1 83 84 85 86 87 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.
      • 1,260. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
        RogerThomas Novice

        At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months time as the average amount of RAM used by systems (and can be installed into a system) increases. At the same time the number of physical CPUs required to run the workload will continue to fall as they gain more and more cores. The result will be the same - having to purchase CPU licences that are not required to be assigned to CPUs within the environment.

         

        It seems that all VMWARE plan to do is remove this year's pain point and kick it down the road so that each VMWARE customer suffers at different times of the year rather than all at once.

         

        If anyone does a 3 year plan for their future VMWARE requirements it's still a rather costly product.

        • 1,261. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
          J1mbo Virtuoso

          > At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just  causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months

           

          Totally agree with this.

           

          > at the same time the number of physical CPUs required to run  the workload will continue to fall as they gain more and more cores.

           

          This may or may not be true as the primary driver for multi-core processors has been the speed of electricity (at 3 GHz, in one cycle it travels only a few inches).  So it is not feasible to increase clock rate, hence the scale-out approach instead.  In other words, core count won't necessarily reduce CPU count, since application complexity historically has grown at a similar rates.

          • 1,262. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
            GVD Novice

            sergeadam wrote:

             

            J1mbo wrote:

             

            vMotion was included with Essentials Plus since 4.1.

            I know. But maritz refernces the great features in the Essentials kit. I'm just pointing out that some of those features are more nice to have as opposed to have to have. He is seriously overestimating the value of his product. 

             

            The Essentials Plus kit still provides you with features and capabilities that would cost you three times more if you were using normal vSphere Standard and vCenter Foundation licensing.

            For companies like mine, it's clearly a very solid choice for some projects, although Citrix Xenserver is getting closer & closer.

             

            Also, I'm pretty sure that if you only want HA out of the essentials plus bundle, that you could script it yourself using the normal & much cheaper essentials bundle.

            • 1,263. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
              ZeroGravity201110141 Novice

              This may or may not be true as the primary driver for multi-core processors has been the speed of electricity (at 3 GHz, in one cycle it travels only a few inches).  So it is not feasible to increase clock rate, hence the scale-out approach instead.  In other words, core count won't necessarily reduce CPU count, since application complexity historically has grown at a similar rates.

              Are you sure that this is the primary reason? I've always thought the reason for the clock rate ceiling was related to heat dissipation and power. I've both seen and have read of clock rates going well beyond 3GHz but required additional cooling and power beyond what is practical.

              • 1,264. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                ClueShell Novice

                Agreed, but still any other physical cpu that you install will amount to

                n-cores.

                 

                Historically VMware did not care much about oh 1 GHz oh 2 GHz oh we're

                at 3.8 GHz the price increase if any was small. What they certainly did

                care, and began to notice, is the core count increased and they still

                licenses sockets. Im my opinion that was their mistake to not try to

                switch to core licensing.

                 

                VMware wouldn't cost much more if we're at 10 GHz per core if

                workstation also ran at 8-10 GHz because obviously we'd need the

                performance then for Windows 2020 haha.

                 

                Licensing per core is certainly a better way right now and depending on

                where the proc vendors are heading about performance (per core or more

                ghz or both) VMware can adjust their licensing again. Licensing vRAM is

                just ridiculous, because software always runs faster when it can cache

                or fit everything in RAM.

                • 1,265. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                  icontrolyourpower Enthusiast
                  At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months time as the average amount of RAM used by systems (and can be installed into a system) increases. At the same time the number of physical CPUs required to run the workload will continue to fall as they gain more and more cores. The result will be the same - having to purchase CPU licences that are not required to be assigned to CPUs within the environment.

                   

                  It seems that all VMWARE plan to do is remove this year's pain point and kick it down the road so that each VMWARE customer suffers at different times of the year rather than all at once.

                   

                  If anyone does a 3 year plan for their future VMWARE requirements it's still a rather costly product.

                   

                  Today's investors, C-level businessmen, government, and so on don't care what will happen three years from now. They care about how much money they can put into their pockets before the end of the day. The rumored non-solution will do exactly what it is intended to do. It will take enough wind out of the sails of the argument that costs will go up significantly on 08/12/11 to keep investors calm. Costs will still go up a lot, but for fewer customers. Engineers going to managers saying, "...but in 2014 we'll be right back here again" will be met by check writers in upper management who couldn't care less because the American culture of C-level cronyism ensures a new job somewhere else every 2-3 years regardless of performance, qualification, or aptitude.

