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?
>That’s a pretty low oversubscription rate if you consider that back in esx 2.5 the recommendation was 4-5 vcpu’s per Core and with esx 4.1 it was 20-25 vCPU’s per core….
25 vCPUs per core is the max supported *not* a recommendation.
>In, say, a 3 host cluster with dual socket machines with 192 GB RAM each you'd need 12 Standard licenses instead of only 6 now.
I'm not sure what versions you are discussing (re: 12 vs 6) but with vSphere 5 Standard having 32GB per CPU license six licenses will give you 192GB of vRAM to allocate.
The main difference here between Std and Ess/Ess+ is you can purchase additional vRAM entitelements (ie licenses) and add them to your Standard servers but Ess/Ess+ is capped at 6 licenses ie 192GB vRAM.
>If you need more you have to buy (not upgrade but BUY) to vSphere Standard and at least vCenter Foundation which is somewhat more expensive than Essentials Plus.
There *is* an upgrade from Essentials/Ess+ to the advanced versions, ask your reseller (the VMware store listed it for 4.1 but it has not been put back up for 5). I think it was the equivalent of getting 60% of your Ess/Ess+ costs back during tradein.
Abacus ERP Solution requires 4 GB just for its application + win2k8r2
host
Developer system also on win2k8r2 with oracle requires 8 GB for
acceptable performance
Exchange will lovely accept whatever you give although its disk rather
than memory, but memory helps
I pretend (for once) to be slightly ignorant about others, so: Please
just shut up that 4 GB per VM is "norm", 3-4 GB its norm for Windows 7
clients/laptops today so how you'd expect a server VM to be "okay" with
just 4 GB? Software is not going to be better, its going to be more
demanding in terms of resources.
I downsized the DCs because oh well the graph told me only 300 are
really used and the file cache uses the remaining 1.7 GB.
Collection of RUNNING VMs (configured memory prefixed)
2 Win-DC1
2 Win-DC2
2 Win-DC3
4 Win-DFSRoot and Print
4 Win-DFSMemberA
4 Win-DFSMemberB
4 Win-DFSMemberC
3 Win-AVSolutionUpdater and Win-SUS
4 Win-AVSoltuionManager and Reporting and CentralQuarantine for that
matter (wanted dedicated instance)
8 Win-ExchangeBackend
4 Win-ExchangeFrontend
4 Win-LiveCommonRoles
3 Win-BlackberryES
8 Win-AbacusERP
1 Unx-WebServer
1 Unx-SqlServer
1 Unx-TestWeb
1 Unx-TestSql
2 Unx-AntiSpam
3 Unx-Proxy/AV/AS/IDS pre-screening
2 Unx-GuestCifsShares
8 Win-Devel01-Oracle-11
8 Win-Devel02-MsSql-08
8 Win-Devel03-Oracle-10
8 Win-Devel04-MsSql-05
8 Win-Test01-Oracle-11
8 Win-Test02-MsSql-08
8 Win-Test03-Oracle-10
8 Win-Test04-MsSql-05
should be 131 GB on TWO hosts not counting failovers and allocation
overhad.
CPU is like all time low at 20 - 30 percent except backup times for
those machines not being done with SAN snapshots.
oh yes - standard licenses so 2x32 GB per host. so we would be at
maximum if we'd use vSphere 5 today. Agreed Enterprise would double this
amount but also double costs and be a bad buying decision since no
really good features are on this level that we require.
the list is non final but should get everyone a heads-up what a "small"
software company can look like if they care for good isolation. failover
systems NOT included. sharepoint and other crap not yet in operation NOT
included.
and then you have all those freshly splitted up for their own purpose
systems (av, spam, whatever) with server core and no big swap file not
taking up all that disk but guess what - MEMORY
Seriously, people and the companies behind all those admins in here are
not that "special". We may have (rightfully) gotten used to features we
were given access to. Now we're the bastards for over-using them or
what?!
I had two or three talks with support on the phone from a +31 number
which awfully looks like its the Salesforce people from the netherlands
that currently handle my 2nd-level support case. They cry foul over
this, but cannot get to VMware, because VMware still thinks "ah those 5%
get lost and shut the f. up" and don't listen enough.
