1 17 18 19 20 21 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.
      • 270. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
        tietzjd25 Enthusiast

        sergeadam wrote:

         

        I've been preaching ESX for close to 8 years now. I just started here a couple of months ago. My company is embarking on a virtualization project. My predecessor bought 3 R710, dual CPUs, 2 X 96GB and 1 32GB. Essential Plus license. I'll have a HA cluster. My standard image for a 2008R2 server is 4GB and goes up from there. vSphere 5 allows me 144GB. I'll be over that. Even designing for HA, it is not unheard of to overallocate vRAM. In all my clusters up until now, I've always had servers that did not need to restart in the event of a host failure. If a host fails, it will be fixed within 12 hours. I can afford to have monitors, AV, and a whole bunch of 'helper' servers down for a while. 

         

        Since I'm just starting my project, I'll now be loading Hyper-V and giving that a good trial. I already own Windows Enterprise. I don't need any ESX features other than what Essentials Plus gives me. Hyper-V may just be good enough.

         

        Sad day.

        We been running hyper-v in for hosted datacenter for some time now and we are working as fast as possible to get off it. Mutiple failed live migrations, server os not working right. Preformnce issues all over the place.  Good luck.

        • 271. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
          tietzjd25 Enthusiast

          Paul Newell wrote:

           

          Wow, 263 posts on this thread, and it hasn't even been around for two days!

           

          I'm throwing my opinion in as well, in that I too agree that the vRAM entitlement is way too low.  I sincerely hope that VMware decides to re-evaluate the vRAM licensing option (increase it, generously, or get rid of it all together), as this will cause a massive defection of VMware customers to the competition.  Myself included.

          From what I saw, prices have drop per license. This could help off set prices, the prices on SMB have not changed though.

           

          VMware statnce is Ess + or Ess was ment for SMB with less then 20 servers... 144/20 is almost 8GIG memeory per server.....

          • 272. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
            DANCHUFT Novice

            Joe Tietz wrote:

             

            DANCHUFT wrote:

             

            I too was excitedly reading through the new vSphere 5 specs until I stumbled upon the new licensing model 

             

            We currently have 2 Socket 128GB RAM Blades running Ent Edition. For us to move to vSphere 5 we would have to double our current license count! Being an NHS Trust I can't see the funding being approved for the migration to vSphere 5 any time soon.

             

            To penalise people who are achieving high consolidation ratios, which was one of the main drives behind virtualisation seems to be a major own goal by VMware. I wonder if the increase in revenue from the extra licensing costs will outweigh the amount of people who will surely abandon vSphere in favour of HyperV in today's financial climate?

            I going to harp on this

             

            4 ENT Edition lic = 128 vRAM in use..... Are you not designed for N+1 failover?

            In our Live Cluster we have 5 Blades, 2 Sockets 128GB Ram in each giving a total of 640GB RAM across the 5 Blades. We allow for one complete Blade failure so 640GB -128GB = 512GB potentially in use at 100% capacity across the 5 Blades.

             

            If we upgrade to vSphere 5 with our current allocation of 10 license (5 x 2 socket Blades) it will only entitle us to use 320GB RAM across the 5 Blades. So yes I see your point, to license us for the remaining 192GB would only be another 6 licenses not 10. It still means that we would need to buy another 6 sockets of Enterprise and Support just to upgrade to vSphere 5 though....

            • 273. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
              JDLangdon Master

              odonnellj wrote:

               

              The worst thing to do is to start negotiating vRAM levels. The whole concept is absurd and should be scrapped and an apology given.

               

              Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't vRAM the amount of RAM that is allocated to a VM upon bootup?

               

              If that is correct then upon bootup, my VM with 16GB's of RAM assigned to it is using 16GB's of vRAM.  What happens to my licensing cost if I limit this same 16GB VM to 2GB's upon bootup and use 14GB's of SWAP space?  Did my licensing cost just go down?

              • 274. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                dgrace Enthusiast

                Alberto wrote:

                 

                We will soon make available a free utility app to check possible impacts of the new model on your environment - I'll post the link as soon as it's out. Hopefully it will help provide more clarity and please let us know what you find out.