                  • 1,266. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                    rgard Novice

                    Per core will only continue to work until the architecture changes drastically.  Intel is working today on CPU’s with hundreds of cores for the server.  They all don’t perform the same function, so you can’t really count it as a core as it is thought of today.  There was a previous post by someone who also knows about the project.  A switch to licensing by core will not continue to work indefinitely, as they are working on a drastically different approach.

                     

                     

                    • 1,267. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                      hmtk1976 Enthusiast

                      rjb2 wrote:

                       

                      DSeaman wrote:

                       

                      I have a reliable contact that provided me with some possible licensing modifications that will be announced next week. Changes include increased vRAM entitlements, and a cap on vRAM licensing per VM to help control costs for large VMs. Of course these are just internal rumors and are subject to change until formally announced, so use a pinch of salt for the time being.

                       

                      http://derek858.blogspot.com/2011/07/impending-vmware-vsphere-50-license.html

                       

                      But the good news is that it seems the uproar is being heard at VMware, and some changes are likely.

                       

                      According to this article, which references Derek's post, the new licensing changes will be announced tomorrow (Wednesday)

                       

                      http://www.crn.com/news/data-center/231003052/vmware-set-to-unveil-vsphere-5-licensing-changes.htm

                       

                      from the article:

                       

                      "However, VMware has communicated the vSphere 5 licensing changes to channel partners, who confirmed the Wednesday announcement and appear impressed with the adjustments the company has made.

                       

                      "The deal is done at this point and customers will be thrilled," said one VMware partner with knowledge of the changes, who requested anonymity.

                       

                       

                      So basically those bloggers are going nuts about unsubstantiated rumors and rehashing what anonymous partners and sales creatures are saying.

                       

                      I'll wait for some fact to see whether VMware actually cares.  The increased vRAM limits and hard limit on vRAM in Essentials (Plus) are still dealbreakers as far as I'm concerned.

                       

                      @ icontrolyourpower

                      Cynical but true :-(  However if you could convince those manager types that this new licensing will hurt the bottom line and thus decrease stock price, you might kick them into action.

                       

                       

                      vRAM and per core licensing do not work.  If VMware is truly intend on charging by RAM they should sell CPU licenses per edition without RAM allotment and sell pRAM blocks that are not tied to an edition and don't need to be covered by SnS.  And get rid of that silly SKU called Enterprise.  It's far too expensive compared to Enterprise Plus for what you get.  Give everyone who has Enterprise (and Advanced) with SnS now a free upgrade to Enterprise Plus.  That would mollify those who hard 3.5 Enterprise + SnS.

                      • 1,268. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                        kmcferrin Novice

                        rgard wrote:

                         

                        Per core will only continue to work until the architecture changes drastically.  Intel is working today on CPU’s with hundreds of cores for the server.  They all don’t perform the same function, so you can’t really count it as a core as it is thought of today.  There was a previous post by someone who also knows about the project.  A switch to licensing by core will not continue to work indefinitely, as they are working on a drastically different approach.

                         

                         

                         

                        You are correct.  Assuming that the rumored "per-core" licensing plan is the next solution, it is little better than "kicking the can down the road", to borrow a phrase from a recent political discussion.  Core density per socket will increase, of course, and when someone goes to replace their current quad-core servers in a few years and their only options are 16, 24, and 32 core CPUs then they will scream bloody murder about it again.  It resolves the short-term pain, but opens them up to another pain point in the future.  But then when you look at VMware licensing changes through the years this is always what they have done.

