I took a minute to read the licensing guide for vSphere 5 and I'm still trying to pull my jaw off the floor. VMware has completely screwed their customers this time. Why?
What I used to be able to do with 2 CPU licenses now takes 4. Incredible.
Today
BL460c G7 with 2 sockets and 192G of memory = 2 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
DL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 4 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
Tomorrow
BL460c G7 with 2 sockets and 192G of memory = 4 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
BL585 G7 with 4 sockets and 256G of memory = 6 vSphere Enterprise Plus licenses
So it's almost as if VMware is putting a penalty on density and encouraging users to buy hardware with more sockets rather than less.
I get that the vRAM entitlements are for what you use, not necessarily what you have, but who buys memory and doesn't use it?
Forget the hoopla about a VM with 1 TB of memory. Who in their right mind would deploy that using the new license model? It would take 22 licenses to accommodate! You could go out and buy the physical box for way less than that today, from any hardware vendor.
Anyone else completely shocked by this move?
I think they are still missing the point.
This scheme is trouble in as much as it is overpriced.
In their brave new world if we continue to run VMware, we will run VMs memory constrained and only add memory as a last ditch alternative.
So what should be a modest increase in operational expense for a maintenance price hike becomes a capital expenditure for more licensing. Furthermore, we will now be ordering servers with the minimum amount of RAM and then buying more when the need arises incurring yet more work and less flexibility.
The scheme is the problem almost as much as the price is.
Doubling the RAM now is akin to boiling a frog. Raise the heat a little now and a little more later. Before you know it the frog is boiled, or in the case of VMware, the customer fleeced.
Go back to the drawing board VMware, and beat the person who came up with this hairbrained idea about the head and shoulders with said drawing board.
“Maybe tiered virtualization platforms . . . “
I like that idea – VMWare for Tier 1 production, and ‘other’ cheaper products for our ‘other’ servers.
But I would prefer to keep it all VMWare.
Bob
Bob Eadie
Computer System Manager
Bedford School
Bedford MK40 2TU
01234 362200
'But I would prefer to keep it all VMWare.'
So would I Bob.
I really wish this whole problem would go away and I could go back to beating the drum for vSphere.
-- Bob
BobEadie wrote:
“Maybe tiered virtualization platforms . . . “
I like that idea – VMWare for Tier 1 production, and ‘other’ cheaper products for our ‘other’ servers.
But I would prefer to keep it all VMWare.
I've had other vendors actually suggest that as a sales technique, and for some businesses that might make sense. But then you get into the inevitable situation of having to support two different platforms, so it doesn't work quite as well in practice UNLESS you are planning to switch platforms and are simply starting with non-prod environments.
The other issue is that in larger environments I would be cautious in having dev/test/qa environments running on a different platform than the intended prod environment. If they aren't configured identically then how sure can you be that the behavior (and interaction of device drivers, integration components, etc) is equivalent?
tomaddox wrote:
<snip>
The urgency of considering an alternative virtualization platform has been somewhat reduced, but we will still, in all likelihood, be moving our desktop virtualization initiatives to the Citrix Xen suite to ease our vSphere licensing.
<snip>
That's kinda interesting since the new licensing for View is pretty damn good with the unlimited vRAM license. However, they did screw over existing View customers by not allowing a conversion to the newer model... but people just starting VDI should see a benefit on the new View licensing model.
>However, they did screw over existing View customers by not allowing a conversion to the newer model...
Existing View Bundle customers get the unlimited vRAM, other customers should read up on the licensing changes announced today.
BobEadie wrote:
“Maybe tiered virtualization platforms . . . “
I like that idea – VMWare for Tier 1 production, and ‘other’ cheaper products for our ‘other’ servers.
But I would prefer to keep it all VMWare.
Except that tier 1 applications are usually the ones causing the trouble with vRAM in the first place.
Which licensing changes? Can't seem to find them. VMware's still talking about View 4.5 on it's product pages!
You all owe me a beer!
http://blogs.vmware.com/partner/2011/08/vmware-vsphere-5-licensing-and-pricing-update.html
VMware blinks on vSphere 5 licensing
I'm sorry, but it's not nearly enough. Well, at least I can use the free version for testing. (still a bit low on memory tough) if this is the way VMware is going down. Well, It's been a good run. Thanks for the ride.
If they're going to make me pay for "virtual memory" what will the next be? "Virtual HDD"?
SuperSpike wrote:
You all owe me a beer!
http://blogs.vmware.com/partner/2011/08/vmware-vsphere-5-licensing-and-pricing-update.html
I suggest you go to the URL and post your reaction. They are accepting comments.
My comment to the change.
"Can you please explain why Enterprise is now more expensive than Enterprise Plus, $44.92/GB vs $36.40/GB?
While Standard is still less expensive than Enterprise Plus, $2985/96GB vs $3495/96GB, The difference in features doesn't seem to fit well with the price difference.
I can't understand how VMware came up with the vRAM entitlements when looking at this from a cost vs features viewpoint."
"VSphere 5 licensing changes
Here’s a look at the initial vSphere 5 vRAM entitlements and how they have changed with today’s news:
• VSphere Hypervisor (free ESXi): was 8 GB, now 32 GB
• VSphere 5 Standard, Essentials and Essentials Plus: was 24 GB, now 32 GB
• VSphere 5 Enterprise: was 32 GB, now 64 GB
• VSphere 5 Enterprise Plus: was 48 GB, now 96 GB"
My (small) company is one of those using the free ESXi, and we were really worried about the 8GB cap. 32GB seems a lot better, now.
HOWEVER, I really hope that VMware will adapt those limits at least once per year, given the always increasing need of RAM (and CPU power). This is the only way this vRAM model could work.
Thanks vmware for listening to your customers. Great work everyone for sounding your comments on this board/phone/email.
Although its not the best case scenario. vmware still has to make $$$$$ and hire best people etc.
vSphere 5 here we come.....
I vMotion you a vBeer
cough Standard still 36 GB and still vRAM cough
Yup, I feel betrayed and/or coerced.
I want my 256 GB RAM entitlement as they gave away up till vSphere 4.1
for free because this "free v5 upgrade" is not "free" after all.
48 gigs would have made it a bit "okay, at least they've doubled it"
like the "upper class" customer editions.
I had hoped to see a dual-licensing way "you can have per cores in 6core
increment" (or something like that) and you can have the vRAM sh*t
Bigi wrote:
Although its not the best case scenario. vmware still has to make $$$$$ and hire best people etc.
vSphere 5 here we come.....
Please explain. They are making money under the 4.1 licensing model. They just reported record earnings. This line of reasoning just doesn't hold up.
Just got the email from VMware on the vRAM entitlement refinement.
I pust a summar on my blog site.
Pete
------
I vMotion vSelf to vToilet and take a vDump and then a vNap because I am
vPeeved.
zZzzzZzzz
That did not make sense to stay up for such bad news.
Fantastic news!
Although it won't please everyone (going by the comments), but you have to applaud VMware for acting so quickly, and not being too proud or arrogant and actually listening to their customers.
Nick.