256x3 GB to 192 GB - 8 times degradation.

Of course sales can pretend that new Vmware is better; but reality is that it is a huge degradation for essential and sugnificant degradation for standard. For no any sugnificant benefits, just degradation. All old limitations are in place as well.

Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

Joshua Andrews wrote:

>essentially Essential license became 100% useless in Vmware 5.

I have no idea how you can reach that conclusion.  Ess/Ess+ is intended for the SMB space with 20-30VMs.

Run Exchange (12GB) SQL (12GB) and 28 other 6GB VMs and you're set.  Most of the SMB customers I deal with have 10-15 VMs with ~64GB of vRAM configured and can't fathom using 192GB.

I call bullshit on this!

VMware may have recommended Essentials (Plus) for only a couple dozen VM's but there was never a hard limit, not even the implication that there might be one.  Technically there isn't a thing that prevents running half a terabyte RAM worth of VMs on Essentials but I think VMware saw that it was good enough for too many users.  So good that they're now losing money...  :smileyshocked:

Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

aroudnev wrote:

NOW - maybe, in 2 years, they will not be able to do it. Exchange on 12 GB of RAM - is it a joke? Average Exchange has today 32 GB of RAM; average server has 8 GB. What it was intended don't matter; matter is that it changed from 256x3 GB to 192 GB - 8 times degradation.

Of course sales can pretend that new Vmware is better; but reality is that it is a huge degradation for essential and sugnificant degradation for standard. For no any sugnificant benefits, just degradation. All old limitations are in place as well.

I'm sorry but I have to call bullshit on this as well...  An average Exchange server does not use 32 GB of RAM.  That's enough to run a mailbox server for a couple thousand users.  Good arguments make sense.  Yours don't.

Reply
0 Kudos
aroudnev
Contributor
Contributor

And who really need 8 cores in Essential VM and need all these numbers? If I need it (high IO or 8 cores) I better install HW server (dell R300, $2K, 1U) which will work 2x faster vs any VM. Maybe, in some rare production cases I need it, but most dev / stage / test / enterprise sites do not feel any problems with existing limitations.

And if I need some VM-s with 8 cores, these VM-s definitely will need 32 or 64 GB of vRAM which eats all license capacity at once. MS SQL or Oracle VM for example - it is more reasonable to have them on HW becasue of high software licensing cost, so ## of cores per VM limitation never was a big issue there.

This is a point - it is slight increase in core capacity and a hige decrease in vRAM capacity. Looking on all our VM-s hosts, I see that vRAM is really used on all sysetms and is growing every month, while ## of cores is not critical at all - most VM-s has 2 cores and I am not sure if I need hosts with more then 6 cores per the socket (even in next 2 - 3 years) or VM-s with more then 4 cpu-s. vRAM is the main limiting factor EVEN TODAY. So vRAM limitation is 100% killer.

Just statistics - host memory is usually used 70% - 90%; CPU is usilly used 2% - 10%. So, guess, what is more important - vRAM or ## of CPU per VM? regarding IO - I don't think that Vmware could increase IO capacity 10x, it's looks more like a sale fraud (new numbers) because IO is usually limited by SAN system and not by the OS. Maybe for a very big installations only, but such installation will have vRAM problem long before IO limitation.

Reply
0 Kudos
Radio1
Contributor
Contributor

VMware is simple being very nice to the Competition be sending it’s once loyal customers to them. They are only wanting to share profits and customers. After all, why should they remain the biggest and the best? At least, this is what it seems that they are doing to me. Why else would they steal. Yes I said and mean steal capabilities from loyal customers. New license structure is limited to well under what customers have been paying for. I certainly am looking at other solutions out there. Veeam just added hyperV support and although it is not as good, I think I will be moving to them unless VMware gets there stuff together and not only corrects their disloyalty to their customers, but does something to make up for stealing from me.

Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

Joshua Andrews wrote:

>While 192 GB vRAM is far less than 512 GB real RAM in 5.0 vs 4.1 Essentials (Plus) is still a viable product for small companies.

Technically, you were limited in theory to 768GB of RAM with ESS/ESS+ and could oversubscribe from there, up to 1.5TB total (supported).

So ESS+ degredation was 1.5TB -> 192GB  Smiley Wink

Don't tell aroudnev to apply oversubscription to my vRAM math above.

I know.  I was thinking of an n + 1 scenario without oversubscription hence then 512 GB.

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

>I call bullshit on this!

Which part?  That VMware intends ESS/ESS+ for small clients?

No linked mode, 3 host limit, 6 CPU license limit, 1 license per site, and no vMotion (pre 4.1) and (originally) no upgrade path I think it's pretty safe to say VMware did not intend ESS/ESS+ for mid/large clients.

