Also very shocked here, i can't go to my boss and explain that our recent investment in 3 new bladeservers with 128Gb memory and 2 CPU's has to be licenced with extra VMware licences because there's "so much RAM" in it. We baught those systems so an extra 64Gb memory upgrade would be possible in the future without any licensing investment.
Also, when virtualizing servers the only bottleneck I run into is Memory, VMware also knows that so they now build their licensing (monymaker) based on that.
And every new version of Windows "likes" more ram to make it run smooth.
Now it's time to really take a good look an XenServer or even..... .. HyperV!
I really hope VMware doesn't go through with this.
Just done the calculation, we'll be just OK with our "Enterprise" licence, but it means we can only utilise half the RAM in our recent upgrade - so we'll be forced to go "Enterprise Plus"
We're fortunate at the moment, because of the upgrade we back all our VMs with physical RAM - but if you're arguing for vSphere on it's technical merit for memory management over the competition, you've just lost out because VMware are now charging you more for the privilege!
if they'd gone for a pure Physical RAM model, then I'd say I'd be OK with that, but vRAM? - counter productive!
Anyway, is vCloud now priced for vRAM too, or is that still stuck with the even dafter model of 25 VMs per licence??
Hyper-V V3 (in Windows Server 8) + SCVVM is going to look really cheap now (we're on academic pricing)
We are going to have to pay over $50k to maintain the use of the memory in our current hardware with this licensing scheme. I think VMware has just handed a big chunk of their marketshare to Citrix and Microsoft. XenServer is really not that bad these days... not as good as VMware, but for the price, I think we can deal with it.
We normally use PowerEdge R815s with 512GB of RAM (448 available after spare row config) and 4 Opteron 6176 CPUs. We will now have to purchase 10 licenses for Enterprise Plus instead of 4.
VMware had better turn this disaster around quickly, or they will be dealing with a mass exodus.
For VDI environments like XenDesktop or other non-VMware View solutions where you would typically want to maximize physical RAM usage to reduce per-VM costs, I did some interesting calculations mid way through my article:
Now we start to see the downside to having someone from Microsoft running the company...
We have a private cloud for the University where our hosting customers are all employees of the institution. The hosting/chargeback model is all internal to the company and used for quota management. I believe this type of use is OK with the EULA but please correct me if I am wrong.
If I had went to an MBA and said, "Give me a license model that achieves two goals: 1st, prevent customers from doing a one to one, no cost, ESXi 5 upgrade, regardless of the fact they may be running Enterprise Plus with full maintenance. 2nd, extract the most amount of money from our existing customer base."
This ridiculous license model would have been the reply. There is no other method I can can think of that is so prohibitive and screws existing customers as good as this model does. I think most experienced admin who have been running virtual shops would agree that memory is the biggest common denominator when deciding server limits for virtualization and failover. VMware repeatedly in all their rollout speeches kept repeating the phrase "fair, this is fair". I do not agree. It is metering at it's very worse extreme. Imaging having a data center full of 2 proc, 256GB RAM UCS blades, oh lets say 50 of them running with about 80% allocation of vRAM against physical. that would have been 100 Enterprise Plus licenses. Under the new plan, you do the math. That's a license increase of almost 3 to 1. I will refrain from typing my reaction to that revelation under the new license model.
Over the past few years, I have defended our data center against the management pressure to introduce Hyper-v or XEN to save costs. I can no longer do so. Using other vendors for DEV and LAB environments will be a no brainer now. Most larger data centers license their Microsoft OS on their ESX servers with DataCenter because it allows for unlimited VM's. Switching to Hyper-v for us would be a NO COST solution.
I foresee our data center staying with vSpere 4 until end of life and at that time, switching virtual platforms. Microsoft has been playing catch-up for a while and I'm guessing in 2 to 3 years they may be more on par with VMware. Unlike VMware, as long as I keep maintain software assurance on Microsoft products, I don't have to pay through the nose to upgrade to their newer releases.
Another unhappy, long-term customer here.
We've so far managed to justify VMware's expense over the competition due to the higher consolidation ratios we could achieve compared to other products, but unfortunately these changes will make our future using VMware products unlikely.
