1 80 81 82 83 84 Previous Next 1,981 Replies Latest reply on Aug 21, 2012 2:40 PM by scowse Go to original post Branched to a new discussion.
      • 1,215. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
        hmtk1976 Enthusiast

        Actually with an Essentials license you could use 144 GB RAM.  Your vRAM pool is 6 x 24 GB whether you use a 1 single socket server or 3 dual socket servers.  In your case this would not appear to be too big of a problem.

        • 1,216. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
          ClueShell Novice

          VMware - Go back to the drawing board and if necessary do a "per core"

          license. Where current customers get 12 core lics per socket license

          they own.

           

          That would

           

          a) allow me to use my previous generation server that is still doing

          well but has 2 sockets with 2 cores to be used again for virtualisation.

           

           

          b) is still simple to license because oh well YOU KNOW how many cores

          you have

           

          c) only enable the cores that are licensed (and in the case of

          hyper-threading please only the real cores)

          • 1,217. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
            DaLR42 Lurker

            From what I understand, we would have to buy two Essentials kit to use our full 32GB, no? vRAM can be pooled but the license still states a 24GB limit per CPU, and we only have a one CPU. We couldn't go over the 24GB limit in this situation, right?

             

            But even though, we would still (of course) prefer to continue with the free hypervisior, given that we have no need for all the fancy tools of vCenter; we only have one server after all. For our use, a $499 price tag seems a bit steep.

            • 1,218. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
              whynotq Master

              Well if this is true! then it shows they are listening to what we have been asking for. I've put almost the same figures to my VMware Business account manager and our Distribution Manager. Let us hope this is the major turn around that we are hoping for:

               

              http://www.gabesvirtualworld.com/vmware-changes-vram-licensing-on-vsphere-5-after-customer-feedback-on-vtax/

               

              regards

               

              Paul

              • 1,219. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                SeanLeyne Novice

                Paul Whyton wrote:

                 

                ...Let us hope this is the major turn around that we are hoping for:

                 

                http://www.gabesvirtualworld.com/vmware-changes-vram-licensing-on-vsphere-5-after-customer-feedback-on-vtax/

                 

                 

                If the details of Gabe posting are true, then it is an improvement but it is still not enough.

                 

                If you need more vRAM you should not need to buy a full product license -- product license should be about feature set, not about capacity.

                 

                A separate vRAM SKU is required, one that is not tied to product level and not subject to SnS.

                 

                Let's not let VMware off the hook and settle for only half a solution.

                • 1,220. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                  rgard Novice

                  I agree. If they are going for a vRam license they need to allow you to grow it without paying every year for support you might not need.

                  • 1,221. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                    hmtk1976 Enthusiast

                    Well Paul as you say it's only a rumor.  I really hope it's not fact because if it is, VMware has shown that it does not understand a thing of what it's customers want and need.

                    • 1,222. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                      whynotq Master

                      It's a good step forward though and if it comes to be true then at least it means there is some room for flexibility, I'd welcome the vRam SKU without including a CPU license it's addressing the comodity in use and would be a better way to license into the cloud which is where we see this going. Why buy and license per CPU if this isn't the primary resource for chargeback pricing?

                      Why not just go vRAM Std, vRAM Ent, vRAM Ent Plus and purchase in blocks of say 50GB?

                       

                      thoughts?

                       

                      Paul

                      • 1,223. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                        sergeadam Enthusiast

                        Paul Whyton wrote:

                         

                        It's a good step forward though and if it comes to be true then at least it means there is some room for flexibility, I'd welcome the vRam SKU without including a CPU license it's addressing the comodity in use and would be a better way to license into the cloud which is where we see this going. Why buy and license per CPU if this isn't the primary resource for chargeback pricing?

                        Why not just go vRAM Std, vRAM Ent, vRAM Ent Plus and purchase in blocks of say 50GB?

                         

                        thoughts?

                         

                        Paul

                        You've the major snag, and perhaps the biggest point of disconnect between VMWare and the customers. CHARGEBACK. Most user, especially SMB don't chargeback. I have servers to run my company. They are mixed use servers. When you do charback, it's a lot easier to justify a non-budgeted expense for vRAM, because you will be making that expense back.

                         

                        I still think it's the height of arrogance for VMWare to charge on how I want to use my servers. 

                        • 1,224. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                          Jawdat Enthusiast

                          Well, it started to sound like; I’m cutting my nose in spite of my face, I am going to Microsoft just in spite of VMware, that’ll teach them a lesson. I can see it though that most of what was said is against the new VMware licensing, not the technology we all grew to love, may I add.

                          * Bear with me I am not patting VMware on the back for the hideous new licencing, just trying a more rounded argument *

                           

                          For VMware:

                          VMware’s technologies and tools at this moment in the time of the virtualisation journey are unrivalled. In its price, performance, scalability, granularity, tools, manageability, support, APIs, security - yes I got carried away - not to mention the stability of the ESX Hypervisor. Those don’t come cheap and to be fair should not either given the R&D costs required.  VMware is one of the pioneers of the Cloud OS, many of today’s not so giant commercial Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) are basing their services on vSphere. Now VMware or shell I say EMC, knows very well how much money these guys (CSPs) are raking-in each year using their flagship product, and how much they are paying VMware for their licenses? You see where I’m going with this.