If VMware really wanted just to take all your money they would not have included vMotion with 4.1 ESS+, adding a $12k upgrade (ESS+ vs Standard Acceleration kit list prices) for free. 

Also, technically you should be able to run 1.5TB worth of VMs on 4.x ESS/ESS+ assuming you max your three servers at 256GB ea and 2x oversubscribe.

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

Just watched the VMlimited clip again.

Its not a relieve but still made me laugh.

I would be at 105 percent utilisation if vSphere 5 were installed and please read this as - permanent - not some floating crap.

I cannot turn of the dev and test machines because they run compliance and continuous integration stuff.

And we only habe two servers Smiley Wink one box currently handles easily the given load and the 2nd well has some recovery images or failover images ADC copy 2 and 3 eg and further serves as a stage for vmware updates or OS testing.

I would be happy to go to v5 when my license in the new world would be at an utilisation ratio of 50 percent.

144 gigs of ram are in the boxes. No oversubscription. Cpu so fast for the load i rarely see prolonged high usage patterns except during backup or database load/consistency times.

The world up until now was a breeze - I am not giving this up easily.

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
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

Joshua Andrews wrote:

>I call bullshit on this!

Which part?  That VMware intends ESS/ESS+ for small clients?

No linked mode, 3 host limit, 6 CPU license limit, 1 license per site, and no vMotion (pre 4.1) and (originally) no upgrade path I think it's pretty safe to say VMware did not intend ESS/ESS+ for mid/large clients.

If VMware really wanted just to take all your money they would not have included vMotion with 4.1 ESS+, adding a $12k upgrade (ESS+ vs Standard Acceleration kit list prices) for free. 

Also, technically you should be able to run 1.5TB worth of VMs on 4.x ESS/ESS+ assuming you max your three servers at 256GB ea and 2x oversubscribe.

On the part where VMware made an intention a hard limit.  It's like saying that up until now you could use the the full capacity of the booth of your car but with the new licensing terms you can only put 1 sliced bread in there.  It's easier not to give something than give it and then take it away.  Essentials Plus without vMotion and HA was an overpriced SKU until 4.1 IMO.  Now it's still good but has lost considerable value.

The biggest problem we have is that there's no roadmap for vRAM and so we cannot plan accordingly.  If VMware were to state that vRAM entitlements would increase 50% every year if you have SnS that would be clear and simple and make it easy to decide to stick with vSphere or not.  Now all we have is uncertainty.

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

>utilisation ratio of 50 percent

Utilization or allocated?

Right now VMware is refering to it as "used" in marketing but what they are licensing is "allocated" which are two separate variables.

I would bet most of the furror that is left would be eliminated by switching to a "used" highwater mark vs allocated, which (among other things) would not make oversubscription so cost-prohibitive after VMware has been touting it for years.

"pay for what you use" is a great mantra, but not what is being licensed. 

Reply
0 Kudos
IT_Architect
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Utilization or allocated?   Right  now VMware is refering to it as "used" in marketing but what they are  licensing is "allocated" which are two separate variables.   I  would bet most of the furror that is left would be eliminated by  switching to a "used" highwater mark vs allocated, which (among other  things) would not make oversubscription so cost-prohibitive after VMware  has been touting it for years.   "pay for what you use" is a great mantra, but not what is being licensed.

There we go.  That would do a lot.  Change from what is declared in the virtual machines, to what is actually used by virtual machines.

Reply
0 Kudos
aroudnev
Contributor
Contributor

Is, then, much easy to license RAM and not vRAM?

It makes at least some sense because you can match your hardware to the licensing. Existiong model punush STAGING and DEVELOPMENT sites which

- has lower IT budgets

- benefit from virtualization most

- are easy to migrate to the competitors (they don't use fancy features, in most cases)

- Vmware 3 and 4 de facto license RAM not vRAM so transition looks natural

Reply
0 Kudos
IT_Architect
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Is, then, much easy to license RAM and not vRAM?

So limit VMware so it could only use a pool of for example of 32 GB for all VMs?  That would work.

Reply
0 Kudos
Dracolith
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

Joshua Andrews wrote:

Note that you can only upgrade to the Acceleration Kits.  Standard AK will remove VDR but add the ability to increase your vRAM allocation and manage an additional host.

What's all this strange talk about Standard "removing" VDR?

Data recovery is clearly shown as part of  vSphere standard  and higher.

Reply
0 Kudos
admin
Immortal
Immortal

>What's all this strange talk about Standard "removing" VDR?