                I really think this utility should have been out on day 1 of the announcement. Think of the PR disaster VMWare could have saved themselves if the app was out and customers could easily check on the claim on the spot. Not everyone has powershell ready to go to run scipts from the net.

                • 275. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                  hellraiser Enthusiast

                  Dunno, but if it needed 16GB and had to rely on 14GB of swap space performance would be dire...

                   

                  JD

                  • 276. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                    jontackabury Novice

                    I just wanted to throw my opinion in as a small VMware ESXi user. We currently have 2 servers with 1 CPU each and 32GB of RAM in each host. We run 6 VMs (4 on one host, 2 on the other). Currently we are using ESXi (free) and have been trying out the Essentials kits to allow use to use VCB to make our backups easier to manage. This was going to cost us around $1k-$2k total for both hosts. If we upgrade to VMware vSphere 5, ESXi only allows for 8GB RAM, which is crazy. The next level up only allows for 24GB RAM, so we'd be forced to spend $6k total for both hosts to be allowed to use all 32GB of our RAM. That's almost as much as I paid for the hardware! VMware, you've gone off the deep on this one. We don't have high requirements, and don't need many of the features that come with the higher versions of vSphere so we're looking at Hyper-V now as a replacement. Instead of VMware getting $2k from us, they tried to get $6k and now they're not going to get anything.

                    • 277. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                      derekb13 Novice

                      Joe Tietz wrote:


                      I going to harp on this

                       

                      4 ENT Edition lic = 128 vRAM in use..... Are you not designed for N+1 failover?

                      And I'll harp on this: That's a red herring for most environments.

                       

                      Let's look at my environment - I've got 16 blades, 144GB per blade, 2 sockets of Ent+ CPU licensing per unit. That gives me 1,536GB of vRAM capacity across my entire environment. Now, let's throw out two of those blades. They're redundant warm-spare blades for maintenance and service capacity. (N+2 so even more redundancy than you're thinking I should have). So let's assume I'm only *using* 14 of my 16 licensed blades. Let's assume of those 14 blades' memory, I'm only running them at 80% usage. (Which bear in mind is highly unlikely, in a number of environments, given the OVERcommit hype of 4.x, but let's just say that I'm being EVEN MORE memory conservative than I need to be).

                       

                      14 * 144 * .8 = 1612.8GB, an overage of 76GB, which means I now have to go buy two CPU of Ent+ licenses just to do what I was already doing the day before.

                       

                      And I'm a small shop who's not running REALLY dense installs. I have colleagues who are running quad-sockets with 512GB or 768GB of memory per server. A dozen of those, even including the vRAM-license capacity sitting idle in the warm-spare units, gives a licensed capacity of (4 * 12 * 48 = 2304GB), but (10 * 768 * .8 = 6144GB of actual allocated vRAM, meaning they'd need to buy **80** extra sockets of Ent+ licensing (in addition the 48 sockets they presently own) just to get legal under the new doctrine.

                       

                      In other words: N+1 is a red herring, and I really wish you, and every other person who harps on it, would please just give that a rest.

                      • 278. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                        AlbertWT Master

                        Thanks for the reply Roger,

                         

                        "This means you currently do not lose out due to the change, but what are your memory plans for these nodes over the next year or so?"
                        ### I'm not planning any major upgrade again for the next 3 years so it will remains the same as this blade just arrived this week.

                         

                        sh*t that's way so much 2 Enterprise+ license for each blade :-|

                        • 279. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                          JustinL3 Novice

                          I asked our SE about this and the response was limits don't affect vRAM allocation calcs.  So in your example you would be using 16GB of your vRAM Allocation even though you've limted the VM to only be able to use 2 GB of pRAM...

                          • 280. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                            tietzjd25 Enthusiast

                            DANCHUFT wrote:

                             

                            Joe Tietz wrote:

                             

                            DANCHUFT wrote:

                             

                            I too was excitedly reading through the new vSphere 5 specs until I stumbled upon the new licensing model 

                             

                            We currently have 2 Socket 128GB RAM Blades running Ent Edition. For us to move to vSphere 5 we would have to double our current license count! Being an NHS Trust I can't see the funding being approved for the migration to vSphere 5 any time soon.