I'm sick and tired of explaining our situation to thread newbs or
salesforce dummies. I want VMware to suck up the disgrace and apologize
for the time their PAYING and loyal customers wasted.
>In, say, a 3 host cluster with dual socket machines with 192 GB RAM each you'd need 12 Standard licenses instead of only 6 now.
I'm not sure what versions you are discussing (re: 12 vs 6) but with vSphere 5 Standard having 32GB per CPU license six licenses will give you 192GB of vRAM to allocate.
The main difference here between Std and Ess/Ess+ is you can purchase additional vRAM entitelements (ie licenses) and add them to your Standard servers but Ess/Ess+ is capped at 6 licenses ie 192GB vRAM.
3 hosts with 192 GB EACHE in a n + 1 config means 384 GB usable RAM and that's 12 Standard licences.
I asked for an upgrade at our distri and they said no upgrade. Buy new. VMware is in financial trouble you see 😕
> so we would be at maximum if we'd use vSphere 5 today.
So the new licensing doesn't currently affect you, making you not part of the 5%.
>Agreed Enterprise would double this amount but also double costs
You don't need Enterprise, you need to downgrade to Essentials Plus where you'll pick up VDR and 60GB of vRAM, plus the ability to use another host.
If you love Standard, just buy another Standard license when you need to power up one more VM >1GB and have it on for more than a month.
Other than that, discuss your concerns with VMware - remember these are not hard limits and are rolling average high-water marks. The downside to exceeding is if VMware decides to sue over your usage or denies support - both of which would be relieved by discussing it with VMware first.
> 3 hosts with 192 GB EACHE in a n + 1 config means 384 GB usable RAM and that's 12 Standard licences
ok, I'm with you now.
Show your distributor page 9 of http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf
When Ess/Ess+ came out there was no upgrade but that was at least fixed with 4.1 if not before and you can certainly upgrade with 5
Joshua Andrews wrote:
> so we would be at maximum if we'd use vSphere 5 today.
So the new licensing doesn't currently affect you, making you not part of the 5%.
>Agreed Enterprise would double this amount but also double costs
You don't need Enterprise, you need to downgrade to Essentials Plus where you'll pick up VDR and 60GB of vRAM, plus the ability to use another host.
If you love Standard, just buy another Standard license when you need to power up one more VM >1GB and have it on for more than a month.
Other than that, discuss your concerns with VMware - remember these are not hard limits and are rolling average high-water marks. The downside to exceeding is if VMware decides to sue over your usage or denies support - both of which would be relieved by discussing it with VMware first.
1. If he's at maximum now he does have a serious problem: no room for growth.
2. You say "just" buy more stuff. You're obiously never confronted with something called a "budget" or long term planning. For someone who designed a datacenter earlier this year the new licensing may be a cold shower. From 256/256/unlimited GB real RAM per host to 64/128/192 GB vRAM per host rather sucks don't you think?
3. There's no discussing with VMware about this. They play mum. We're angry, our distri is angry and VMware says nothing or tries to didge the issue (fat chance at that). The new licensing is the way it is and the local VMware people either don't know what the future will bring or they can't tell. At VMworld Europe I've talked to several people about this and "unhappy" would be an understatement when describing their feelings about licensing. VMware people I approached about this beamed at me (sales types) or suddenly had other pressing matters (non-sales/smart people).
Joshua Andrews wrote:
> 3 hosts with 192 GB EACHE in a n + 1 config means 384 GB usable RAM and that's 12 Standard licences
ok, I'm with you now.
Show your distributor page 9 of http://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/vsphere_pricing.pdf
When Ess/Ess+ came out there was no upgrade but that was at least fixed with 4.1 if not before and you can certainly upgrade with 5
Thanks I'll show them this pdf.
Still, going from Essentials Plus to Standard + vCenter Foundation or vCenter Standard is a considerable cost considering Standard offers no features over Essentials Plus.
Note that you can only upgrade to the Acceleration Kits. Standard AK will remove VDR but add the ability to increase your vRAM allocation and manage an additional host.
