.....just in case we didn't get the point when they made this clear the first time - existing customers will be subject to the vRAM throttle on their VDI clusters
Q. Are there any restrictions with vSphere Desktop?
A. vSphere Desktop can be used only to host a desktop virtualization environment. This offer extends only to the purchases of new vSphere licenses. Existing vSphere licenses would be upgraded to corresponding vSphere 5 editions, subject to vSphere 5 pooled vRAM entitlement and not to vSphere Desktop.
They sure did there homework.
If we woud've migrated to our new vSphere environment we stood up we would end up buying 47 more licenses.
I honestly think we got screwed over. Yeah most "VRAM" capacities maybe covered due to their "Numbers" doesn't mean we get the capacity we used to have availible anymore.
Personally I think current contract customer should get there current physical capacity in VRAM for upgrading. As for the licenscing base it really should've been more like 32/64/128/256 since most servers are now spec'ed at that base line.
Considering VMware wants to help you get to the "cloud" by removing limits on CPU and Memory for VM's they take a step forward and add to it a great cost. You cannot say one thing and do another and still say its all good because our numbers show everyone may come out a little ahead. Your lucky to break even and as many have proved its not right sizing VM's anymore because we GO BY SOFTWARE VENDOR STANDARDS - Hell the "EFF" O Vmware. No, memory was never an issue prior... but now it most CERTAINLY is!
With that being said I too agree with the conspiracy theorist about Paul Maritz, Hell hes probably still on MS payroll, lol (that was joke )
Anyways I suppose we will just wait and see what comes to pass. Yes, it does seem like a Novell move "We have the best directory service in the world" *Plane comes crashing down shorly after*. Vmware "We do have 50% market share" *MS grins evily in the background, Netfilx Jacks up prices, and Citrix buys cloud.com* - LOL
To all the people commenting and trying to justify the license hike everyone on these forums are proving you wrong - but I am glad you show interest in caring - really. Jacking up prices from what have been the normal for years simple because you have a market share is a fatal mistake. Maybe VMware just needs to fire some overpaid CEO's before the federal government has to bail them out - lol.
Honestly it should be the darn leaders and people behind the thinking and consideration of the licensing on this forum taking the heat and trying to defend it.
Ditto to Chadwick's comments above. The 48GB limit on Ent+ is ridiculous given that the sky was the limit before. I just upgraded a 6 host cluster to 96GB per socket because 48GB wasn't even taxing last year's Intel Westmere 6core CPUs. Even with HA taken into account I had a target of upwards of 70GB per core to allocate by the end of this year. This model nearly doubles my licensing cost.
And those saying this is your opportunity to right-size your guest memory allocations have never lived in a real enterprise IT environment. In a cloud environment where self service is a core tenet, you allocate what the customer pays for. Even where you do have control of the allocation I've found that good Windows guest behavior relies on having more RAM than is needed. If windows even thinks it's getting close to it's max physical ram it'll start paging, and performance will take a major hit. It doesn't matter how well the host is sharing memory.
How in the world will this work?!
View is licensed per-VM, not per-CPU.
For example, if I buy View support for 100VMs, I can run that on 2 hosts or on 10 - so long as I don't exceed 100VMs.
I'm throughly confused as to how this will be implemented....
The University of Alabama
VMware vSphere 5 may just be the turning point! The cost of going virtual just got higher (vRAM license) and may be a turning point. In some cases it may be more cost effective to go or stay physical than to go virtual! Hold on, to all them cloud and Hyper-V arguments.
Your Question now should be if the vSphere 5 features are worth the upgrade and/or cost!
I'm UCS - vBlock with Cisco B230 Blades with 256 Gigs of RAM in each! Wow what a license cost!
Microsoft strikes back:
"Microsoft: New VMware Pricing Makes VMware Cloud Costs 4x Microsoft's"
There's a cloudy day..
I am a VCP3&4, a VMware champion since 2.5 days. I run a VM-volitile university virtual hosting environment (can host 150VMs one month, 200 the next) as well as consulting for SMB-Enterprises via a consulting company.
I downloaded XenServer today.
Perhaps it was a premonition that my blog is vKoolAid. Tuesday we were asked to drink up.