                             

                            To penalise people who are achieving high consolidation ratios, which was one of the main drives behind virtualisation seems to be a major own goal by VMware. I wonder if the increase in revenue from the extra licensing costs will outweigh the amount of people who will surely abandon vSphere in favour of HyperV in today's financial climate?

                            I going to harp on this

                             

                            4 ENT Edition lic = 128 vRAM in use..... Are you not designed for N+1 failover?

                            In our Live Cluster we have 5 Blades, 2 Sockets 128GB Ram in each giving a total of 640GB RAM across the 5 Blades. We allow for one complete Blade failure so 640GB -128GB = 512GB potentially in use at 100% capacity across the 5 Blades.

                             

                            If we upgrade to vSphere 5 with our current allocation of 10 license (5 x 2 socket Blades) it will only entitle us to use 320GB RAM across the 5 Blades. So yes I see your point, to license us for the remaining 192GB would only be another 6 licenses not 10. It still means that we would need to buy another 6 sockets of Enterprise and Support just to upgrade to vSphere 5 though....

                            Your right. It sucks that going to cost more money. The response I am seeing here darwfs that Microsoft Lic change in 2009, last I checked they are still doing rather well.

                             

                             

                            But again VMware to get vaule the belive there product is worth had to do somthing.  Could the entitlements be higher.... I think so on Srd, ENT and ENT+

                            • 281. Re: Start new threads?
                              rjb2 Enthusiast

                              John,

                               

                              We certainly wish we could be talking about the technical aspects of the new version, and I'm sure you'd like to be doing that as well, but VMWare's decision has placed the focus squarely on the pricing issue - we don't need another thread at this point. It is quite clear now that VMWare has alienated a lot of loyal customers; many of whom have been advocating for your product both within their companies and among their peers in the field. I guess we can assume that the risks were calculated and that the cost of the casualties would be less than the gain to be had by such an aggressive price increase.

                               

                              I am amazed by the number of articles, blog postings, and responses that have been generated all over the web as a result of this decision. VMWare obviously had a lot of loyalty, or this decision would have gone virtually unnoticed. It is also clear that customers already felt that they were paying a premium price for a very good product, and contrary to your assumptions, there are a large number who would now have to pay significantly more to continue with VMWare. We are one of those customers.

                               

                              Change is inevitable, but in addition to setting the vRAM entitlements too low, VMWare failed to provide a soft landing for their existing customers to transition gracefully to the new model. Instead, it appears that you are squandering a lot of customer good will, and are forcing otherwise happy IT professionals to spend their valuable time on a very negative topic.

                               

                              I have tried to respond in a sincere and non-emotional way to this situation after thinking about it for a day, but it doesn't feel any better this morning, and there is little chance that we will reach the point of acceptance unless there is some recognition by VMWare that adjustments will need to be made to support the customers who have helped make VMWare successful up until this point.

                              • 282. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                Frank.Heidbuchel Novice

                                i used to do Vmware and Citrix Xenserver

                                but 3 years ago i went Vmwar only.

                                 

                                then the xenserver product was OK, but lacking in a lot ow ways.

                                mainly networking to make it really suitable...

                                and slow management

                                 

                                with this license change i yesterday started looking  again at xenserver

                                as it seems distributed switches... replication and SRM functionality are all comming up in V6

                                 

                                it may not be a vmware...

                                but for me it's damm close to what vmware ESX 3.5U2 was.

                                and well if needed i can live without the features that came after those releases for the most parts.

                                 

                                i'm also shocked of the pricing??? 5000$ per server for the most advanced version...

                                that's not mutch...

                                 

                                i'm hitting myself on the head now, placing all my eggs in the vmware basket...

                                i'll go dual hypervisor again, and let the customer decide what they like best...

                                 

                                bad thing is, 2 existing vmware customers i went to today...

                                are switching to Xenserver as they don't like the new licensing for there 2 new servers.

