1 20 21 22 23 24 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.
      • 315. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
        mikeyes Enthusiast

        JDLangdon wrote:

         

         

        People didn't stop using Novell because of a licensing change.  This was brought on because using Microsoft server products allowed for a tighter intergration with Microsoft dekstop products and application suites.

         

        The only people who are going to be effected by this license change are the Fortune 500's and smaller who have invested in blade technologies.  Larger companies who have invested in larger servers (4 sockets) and who are already licensed as Enterprise and/or Enterprise Plus probably won't care either way.

         

        People stopped using Novell just as much for money as for tech.  Microsoft priced themselves below Novell to win customers over and Novell did not fight.  They thought that their customers were so loyal and their product so good that no one would ever consider leaving.  They found out they were wrong.  Money usually talks in the end.  Companies can't print money so if you have a max amount you can spend and the product you want it outside of that range you are forced to use something else.

        • 316. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
          tietzjd25 Enthusiast

          Jon Tackabury wrote:

           

          I see, they really should remove that 24GB thing from the docs, very mis-leading. Thanks for the clarification. Glad to hear it's not going to be as crazy-expensive as I once thought, still disappointed that when we expand it's going to cost us even more.

          jontackabury---  I think the maistake on VMware part here might been more in the past than what they are doing now. VMware always stated the ESS packages where ment for SMB with 20 or less VM's. They where hoping we would honor that request. Well I know many have not, so now they are enforcing it.

           

          For everyone above ESS+ it is a  soft limit ... so upgrade and be happy..... I am possitve it's SOFT limit for reason... They want get feedback and see what the real impact is on the world. On ADV,ENT and ENT+ it's just reported if your using more than what is entitled right now.

           

          I sure feedback of acctual numbers will change Entilments around in the future. 

           

          Never seen such outrage over somthing I would consder little more then vRAM usage report.

          • 317. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
            mikeyes Enthusiast

            JDLangdon wrote:

             

            That's what I said, people who invested in blade technologies will be effected.  Companies with larger 4-socket servers will not be effected as bad unless they have gone above and beyond 132GB's of RAM per host.

            Most SMB don't have 4 socket servers.  VM's usually need RAM not CPU.  Why increase your VMware license costs 2 year ago by purchasing 4 socket CPU servers when 2 socket quad core servers gave you all the compute you needed.  RAM was needed though so 2 CPU server packed full of RAM became the most common configuration.  This licensing change will affect more than blade owners.

            • 318. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
              Geoff.l Lurker

              So I am just now getting around to reading the licensing changes and OMG! this is going to be a problem for me. I have been fighting back managements interesting in exploring cheaper alternatives for VMWare and there has been a lot of push to exploring Hyper-V and XEN and this may be just what it takes to push us over the edge!

               

              We are leaving Oracle and going to SQL because of their new creative pricing and its not unlikely this could happen here too...

               

              I hope this pricing gets re-evaluated....this is disasterous to my plans!!

              • 319. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                RogerThomas Novice
                jontackabury---  I think the maistake on VMware part here might been more in the past than what they are doing now. VMware always stated the ESS packages where ment for SMB with 20 or less VM's. They where hoping we would honor that request. Well I know many have not, so now they are enforcing it.


                They may have had an idea of the number of VM's but never made any claims about the memory resources those VMs could use. I have only about 15VM, in my production system but 3 of them are database servers (Active, failover Mirror and a replicated copy for reporting). Each of these is currently allocated 96GBytes of RAM, because RAM is cheap and it allows all reads to come from RAM, so greatly reducing the cost of the disk sub-systems.

                 

                The upgrade cost I am now being told I should pay means that I will end up sticking with 4.1 and then go with an alternative once they support larger memory maps. As I already have MS Server Enterprise for all 3 systems Hyper-V is a low cost option, even with the cost of the console.

                • 320. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                  mikeyes Enthusiast

                  Joe Tietz wrote:

                   

                  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.....

                  What about licenses currently under maintenace.  Dropping the price on new purchases doesn't help when my maintenance licenses are devalued.

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

                    interesting,

                     

                    this VDI licensing

                     

                    this vmware desktop host...

                    when is someting a desktop...

                    is a citrix xenapp server on this a desktop?

                    a server with RDP enabled...

                    or only desktop OSses???

                     

                    is linux a server or desktop OS?

                     

                     

                     

                    the doc says this:

                     

                    Q. Are there any restrictions with vSphere Desktop?
                    A. vSphere Desktop can be used only to host a desktop virtualization environment.

                    • 322. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                      tietzjd25 Enthusiast

                      Pascal Watteel wrote:

                       

                      interesting,

                       

                      this VDI licensing

                       

                      this vmware desktop host...

                      when is someting a desktop...

                      is a citrix xenapp server on this a desktop?

                      a server with RDP enabled...

                      or only desktop OSses???

