Support and Licensing on a Single Socket, Quad Core Server

[officeglen]

Why does VMware still have a 2-socket minimum when a single-socket quad core system more than meets the technical requirements?

I have two scenarios in my environment that are challenging me.

Scenario 1 - Branch Office:

I have a branch office with 4 VMs and local disk. The actual server requirements are light and a single socket, quad core CPU is more than enough to meet the demand. I can save money by going with a single CPU but VMware only supports multi-socket installs. Why? I can understand a 2 core minimum, but not a 2 socket minimum.

Scenario 2 - Data Center:

I currently have 3 Dual Socket, Dual Core systems each with 8GB of RAM. My CPU is sufficient, but memory is limiting what I can do with virtualization. I have some Cognos BI servers that I would love to virtualize, but they need 4GB RAM each. Based on VMware's current support requirements it would be very expensive to virtualize them.

In an ideal world I would like to buy single socket quad core systems with 16GB of RAM. I could go from 3 servers to 6 and from 24GB to 96GBs of RAM with no change in the number of CPU cores.

A quick check at Dell shows that I can buy a single-socket, quad-core system with 16GB of RAM for $5,700 whereas a dual-socket, quad-core system with 32GB of RAM would cost $29,500. In this case the cost benefit of virtualization doesn't exist and I am back managing physical hardware again.

In such a competitive virtualization market place I hope that VMware maintains its technical lead, but more importantly that it stays flexible with licensing and support models. Competition is coming fast and furious and I don't need another reason to be forced to shop around.

Will VMware update their support model to address the changing market place?

Thanks,

Glen.

[acr]

Not a bad point, but i guess may have a lot to do with VMware licensing model was in place log before the Dual or Quads.. But time and technology moves on i wouldnt be surrprised if these type of issues are adressed, although dont hold your breath...!!

[kbk00]

They might just leave the single-socket market to VM Server. They don't intend to have their enterprise level software installed on anything less than a dual-proc box.

[moneill]

Glen,

it's a very interesting point that you make.

I know that multi-core will provide the guest processing power required, but is

there something buried in the guts of ESX that needs the multi-socket bus?

I do have some thoughts on your scenarios.

1 Branch Office

VMware Server - not ESX. Would a single socket quad core using a robust

linux distro fit your requirements?

2 Data Center

I think the price killer on your Dell example is the 4Gb DIMMS, I think a dual-socket quad-core system (8 cores in total) with 16Gb would come in at

about $2000 more than a single-socket.

(By the way I don't work for Dell)

Mike

[kbk00]

but is

there something buried in the guts of ESX that needs

the multi-socket bus?

Nope, many people have test boxes with single socket setups. From what I hear, they work very well, too.

[bretti]

Am I missing something? Are you running virtual center? If so then your licenses are pooled.

If you have purchased (5) 2-socket licenses, then you will be able to support 10 sockets.

That could be 10 hosts with one socket filled or 5 hosts with two sockets filled.

Worst case scenario you end up having one unused socket license.

[rock0n]

The point is that two sockets are needed to run a supported configuration.

[bretti]

I think I'm still missing something, please excuse me if I am. Where does it say that two sockets are needed to run a supported configuration?

To me that's just the licensing model, not the support model.

[andrew_hald]

Brett, there are no single-socket systems on the HCL. If it is not on the HCL, it is not supported.

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_systems_guide.pdf

Sorry dude! You are probably right, it might run just fine. But you do not want to be caught unsupported if something stops working.

[rock0n]

to clear it up for you. page 25

"At least two processors:"

...

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_installation_guide.pdf

[thanifan]

well, I've got a test/qa pair of HP BL25P's with a single dual-core opteron in them, they're connected to VirtualCenter and require 1/2 of a license each, they've been running like this since 3.0 was released and have never had a problem

it may be a licensing grey area but it's worked fine here for months and unless they change the license scheme it will probably work fine forever

[bretti]

That's cool. I guess I missed that part in the System Requirements. It makes sense now.

Thanks.

[bretti]

There it is plain as day. Thank you for the details. I won't forget this one.

[rock0n]

delivering the "aha effect" but don't earning any points is so disappointing

[andrew_hald]

True. BL25p is a dual-socket blade that is in the HCL, so it is supported. Running it with only one processor may be an effective way for you to scale out. My statement was only intended to reflect that there are no single-socket servers on the HCL.

Good point.

[andrew_hald]

Hehe! Oh well. At least it is consistent with the licensing model.

[officeglen]

So is a single socket server supported as long as the server is in the HCL?

It would be nice to have a clear statement so we don't get caught down the road. If VMware changes the licensing server so that a host is assigned a minimum of two licenses than we could be stuck with half of our hosts running unlicensed.

[andrew_hald]

I think Raiko's note above about page 25 is pretty clear. The minimum requirements for ESX Server state that you must have at least two processors (aka sockets). I do not know whether or not the company will modify the licensing scheme, but I think that this effectively rules out your single-socket idea for the time being.

You propose running a box that is on the HCL, but with only one processor in it. This would not meet the minimum requirements for ESX. You would run the risk of finding your proposed solution unsupported.

I do not know what the justification is for this requirement. It may be technical, or may date back to the pre-multi-core days. The fact remains that it is there.

Message was edited by:

andrew.hald

[Roger_Thomas]

I have to say that I now run servers that meet VMware's hardware recommendations as well as systems that are making use of the fact that they can be built from single socket dual/quad core processors. The results are at the very least functional and often impressive for the cost.

Our current "micro system" build is as follows

IBM X306 SCSI system unit

Upgraded to a dual core 3.4GHz processor

Upgraded to a true zero-slot RAID controller

Upgraded to 8GB RAM

Dual SCSI drives (size dependent on need)

1 CPU licence of VIN starter edition

The result is a system that can handle a number of light tasks, plus a main task such as branch office file and print server.

If VMWARE feels that this is beyond their licence agreement and so change the licence allocation under VIC the systems are likely to get XENed rather than relicensed.

From my point of view while VMWARE does not directly support this configuration, it works and it allows me to operate a 100% VMWARE shop rather than a mix and match environment.

[JcMac]

Hi got the following response from VMware:

You may run a single cpu, but you will still need one 2-cpu license

for that system since you must have 1 license per server. It would be better

to have 2 dual-cores or 2 quad-cores, since we count physical sockets not

cores, and a single ESX license would license you in either situation.