Advanced will... opps, nope that's been eliminated. Enterprise will double vRAM and add cool features like DRS/DPM, FT, Storage vMotion and VAAI.
What's wrong with staying with 4.1 if 5 doesn't offer features justifying the cost increase?
Windows Server 8 support?
Do you think many people upgrade because of super cool new features?
NO its because you get support for some OS and usually faster bugfixes in the newest release line.
It may work on 4.1 but when and how?
This is just one example.
And btw, we came from vi3 with sns
This message is intended only for the individual named. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is forbidden. The sender does not accept liability for errors or omissions.
hmtk1976 wrote:
3. There's no discussing with VMware about this. They play mum. We're angry, our distri is angry and VMware says nothing or tries to didge the issue (fat chance at that). The new licensing is the way it is and the local VMware people either don't know what the future will bring or they can't tell. At VMworld Europe I've talked to several people about this and "unhappy" would be an understatement when describing their feelings about licensing. VMware people I approached about this beamed at me (sales types) or suddenly had other pressing matters (non-sales/smart people).
This. Actually, I'll do you one better: our sales guy has tried to sell the new licensing structure as a benefit, using some twisted sales guy logic about it making our licensing simpler in some fashion. I basically told him never to try that approach with me again on the grounds that I am not, in fact, completely stupid.
VMware's ham-fisted approach to customer interaction around this licensing change is at least half the reason people are so angry, but I suppose there's not much else for VMware to say beyond "grab your ankles."
20thCB wrote:
vSphere 5.0 licensing won't affect a lot of companies.
Enterprise licensing allows 64GB VRAM per CPU. An average server these days has 2 cpus and 6 cores each. So that's 128GB of VRAM and 12 cores. I would probably only run maybe 10 VMs on the host anyway. Most of them use 4GB or less of VRAM. So that's 40GB maximum.
So the move from 3.5 to 5.0 has cost us nothing in extra licensing as we already had 3.5 enterprise. Many companies will be in the same boat.
I'm not sure what your point is. The complaints are coming, obviously, from people who either are affected now or anticipate being affected within the foreseeable future.
To DSTAVERT and all the other contributors that have been trying to water down the flame of disgust and outrage levied towards VMware. To those same individuals who have also been extolling the new features and virtues of vSphere 5 and feverishly attempting to "oversell" the new premise. To you I say wake the heck up and listen to what's being said in this forum and it's being said with dogged intent to follow through.
We are not idiots or rookies and time and tide has weeded out incompetence. We actually work in the field where we are required to be knowledgeable about the tools, software and systems that we purchase and use to run the datacenters that serve our customers.
1) We deal with software vendors that place requirements upon us as we design systems, provide configuration specifications for the hardware and in the end install their product that we pay a hefty amount for support for.
2) Binding support for these software packages is based upon us not modifying their software nor changing the "Vendor Specified Environment" that their software is designed to function correctly and satisfactorily in.
Case in point: If the vendor states that their product will perform like a dream based upon the providing of processors that meet or exceed specifications, a set amount of RAM that meets or exceeds requirements and storage that will not only house what is needed to get the system up and running but will take into consideration future growth then we are contractually bound to provide that environment.
Now let’s examine what you VMware virtuosos have been suggesting about trimming back unused RAM. If I'm not mistaken that would require us to knowingly violate our legal and binding contract with said vendor by ill advisedly modifying the agreed upon physical or virtual operating environment that was signed off on by the vendor. The same environment that certified we were well within vendor specifications and which determined that we were supportable.
Should we modify that environment, based on your recommendations, and it develops a problem or the system malfunctions or at worst crashes where will VMware be in this scenario other than on the sideline clicking their tongues and shaking their heads stating how much of a shame that is while we would be up the creek without a paddle.
I ask you how much of the financial tab will VMware be willing to pick up due to their "undocumented recommendation" in this situation?????
As you see we are not assigning RAM or CPU in a willy-nilly fashion or making that decision by throwing darts at a dart board. Our decisions are based upon not only years of experience and proof of concept documentation but by legally binding agreements with software vendors as well.
We respect you enough to be honest with you and let you know that you will lose us as customers. Why can't you reciprocate that same respect for us in your commentary submitted in this forum? VMware has dropped the ball on this one and with it our confidence as well.