That's uncanny, today I downloaded Hyper-V
I just downloaded hyper-v today as well. We started a VDI deployment this year using view and we bought the "Add on" licenses becuase we already had exisiting ESX hosts but now we are only about 30-40% thru our deployment and already over the max vRam limit with the new licensing model. This is the 2nd time VMWare has screwed us over, last change was the introduction to Enterprise+. We had already bought the highest tier to ensure we got all of the features and then they did that. There is a reason we dont deal with EMC storage anymore and it looks like the EMC execs have started to get their fingers into the VMWare licenseing now.
I have to say I am floored with this new lic model. I did the quick calculations.We own 96 Ent+ lics which are allowed 48 GB vRAM each = 0.46 TB of vRAM.We currently have allocated 1.9TB of RAM in the environment. This means we would have to quadruple our VMware lics to 395 Ent+.So we would have to buy 300 more Ent+ lics at a cost of approx 1 million$ and that is to simply maintain what we have, we cannot add another machine. That is simply not going to happen. I have no idea what VMware is thinking but it is now much cheaper for us to dump VMware and use Microsoft Hyper-V because we bought MS Datacenter Edition so to move to move to MS is 0$This is absolutely ridiculous.
I just did a recalculation. I was off one decimal point as pointed out Andrew Hald
We have approx 600 machines allocated a total of 1.9 TB of RAM. So my total vRAM is 1.9TB
We own 96 ENT+ lics that means I can run 4.6 TB of vRAM
So we can approx double our vRAM usage. But with our current server consolidation plans for 2011-2012 this puts us very tight when I thought we would have 3-4x the capacity as we are currently migrating from 2 CPU blades with 32 GB RAM to 2 CPU blades with 96 GB
This also means we may not have any vRAM available for our VDI project
No, I'm not designing for N+1 failover, that is what is going to be actively used. Under the old licensing model to get N+1 I just need to add some RAM (=cheap). With the new one, I have to spend a lot on additional licenses. Please do remember I'm talking about SMBs, where each 1k$ DOES make a difference, let alone 10k$.
Also please carefully read VMware pricing white paper (http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf). Standard Acceleration Kit gives you 8 CPU Licenses (8 x 24 GB = 192 GB) and can be extended with single Standard licenses. So no, I don't have to go with Ent/Ent+ licenses. Not that this makes the new licensing any better though.
And yes, I know it's vRAM used. This however is irrelevant because vRAM can be either lower or higher (!) than total physical memory.
I think you miscarried a decimal point there. With 96 Ent+ licenses you would be entitled to 96 x 48 GB = 4608 GB = 4.6 TB. Given that you have 1.9 TB of vRAM allocated, the new model works out ideally for you with lots of room to grow.
As an enterprise that started playing around with Vmware GSX (later renamed to Vmware Server), then moving on to ESX 1.5 in the lab, and finally ESX 2.0 for our first production servers, we have seen our fair share of changes to Vmware, both in its products and in its licensing models. I can't say that we enjoyed paying more when required in the past, but at least the scales between the increase in price and the increase in functionality seemed somewhat in balance. Unfortunately that is not the case with vSphere 5.0 and its new licensing model. Left unchanged, the initial additional cost to our enterprise would be 160% of our annual SNS renewal, with the added bonus of a sizeable increase at our next SNS renewal due to the additional license counts. Even if vSphere 5.0 somehow added a proportionate increase in functionality (which after reading through the "what is new" pdf I can safely say it does not for our environment), the price to upgrade would still be prohibitive for many environments, and a very difficult decision for many others.
Up until now, I have counting myself amount some of the oldest and loyalest of Vmware's clients, so if anyone at Vmware is listening, not only are the scales no longer in balance, I'm pretty sure they are now broken!
As it stands, we will not be upgrading to vSphere 5.0. As for the future, virtualization is quickly maturing as a technology, and although not commoditized as of yet, or possibly ever, enterprises will always be looking for a proportionate value for their technology dollars. Hopefully future offerings from Vmware will meet that fundamental requirement.
honestly its only a matter of time before the larger storage vendors start integrating the hypervisor into their storage stacks and moving back to the mini/mainframe model of virtualization, at least thats what I would do if I was IBM/HP/Dell why not develop your own hypervisor, or go open source, integrate it with your storage/switching and provide fully virtualized frames to the customer
EMC is already doing this with the vmax in the labs, its only a matter of time before it comes to market.