I can see vmware doing some stiff volume in vSphere4 licences between now and 12th August. We're obviously all going to have to go and review, and it's still early, but my gut says to go buy some vSphere 4 licences, and sit out vSphere 5 till the licencing comes to its senses.
This licensing change is going to kill our sustainability efforts. We have been changing our hardware refresh cycle to sustain a 100% annual growth rate of memory/CPU/Disk. Currently we are refreshing all hardware components on a 2-3 year cycle in order to benefit from Moore's law. A two socket blade server 2 years ago had 64GB memory. The latest two socket blades we are ordering have 256GB memory at a modest increase in cost. Our environment has 2TB of memory and will have 4TB next Summer. The following Summer I was planning on 8TB of memory. Using the quick hardware refresh we can maintain a static rack/power/cooling footprint while continuing to double our environment annually. This 48GB memory limit per license is going to break our growth within 18 months.
Before the change we needed to spend $100,000-$160,000 annually per blade system to maintain 100% annual growth rate. With this memory limit we will have to spend $140,000-$224,000 for the same growth. By the next year the license change will cost us over $250,000 in licensing for 4 physical servers (512GB/blade). This is not sustainable. Will VMware increase their vRAM limit per CPU license annually to reflect memory DIMM size increases? If not then they can't expect us to continue to perceive value in their product as compared to competitor products.
Thanks to this license change I am going to have to increase our hosting customer charge back prices by 49% this year. Ouch!
Thanks to this license change I am going to have to increase our hosting customer charge back prices by 49% this year.
While I agree that this licensing is going to get rediculously costly, one thing I do need to point out is that if you are hosting for customers you should have already been on this plan with the vspp since the eula of the regular licenses forbid using licenses for hosting.
The new licencing model has shocked me. Seeing as we already have Windows Datacentre licences the cost to go to Hyper-V is $0 in licence fees! So guesss what I'm installing doing now...
I have already had to fight to justify getting vmware standard (most the benefits of vsphere 5 arent included in standard either) so no chance of getting funding to keep the status quo by having to double our licences and support - with no room for growth.
There will be some interesting conversations with vmware licencing in the next few days unless vRAM limitations are raised to acceptable limits or a transition offer of 1:2 licences.
VMware should have said: "Hey, our license revenues stall, because physical CPUs get more and more cores. So we switch to a RAM based model which we think is fairer." That would have been just honest.
Instead they are telling us that the new licensing model is a benefit for customers, it is "cloud friendly" and easier to manage, blah-blah...
I understand that they need to secure their earnings, but I really hate being taken for a fool! Shame on you, VMware!
All licensing goes through adjustments as hardware and software capabilities change. This has happened repeatedly through the years.
It did? Then VMware must be an exception to this or I've just been sleeping the past few years. They never changed the 6/12 cores per CPU restriction on the vSphere4 licenses which was introduced 2 years ago to this day.
They didn't include any of the new features into Standard and Enterprise licenses either. You have to put the bucks for Enterprise+ on the counter.
Yes, it is true that some, maybe even a lot of people won't directly have to buy more licenses now with the new licensing model because they currently run low-density boxes or aren't at their full VM capacity yet, but what have they gained? A surplus of XXX available vRAM because they haven't upgraded their hosts/RAM yet, or haven't deployed as much VMs as they wanted to on their current infrastructure? As opposed to an unlimited surplus of vRAM because that restriction simply didn't exist in the previous version.
Sorry, but the new licensing model is plainly trying to shove new licenses into a lot of people’s throats. Seems like some MBA noticed people were going for memory density and was like "Whoa, we should probably milk them some other way!"
It's kind of sad, but I guess this will mark the demise of VMware. Even though VMware has by far the best product, they can only go as far with their pricetags on it. Especially not when the competition gets closer and already got quite a few customers to dump VMware in their favor because of costs.
The whole annoying and overly marketing-aggressive cloud-buzz isn't going to save them either.
Another thing that really annoys me is how people always associate "big servers" with "big licenses". So I have servers with 2 sockets and 96 and maybe soon 144GB of RAM (with almost all RAM allocated), but the features provided by Standard licenses were more than sufficient for the workloads running on those. Guess what: Now need to blow out twice or even thrice the money I used to with vSphere4.
Even if I was using Enterprise+ already I would run into problems once I upgrade the hosts to 144GB and put more VMs on them.
I, for one, would stay with vSphere4 for now in the hope that VMware will un-@#!# this whole licensing disaster.
This whole license change is putting me off upgrading to 5 now, managing a environment of 150+ BL460G7 systems all with 256GB of ram in them... and running 4.0 Enterprise, not only would we be forced to move to enterprise + but now we also need to double the license cost.
VMware shame on you, Hyper-V test environment will be built instead.
Well this kills our use of VMWARE products dead.
It costs about $7,000 to stick 192GBytes of ECC memory in an average 2 CPU server, which allows me to greatly reduce my costs when it comes to the investment in the disk channel as I need no active swap on my VMs and my database instances are able to cache all the active data so there is no need to send read requests to the disks.
VMware's latest pricing requires me to purchase 8 copies of standard edition per physical server - so a list price of $8,000 per server. As we only have 3 servers we have only needed the Essentials edition in the past.
Well I can see us staying with our nice 4.1 release for the next year or so and then moving to Xen or Microsoft once both companies start to understand that VMware has decided to kill off its client base.
The strange thing is that VMware seem to have decided that there pricing model should be based around the type of server configuration from about 3-4 years ago where systems were built with 4GByte memory modules and servers had limits of 32GBytes or 48Gbytes.
what the heck is vmware thinking.
i first was thinking i was missing a zero after all the Vram numbers.
but it seems Vmware is really going nuts and it's not a typo.
i'm a presales/tech consulant for vmware products for years now.
but with this change i think it's time to push customers back to XENserver
the features of the new Vsphere 5 are all nice to have,
but i can never ask a customer to pay this mutch for licensing
Vmware you let me down...
i'm normaly always verry eager to start selling the new versions,
but now i will recommend the customers to buy Xenserver.
It seems like the licensing model promotes that "scale out" principle, where hosts with large amounts of memory now will cost a lot more than before.
I had hopes that VMware should counter Hyper-V and XEN with lower license prices to really keep the leader position, but I am afraid this will force many customers away to alternatives, especially since many of the new 5.0 features is at the Enterprise Plus edition only.
i hope that vmware will not release this licensing model, otherwise and this wont be a joke we will transfer our cloud to another product asap
It's not all roses for we customers with Enterprise Plus licensing. They are wanting me to trade a CPU license for 48gb of ram. I mean, really?
Sent from my iPod