You're right, I hadn't notice they fixed that for v5 - for 4.x VDR was available for ESS+, Advanced, ENT and ENT+, so if you upgraded from ESS+ to Standard you lost VDR.  Similarly if you upgraded from Advanced to Enterprise with 4.x you lost 6 cores (ADV and ENT+ allowed 12, the rest had 6)

Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

I always thought it idiotic that enterprise could use only 6 cores and Advanced 12.  It was clear VMware wanted to push those who wanted Enterprise features and more than 6 cores to Enterprise Plus.  Now the unlimited cores are presented as a great new advantage which is idiotic.  If you need a lot of cores you'll typically run a lot of VMs and thus use lots of RAM.  One advantage cancels out the other IMO.

Reply
0 Kudos
ClueShell
Contributor
Contributor

Braindump: Mainstream Roadmap IIRC to get comparable speed

ESX 2.0 - 4+ socket / single core / socket-pair licensing (not SME

usable)

ESX 2.5 - 2+ socket / single core / socket-pair licensing (very

expensive SME gear)

ESX 3.0 - 2+ socket / dual core / socket-pair licensing w/ max core

count 2 (started to make sense)

  • DELL PowerEdge 2800 w/ 16 GB RAM per system (2x dual core)

ESX 3.5 - 2+ socket / quad core / socket-pair licensing w/ max core

count 4

ESX 3.5uX - 1+ socket / quad core / socket licensing w/ max core count 4

ESX 4.0 - 1+ socket / six core / socket licensing w/ max core count 6

  • IBM Server x3650 M3 w/ 96 GB RAM per system (2x hexa core) [cost

effective 144 GB RAM now doable]

ESX 4.1 - 1+ socket / eight or ten cores / socket licensing w/ max

core count 6

  • oops would need enterprise plus or a doubling of standard/advanced

licenses

ESX 5.0 - 1+ socket / 12+ cores / socket licensing w/ max core count

unlimited

  • IBM Server x3650 M3 w/ 144 GB RAM per system (2x hexa core) for

example

  • Standard lics: 4.5 needed to cover RAM, 2 needed to cover socket

count, overhead 3

  • Price: increased by 250%

Go buy enterprise licenses: increase by 290% (std 1000 USD / ent 2900

USD) but I only get 2x the amount of memory not 2.9x but I get

features.

Go buy enterprise+ licenses: increase by 350% (std 1000 USD / ent+ 3500

USD) but I only get 3x the amount of memory not 3.5x but I get features.

Possible outcome in 3 years? (assuming dubling RAM every 24 month)

ESX 6.0 - 1+ socket / specialised cores / socket licensing / witouth

core count

  • BRAND Server / 2x heavily integrated ARM/x86/whatever silicon / 288

GB RAM doable / 512 achievable

  • Standard lics now give 64 GB vRAM so: lics needed 2 - lics for vRAM

needed 4.5 / overhead 3

So if they keep somehow doubling vRAM as they increase core count

limits. The price increase would be one time.

I don't understand why VMware never did something like "per seat" / "per

server" licensing. In their terms that would translate to "per vRAM" /

"per vCPU". You can setup your vCenter datacenter only in one license

mode setting. You need a second one for the other mode. A license gives

you either "per vRAM" increments of 32 GB (standard lic) or a given

count of vCPUs (eg. 12 for standard lic).

A entry level business with say below 192 GB RAM would you essential

(plus) with vRAM limits.

A small business with developers would possibly choose vCPU mode because

12 VMs with 4+ GB RAM would already exceed the 32 GB limit of vRAM mode

and many VMs run better with single CPU.

Meanwhile others like data warehouses (assuming 8socks 8cores) would

have with enterprise+ 8x 96GB vRAM or 8x36 vCPUs would possibly still

choose vCPUs.

For the sake of futher information:

A stinking Microsoft Windows Datacenter license got cheaper, and cheaper

and cheaper withouth robbing features but enhancing them!? How did they

do this? They must have monopoly power and unlimited cash to invade in

every market. Those arguments are so yesteryear, and EMC/VMware sit on a

comparable pile of money.

Reply
0 Kudos
hmtk1976
Contributor
Contributor

Licensing RAM (real or virtual) makes sense but not the way VMware is doing it.  Now if they dropped the per socket licensing I'd be happy.  Just buy x GB of RAM worth from whatever edition you want, regardless of the number of CPUs.  If you want a large cluster with all features but don't use a whole lot of RAM you wouldn't have to buy an Enterprise Plus license for every socket leaving you with a TOO HIGH RAM allotment.  OTOH if you have very high consolidation ratio's you'd have to buy more RAM licenses.

And that bloody roadmap.  Still nowhere to be seen.

Reply
0 Kudos
AaronKratzmann
Contributor
Contributor

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

Regards, Aaron

Reply
0 Kudos