Joshua Andrews wrote:
Note that you can only upgrade to the Acceleration Kits. Standard AK will remove VDR but add the ability to increase your vRAM allocation and manage an additional host.
Advanced will... opps, nope that's been eliminated. Enterprise will double vRAM and add cool features like DRS/DPM, FT, Storage vMotion and VAAI.
What's wrong with staying with 4.1 if 5 doesn't offer features justifying the cost increase?
Like ClueShell said, Windows 8 support. And according to VMware my View environment will work better with View 5 + vSphere 5 than on the current View 4.5 + vSphere 4.1 Maybe with the next licensing change there will be NO GUEST OS SUPPORT which will become an extra "feature" to buy.
VMware sales person: "You want to run Windows Server VM's on x number of Enterprise CPU's? taptaptap ... That's x gazillion of €* + SnS and ALL TO YOUR BENEFIT!"
Customer starts looking for implement to cause blunt trauma...
For customers not interested in the features Enterprise offers your argument is meaningless. They could use 256 GB per host and oversubscribe RAM. Now they can use 64 GB allocated .
OT: instead of wasting money on an EPIC FAIL like the VSA VMware should have bought some common sense.
* yes € so you get shafted twice
This is not serious. Now we have 256 GB of RAM (and RAM became cheaper every year), then we will have 128GB of vRAM, no affect, yep? Of course no affect - just will not go with VMware 5. Only those who don't see an options (stay with 4.1 or use XEN or use other solutions) will go to the Vmware 5. Or those who do not count money at all.
Maximum TODAY means that whe CAN'T use Vmware 5 at all. The acceptable margin is 'we are at 40% of capacity today', not more.
In reality I can purhcase extra ESS license and split ESS cluster on 2 (one with 1 host and 1 with 2 hosts) and so double capacity but this all are just a hacks - essentially Essential license became 100% useless in Vmware 5.
aroudnev wrote:
In reality I can purhcase extra ESS license and split ESS cluster on 2 (one with 1 host and 1 with 2 hosts) and so double capacity but this all are just a hacks - essentially Essential license became 100% useless in Vmware 5.
Now that's more than a little exaggerated. While 192 GB vRAM is far less than 512 GB real RAM in 5.0 vs 4.1 Essentials (Plus) is still a viable product for small companies. You can still run a couple dozen VM's on that.
Is it A JOKE?
Average ## of VM-s on host is 15 - 30 except in heavy production (10 - 12 in production); average 1 host vRAM is about 4 - 16 GB. What these sales are talking about??? Are we an idiots? And this is NOW; what it will be in 1 year??
VM sales, please, don't count us as an idiots. Transition from Vmware 4 to Vmware5 means approx 2x - 8x degradation in system capacity, POINT. We have 256 GB of RAM vs 64 GB of vRAM on Standard (and 256 GB vs 32 on FREE), so even if oversubscription is zero degradation is 4x - 8x. No one in the entire space can prove opposite.
>essentially Essential license became 100% useless in Vmware 5.
I have no idea how you can reach that conclusion. Ess/Ess+ is intended for the SMB space with 20-30VMs.
Run Exchange (12GB) SQL (12GB) and 28 other 6GB VMs and you're set. Most of the SMB customers I deal with have 10-15 VMs with ~64GB of vRAM configured and can't fathom using 192GB.
>Transition from Vmware 4 to Vmware5 means approx 2x - 8x degradation in system capacity,
only in regards to allocated vRAM
Assuming 2-CPU licensing:
Ess/Ess+/Standard 256 > 64GB = 4x degradation
Enterprise 256 > 128GB = 2x degradation
Ent+ 1TB >192 = 5.3x degradation
Cores:
Ess/Ess+/Standard/Enterprise 6 cores -> unlimited
Enterprise+ -> 12 cores -> unlimited
NFS shares:
64 > 256
VM capacity
Ess/Ess+/Std/Ent 4 vCPU -> 8 vCPU
Ent+ 8 vCPU -> 32 vCPU
IOPS:
v4.1 300,000 -> v5 1,000,000
etc
etc