                       

                      is linux a server or desktop OS?

                       

                       

                       

                      the doc says this:

                       

                      Q. Are there any restrictions with vSphere Desktop?
                      A. vSphere Desktop can be used only to host a desktop virtualization environment.

                      On VDI from what I understand is if VMware reads it as Desktop OS. Windows 7, XP, SLED and so forth it will run.... If reads that it's server os that server will not start.

                       

                      This is my understanding up to today. But of course all this could change in next 60 days or not at all.... Again I seen MS charge more many of time.... Intinal outrage fades and pepole keep on buying the products.

                      • 323. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                        Gabriel Chapman Enthusiast

                        From what I can tell, VMWare appears to be completely caught off guard with the licensing push back, or simply didn't anticipate the ripple effect it would cause from their much larger SMB market, as opposed to the larger cloud types. My reasoning for this is the lack of a calculation tool for upgrade path on the same date that they make the announcement of the licensing change. I tend to see this new scheme as a trial balloon thats being floated, of course this one was made of lead. I really do hope they listen to their customers and make appropriate adjustments to the license model. Hell even Oracle listened to customers when it came to their support for Oracle on VMWare and insistence that the only supported virtualization platform they would accept was Oracles.

                         

                        The cost increase for the groups who can do external chargeback isn't a big deal, they will simply raise their prices to offset the licensing increases and sell it based on "new features". For those of us who use the product internally and cannot pass the costs onto some third party, the price increases hurt. How VMWare missed this is beyond my comprehension, but I'll assume it has something to do with being a market leader.

                         

                        This said, as much as the new improvements are a nice addition to the platform, I can't justify migrating just yet, nor would I. I can't see a huge adoption rate of a fresh release, at least with it being untested. So I will wait 6 months post release before even approaching management to do the upgrade, and who knows what will change in the licensing structure between now and then.

                        • 324. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                          WillL Hot Shot

                          Hopefully VMware will listen, so goes to whole industry. Only time will tell......

                           

                          At least it's no vCPU entitlement, it could be worse

                          • 325. Re: Start new threads?
                            mikeyes Enthusiast

                            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.

                            Could not have said it better myself.

                            • 326. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                              sergeadam Enthusiast

                              20 VMs may be what VMWare wants, but that is not reality.

                               

                              We bought 3 servers with a total of 224GB RAM and Essentials Plus for a specific project, realizing that we’d have enough capacity to also virtualize the other servers in that datacentre. The server specs according to the vendor will require 124GB for that project alone. I know full well that I won’t actually utilize all that RAM, but if I have any kind of performance issues, I need to conform to the vendor specs. So it leaves me 20GB for my other servers.  My 2 options are to upgrade to Standard or go Hyper-V. Seeing as I already own Windows Datacenter...

                              • 327. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                Rumple Master

                                My recommendation, as as much as I hate to say this, is to follow Microsoft Windows Server model.

                                 

                                vRAM Model in increments of 32G for standard 64G for anything higher.

                                pCPU (sockets) are licensed at a higher cost...

                                 

                                At some point with M$ licensing you switch from per Windows server licenses to per socket datacenter because its cheaper.

                                This would give us smaller guys a lower cost then trying to pay per socket for all hosts, and allow the bigger guys to do whatever they wish with their hardware.

                                 

                                It kind of falls into the same idea as the Microsoft SPLA...I pay per user for windows CAL's and my costs gradually climb, but once I get big enough I switch to Datacenter (and my costs flatline)...

                                • 328. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                  rjb2 Enthusiast

                                  Joe Tietz wrote:

                                   

                                  For everyone above ESS+ it is a  soft limit ... so upgrade and be happy..... I am possitve it's SOFT limit for reason... They want get feedback and see what the real impact is on the world. On ADV,ENT and ENT+ it's just reported if your using more than what is entitled right now.

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                  Happily not in compliance?

                                  • 329. Re: vSphere 5 Licensing
                                    rjb2 Enthusiast

                                    CCJNL wrote:

                                     

                                    Some new info out about how VDI licensing will work.

                                     

                                    http://blogs.vmware.com/euc/2011/07/vsphere-desktop-licensing-overview.html

                                     

                                    Yes, and the new desktop licensing provides you with unlimited vRAM!!!........but they also make it clear in more than one place that it is too bad if you are running a big VDI cluster using vSphere 4 licenses - these will be upgraded to the new throttled versions if a customer uses their SnS entitlement to upgrade.

                                     

                                    "This offer extends only to the purchases of new vSphere licenses. All eligible vSphere 4 (or earlier version of vSphere) licenses used for desktop virtualization will not be upgraded to the vSphere Desktop SKU. These licenses will be migrated to the corresponding vSphere 5 edition and not to vSphere Desktop."

                                    1 20 21 22 23 24 Previous Next