                           

                          Against VMware:

                          Now when it comes to the SMBs and even the larger organisations the picture starts to sound slightly unfair and yes even this “slightly unfair feeling” alone will have reputation costs and in turn commercial costs by VMware losing some customers, how many? Who knows? But if you read this huge blog you’ll get the feeling that everyone is, quick

                          And that is where John’s input (14 Jul) comes in. VMware needs to work out a deal for businesses that might as a result of upgrading to vSphere 5.0 have all-of-a-sudden need to pay, again, almost the same amount of investment in VMware they did in 3.x or 4.x only couple of years ago. This is unlikely and a worst case scenario as many smaller environments may not be that affected by the new licensing. But for some having to pay 50% of that initial investment would alone prompt any financially level-headed IT Manager to start looking for the alternative.  And yes, Hyper-V, with all its shortcomings, financially makes a lot of sense and more so at current financial climates.

                           

                          Conclusion:

                          Judging by the way the conventional data centre is going – to the cloud that is – I don’t know if budget holders or VMware are as concerned about this as we, VCP/Es and Systems Admins, are. "I don't care my datacentre is going to the cloud soon anyway, let them worry about it". The core/vRAM licensing costs for CSPs is fair considering their lucrative and ever expanding business trends they can easily absorb this as operational costs. Microsoft did it providing cheaper licensing costs for educational businesses and students, now VMware can do it in reverse the new licensing is only effective for CSP.

                           

                          Lower and reasonable upgrade costs and deals based on the existing perCPU licensing for SMBs and organisations with internal clouds – if they want to see any of those left - will do more for VMware's brand name, market share and reputation and ultimately their financial position which is great as it is. and feeling “fairly treated” is for the customers.

                          • 1,225. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                            ClueShell Novice

                            Why do you think its 'fair' for a company that until recently was just saving the planet and your IT resouces by using virtualisation on x86/x86_64 hardware, to suddenly "cash in" on its customer base?

                             

                            Even if those customers are wealthy - the cloud providers DO have their own licensing terms and hand over part of their revenue!

                             

                            We are talking only about the stuff the non-cloudy or internal-only cloudy people are buying. And in this space there is simply no room for an overpriced vRAM thing.

                             

                            Again: Our increase in license cost for our 2way vSphere Standard box with 96 GB RAM and about 80 GB is really soon going to be needed (thats why we put more in?!) the license only allows us to use 48 GB ? come on! We have to buy 2 more standard lics just to be in compliance with their new vRAM sh*t. Whats new in the Standard Ed. that is worth double the cash? (The standby box has 48 GB RAM and 1 socket, also not-compliant in v5).

                             

                            I repeat an earlier post: I would be fine with a vRAM only license, even one that is tied to edition level and needs SnS. And if you take 15/25/40 USD for Std/Ent/EntPlus for each 4 GB vRAM you need more you end up with a price tag that's affordable.

                            • 1,226. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                              hmtk1976 Enthusiast

                              If VMware were to offer vRAM (or pRAM) packs they should never be tied to a vSphere edition and SnS should never be required.

                               

                              If it's tied to an edition you lose flexibility.

                               

                              If you have to pay SnS for RAM your SnS will increase whenever you have to purchase more RAM.  I don't want to know what this means in 2 years or 5.  And I don't see VMware upgrading RAM packs if covered by SnS.  It's just not practical and not having a decent roadmap wreaks havoc with planning.

                               

                              BTW in Essentials (Plus) the vRAM pool is enforced.  Wouldn't it be fun that due to some bug all of a sudden this would apply to Standard and higher editions as well?  Suddenly VM's don't want to power up due to licensing reasons.  Even Microsoft isn't boneheaded enough to risk that.

                              • 1,227. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                Flan5ter Novice

                                Even if/when VMware up the caps on vRAM this still takes away features such as memory over commitment.  Would a pRAM model not be a better way forward?    Having to right size VM's or go back and reduce vRAM on existing VM's is wrong.  We give memory based on application recommendations and always know this will be more than required.   Licensing on physical memory makes more sense.

                                • 1,228. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                  VidarK Novice

                                  Any restriction on RAM less than restrictions per host already in pleace for vSphere 4.1 will give less than what customers have already purchased and paid for.

                                  When having to stick with the evil anyway I agree that licensing by pRAM would be better than vRAM - and it should be the actually used pRAM in a pool just like vRAM is done today. That way the overcommitt/balooning/compression features of VMware makes sense again.

                                  • 1,229. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                    rjb2 Enthusiast

                                    SeanLeyne wrote:

                                     

                                    If you need more vRAM you should not need to buy a full product license -- product license should be about feature set, not about capacity.

                                     

                                    A separate vRAM SKU is required, one that is not tied to product level and not subject to SnS.

                                     

                                    Let's not let VMware off the hook and settle for only half a solution.

                                     

                                    I also think de-coupling the capacity from the features would be a much more elegant solution than what they came up with on their first pass. It simply isn't intuitive.

                                    1 80 81 82 83 84 Previous Next