                         

                        I think that when you get down to brass tacks VMware is in a bit of a bind here.  They've been very profitable for years, but they have yet to work out a licensing model that allows them to charge for anything other than physical resources.  Any model that they choose (licensing physical CPU sockets, cores, RAM, etc) is going to need constant revision due to increasing core and RAM density.  Citrix is only slightly better off in that they license per physical host and will eventually see diminished revenue from their model as well (though they have a fantastic growth rate right now, so they can ignore it for a time).  VMware is also somewhat handicapped by the fact that their only source of revenue is in virtualization software, whereas their competitors also sell operating systems (Microsoft and RedHat) or application delivery solutions (Citrix) that were very profitable before virtualization came along.  VMware's competitors aren't made or broken by the price of virtualization licensing, only Vmware is.  If I am a VMware customer then I have to look at their past licensing moves and try to figure out what the future looks like, and the future is murky at best. I certainly HOPE that VMware has learned from their current fiasco and engages with customers better as they revise licensing models in the future.  We'll see.

                        • 1,269. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                          Baddos Enthusiast

                          RogerThomas wrote:

                           

                          At the end of the day even if the vRAM allowance is increased it just causes the problem to re-appear in 12-18 months time as the average amount of RAM used by systems (and can be installed into a system) increases. At the same time the number of physical CPUs required to run the workload will continue to fall as they gain more and more cores. The result will be the same - having to purchase CPU licences that are not required to be assigned to CPUs within the environment.

                           

                          It seems that all VMWARE plan to do is remove this year's pain point and kick it down the road so that each VMWARE customer suffers at different times of the year rather than all at once.

                           

                          If anyone does a 3 year plan for their future VMWARE requirements it's still a rather costly product.

                          If history repeats itself, vmware will have a totally different model before 3 years time anyways.

                          • 1,270. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                            aroudnev Enthusiast

                            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.

                            • 1,271. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                              ClueShell Novice

                              For the time being, and I mean the next 3-5 years I don't see

                              "specialsed core" chips from AMD or Intel going to mainstream servers.

                              If the world does not dramatically change, the same chips need to run

                              (or interpret/translate) x86 instructions to something other (like the

                              VLIW transmeta thingy or Itanium for that matter) those chips will

                              certainly be able to present something as similar to cores today or else

                              they'll break SMP and other stuff which would break or hamper

                              virtualisation on this platform.

                               

                              Even if in the future there are only 32+ core servers. You NEED NOT

                              buy/license all cores for VMware. Thats my point! sure you have those

                              cores available and wish to use them (especially if the cores run at 1

                              or 2 ghz but you have many of them) but there will always be processors

                              with fast cores but not so many its the demand. So the best case you

                              have a 32 core single socket system with like a full TB RAM. You'd

                              license that many "2core" increments as you like you need not buy the

                              full 16x2 pack. VMware will just disable some cores so you're in

                              compliance. Modern EFIs and BIOSes and procs can do "downcore". So no

                              problem there will the electricity bill.

                               

                              VMware could give you a "2core" grace increment. So to notify you "hey

                              at 22:00 during heavy load scenario X you exceeded your allocation, if

                              you were unsatisfied with the performance buy more licenses"

                               

                              Maybe I am dead wrong with my assumptions, but then again per core

                              licensing is currently their best bet. If the architecture is going to

                              something like the intel-cpu-many-core board thingy and that accelerates

                              something or is able to virtualize upon they can detect it (its an addin

                              card) and they can request a license for such things.

                               

                              But just because such things are in the labs or in selected-hands-only

                              the general customer DOES NOT care and is just pissed off by the

                              upcoming licensing change.

                               

                              My two cents (again).

                              • 1,272. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                ClueShell Novice

                                Because then I want my 1/3 of the SnS cost we just renewed back.

                                 

                                1/3 goes to Software and 2/3 goes to Support in the SnS math.

                                • 1,273. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                  aroudnev Enthusiast

                                  Absolutely. If they keep vRAM licensing, we will keep all plans on 4.0 and 4.1 and eventually will start to evaluate XEN. In no case I will go with vRAM licenses, even if they fit into my hardware temporary (except if free allowance became 24 and essential became 64 - it may work for a few years - theough even then I don't see any reason to migrate to 5 from 4). And I don't think that I am alone with this.

                                  Of course, no support contract will be signed because it does not make any sense in the current situation.

                                   

                                  Patching the big problem by the smal patches (minor increase in allowance) will not help them.

                                  • 1,274. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                    J1mbo Virtuoso

                                    I wonder if they considered USER CALs, at least for the SMB market.

                                    1 83 84 85 86 87 Previous Next