One of my customer need to virtualize arround 40/60 servers on VMware ESX 3.0.1. He claim that it's possible to buy a VDI 100 VMs package to do that instead of buying VI3 ENT licences. Is it true ? or legal ?
Is there some guest OS limitation under VDI ? or is there some software limitation when you use VDI ?
Thanks for your reply
technically yes he can, VDI is just ESX 3.0.1, however the EULA prohbits the use of server based Guests in this environment.
Read the following for further information.
IF you found the following post and or others useful please consider awarding points.
Thanks for your reply. In fact, i'm looking for a VMware document or EULA who explain the different use between VDI and VI3. But I'm not sure that this kind of paper will exist ...
Give your Local VMware sales team a call, they should be able to forward one.
There is not a separate document externally or EULA explaining it. Th 100 pack VDI SKU your customer is referring to, is a RTU license. The 100 pack VDI sku is a RTU license that you purchase to host 100 standard or enterprise VM's, on up to 16 processors. It's limited to desktop operating systems for the purpose of desktop hosting
It' based on trust and a mutual agreement of understanding that the purchase of the SKU will only be used for hosting desktops.
As Tom said, technically yes you could host servers with the RTU sku that you purchase but hosting a server operating system using license purchased under the VDI sku would be a violation.
The PDF for the PS service is not going to explain the VDI 100 Pack SKU. That is a pilot service offered by the PS organization to for a VDI pilot and has its own pricing structure.
ball park is roughly 50% of the price of VI3 ..... more or less .....
Sounds interesting but ..... VDI (as it is) doesn't make sense since you can only load 100 vm's per 16-socket that is 3,25 vm's per core (in dual-core servers) or even 1,5 vm's per core (in quad-core servers). Ridicoulous.
ball park is roughly 50% of the price of VI3 .....
more or less .....
Sounds interesting but ..... VDI (as it is) doesn't
make sense since you can only load 100 vm's per
16-socket that is 3,25 vm's per core (in dual-core
servers) or even 1,5 vm's per core (in quad-core
That is an interesting piece of info. 3.25 per core is a waste in my opinion.
I think it was in the 1 socket = 1 core era (for which it would have made a sort of sense .....).
As Intel/AMD played around to throw more and more cores in a single socket (and VMware did not bother to change their VDI licensing schema) it soon became a joke rather than an advantage......