Like many others we've standarised on server models with large amounts of RAM as our main limitation to growth has been memory, not CPU or storage. Comments from VMware and their apologisers about memory right-sizing doesn't cut it for many of our internal applications where there is a requirement from the vendor for certain specifications and also internal customers who run memory intensive applications. Over the past few years we've been able to get the costs down to a reasonable level by using decent VI management products but we've still doubled our allocated memory footprint over the last 12 months, and under the new licensing model will expect significant costs over the next year if we continue virtualising the remainder of our mission critical applications on VMware.
Although to us, Hyper-V hasn't been as good as VMware, we now need to seriously consider whether it is "good enough". We already license Windows Datacentre for all our ESX hosts and under our pricing SCVMM is extremely cheap, a drop in the ocean compared to our yearly SnS with VMware. As we use Enterprise edition we've not seen any killer features coming to us in vSphere 5 either - if there were, then this may have made a difference.
I've often wondered whether VMware would be the modern Novell, and I'm now convinced. The new licensing model combined with the upcoming release of SCVMM 2012 may well be VMware's "Active Directory" moment where Microsoft (and Citrix) gobble up their market share.
Up until yesterday, Hyper-V and Xenserver were just used by us for for lab and testing - there wasn't much business justification in moving away from VMware, as the work involved would be hard to justify. Now we need to seriously consider our virtualisation strategy.
It seems strange to both have worked on the higher scalability in VMs and in the same time a license model that punishes high memory usage. Now a virtual machine could have 1 TB of RAM allocated, but that single VM would cost 21 Enterprise Plus licenses to start..
Cmbits- private cloud is fine under standard eula...
Most people still use cloud when discussing multi-tenant or hosting solutions so I jumped to a conclusion :o)
I think vmware could probably easily move to a vram based licensing model and base it on UTILIZED ram, not allocated.
Then its truely a pay per use model, allows us to maximize the tps components of vmware to oversubscribe memeory, plus provide huge ass memory spec's vm's to vendors that want it (but we all know don't need it) and not get killed on our licensing.
as a longtime defender of vmware...
i can't believe i'm doing this..
but i'm downloaden Xenserver now, to test in my vmware workstation....
What is vmware thinking...
I can't believe that multiple people of vmware saw this passing by, and none of thing said:" we'll this doesn't look good"
Abosolutely... This is a cheap shot from VMware..... They are now indirectly discouraging the followings through this license model,
- Increased VM densities
- Benefitting from memory reclamation techniques properly
- Using anything other than enterprise plus license (its only for those on the ent plus license that the cost increment would be comparatively lowest)
- Virtualising servers that have a high memory foot print
I really hope that they have some strategy behind this decision that is not quite obvious from the outset. because otherwise they could be shooting themselves in the foot by pricing themselves out of the SME market and creating room for Hyper-V who is catching up fast and have far less greedy licensing terms..
I might actually ditch my plans for vcdx and look at Hyper-V instead to diversify a bit....
- Increased VM densities
I was VERY excited to see the release of vSphere 5. But then I read the new licensing models....
now I feel like throwing both my VCAP certificates in the trash. What a total f*ckup!
I think it is worse that it is based on allocated ram and not physical ram.... I thought the whole purpose of memory overcommitment was to
allocate more then you actually have????? So it will cost even more???? What is the point in having a high consolidation ratio then???
Anyone surprised that this annoucement came from Paul Maritz,,, a former Microsoft executive who was considered their number 3 guy....
I understand the frustrations over this. But try and add the cost saving since you deployed VMware in your DC. And is it unfair to have a share from the profits organizations have enjoyed due to increased VM densities? Even with the new model, you will still be better off with being virtual. Now should you ditch VMware and go with another tool like Xen or Hyper-V, is really a choice that an organization should make after doing some cost benefit analysis.
There are BMWs and Mercedes in the market and there are Kia and Hyundi as well.. In my opinion VMware is still a much more advanced platform and there is no hard in paying a premium to enjoy the fruits. We never complain about driving overly priced cars or other toys we overpay for.. do we?
Follow me @ Cloud-Buddy.com