                                and once this is done, they'll switchover the old ones 2.

                                 

                                this only 2 days after vmware launched this new licensing...

                                i can tell you this...

                                customers are scared of the Vmware mentality

                                and when customers are scared...

                                they'll put there money somewhere else...

                                even if this product is less advanced as vmware.

                                 

                                as the matrix has put it : Choice, the problem is choice.

                                • 283. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                  tietzjd25 Enthusiast

                                  Derek Balling wrote:

                                   

                                  Joe Tietz wrote:


                                  I going to harp on this

                                   

                                  4 ENT Edition lic = 128 vRAM in use..... Are you not designed for N+1 failover?

                                  And I'll harp on this: That's a red herring for most environments.

                                   

                                  Let's look at my environment - I've got 16 blades, 144GB per blade, 2 sockets of Ent+ CPU licensing per unit. That gives me 1,536GB of vRAM capacity across my entire environment. Now, let's throw out two of those blades. They're redundant warm-spare blades for maintenance and service capacity. (N+2 so even more redundancy than you're thinking I should have). So let's assume I'm only *using* 14 of my 16 licensed blades. Let's assume of those 14 blades' memory, I'm only running them at 80% usage. (Which bear in mind is highly unlikely, in a number of environments, given the OVERcommit hype of 4.x, but let's just say that I'm being EVEN MORE memory conservative than I need to be).

                                   

                                  14 * 144 * .8 = 1612.8GB, an overage of 76GB, which means I now have to go buy two CPU of Ent+ licenses just to do what I was already doing the day before.

                                   

                                  And I'm a small shop who's not running REALLY dense installs. I have colleagues who are running quad-sockets with 512GB or 768GB of memory per server. A dozen of those, even including the vRAM-license capacity sitting idle in the warm-spare units, gives a licensed capacity of (4 * 12 * 48 = 2304GB), but (10 * 768 * .8 = 6144GB of actual allocated vRAM, meaning they'd need to buy **80** extra sockets of Ent+ licensing (in addition the 48 sockets they presently own) just to get legal under the new doctrine.

                                   

                                  In other words: N+1 is a red herring, and I really wish you, and every other person who harps on it, would please just give that a rest.

                                  Please don't take offense on what I saying here. But 2 extra lic for enverment that size should not be issue. If friend is using those number of memroy he is the reason why VMware needed to put new lic requements in.

                                  • 284. Re: Start new threads?
                                    DANCHUFT Novice

                                    rjb2 wrote:

                                     

                                    John,

                                     

                                    We certainly wish we could be talking about the technical aspects of the new version, and I'm sure you'd like to be doing that as well, but VMWare's decision has placed the focus squarely on the pricing issue - we don't need another thread at this point. It is quite clear now that VMWare has alienated a lot of loyal customers; many of whom have been advocating for your product both within their companies and among their peers in the field. I guess we can assume that the risks were calculated and that the cost of the casualties would be less than the gain to be had by such an aggressive price increase.

                                     

                                    I am amazed by the number of articles, blog postings, and responses that have been generated all over the web as a result of this decision. VMWare obviously had a lot of loyalty, or this decision would have gone virtually unnoticed. It is also clear that customers already felt that they were paying a premium price for a very good product, and contrary to your assumptions, there are a large number who would now have to pay significantly more to continue with VMWare. We are one of those customers.

                                     

                                    Change is inevitable, but in addition to setting the vRAM entitlements too low, VMWare failed to provide a soft landing for their existing customers to transition gracefully to the new model. Instead, it appears that you are squandering a lot of customer good will, and are forcing otherwise happy IT professionals to spend their valuable time on a very negative topic.

                                     

                                    I have tried to respond in a sincere and non-emotional way to this situation after thinking about it for a day, but it doesn't feel any better this morning, and there is little chance that we will reach the point of acceptance unless there is some recognition by VMWare that adjustments will need to be made to support the customers who have helped make VMWare successful up until this point.

                                    I think that about hits the nail on the head for me. Disastrous PR week for VMware IMO.

                                    1 17 18 19 20 21 Previous Next