vSphere 5 Licensing

[SuperSpike]

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?

[kcucadmin]

sergeadam wrote:

How about keping thing even simpler.

Licensing sokets made sense  few years ago when server CPUs were mostly quad cores. It doesn't anymore. How about we just move to a straight core license? Let me put whatever number of CPUs in my server, license the number of pCores. If I put a single 8 core or twin quads, in a server, I pay the same, for the same potential workload. And leave RAM alone. Period.

It's simple. It's easy to explain and budget. It pretty effectively licenses workload. I would not even mind increases in new licenses and SnS over time as core power increases.

I agree.  convert existing socket licenses to a 4 core / 6 core License based on Edition and move on from there.  Why not 12 core? cause i do see vmware's point.  with a 12 core processor you are getting the bennifit of 3 old quad sockets.

i agree work out the details, stick to "PROCESSOR" leave RAM alone.  as it is developers are alraedy so sloppy with code, apps are SO bloated today it's stupid.  dont make me PAY for someone elses poor design.

[kcucadmin]

oh well, it's probably to late now, they are on this path, and stuck on it.  No way they reverse, that would admit that they made a colossal mistake.  You dont get paid huge bonuses by making colossal mistakes.  better to drive the company into the ground and leave just before it get's really bad.

[sergeadam]

Robert Samples wrote:

sergeadam wrote:

How about keping thing even simpler.

Licensing sokets made sense  few years ago when server CPUs were mostly quad cores. It doesn't anymore. How about we just move to a straight core license? Let me put whatever number of CPUs in my server, license the number of pCores. If I put a single 8 core or twin quads, in a server, I pay the same, for the same potential workload. And leave RAM alone. Period.

It's simple. It's easy to explain and budget. It pretty effectively licenses workload. I would not even mind increases in new licenses and SnS over time as core power increases.

I agree.  convert existing socket licenses to a 4 core / 6 core License based on Edition and move on from there.  Why not 12 core? cause i do see vmware's point.  with a 12 core processor you are getting the bennifit of 3 old quad sockets.

i agree work out the details, stick to "PROCESSOR" leave RAM alone.  as it is developers are alraedy so sloppy with code, apps are SO bloated today it's stupid.  dont make me PAY for someone elses poor design.

I disagree. remove the core limit on edition. Edition license pricing should be based on needed features. licenses just cores. A single server loaded with 2 6 cores or a single 12 cores requires the same number of licenses because it can handle the same workload.

[tomaddox]

tuensel2k wrote:

Is it possible in vSphere 5 to use different vRAM Pools in one Cluster?

As an example Cluster of 8 Hosts 4 Hosts are using an Enterprise Plus vRAM Pool, 2 Host are using an Enterprise vRAM Pool and the remainign 2 Hosts use a Standard vRAM Pool.

Or do i have to create 3 different Clusters for this scenario?

Apparently it is possible. There's a blog post linked elsewhere in this thread that explains it.

[tomaddox]

sergeadam wrote:

Licensing sokets made sense  few years ago when server CPUs were mostly quad cores. It doesn't anymore. How about we just move to a straight core license? Let me put whatever number of CPUs in my server, license the number of pCores. If I put a single 8 core or twin quads, in a server, I pay the same, for the same potential workload. And leave RAM alone. Period.

It's simple. It's easy to explain and budget. It pretty effectively licenses workload. I would not even mind increases in new licenses and SnS over time as core power increases.

This. I would support a license based on # of cores. For example, as an Enterprise Plus customer, I was limited to 12 cores per CPU, which is what I've just deployed. If I need to increase my license count to include upcoming >12-core CPUs, so be it. At least the licensing would be reasonably compatible with what we've come to expect. The vRAM model is needlessly complex and punitive to customers seeking a high consolidation ratio.

[kcucadmin]

sergeadam wrote:

I disagree. remove the core limit on edition. Edition license pricing should be based on needed features. licenses just cores. A single server loaded with 2 6 cores or a single 12 cores requires the same number of licenses because it can handle the same workload.

I was saying during the conversion of existing licensing to a "FLAT" Core license.  I could see where VMWare would hesitate to convert a Essentials/Standard License to a 12 core license... is all i was trying to account for.

i would agree, let "Features" Determine the license Level.  However, I could see where VMWare would want to offer incentives/value for enterprise/+ license by allowing for a higher core count over say standard/Essentials Licenses.

Essentials was a way to allow SMB to enjoy the higher "Feature Set" yet still limiting their consolidation ratios to a degree.  There needs to be some point that vmware can entice a customer to upgrade from Essentials to full blown Enterprise/+.  not sure a 3 HOST limitation would be sufficient with dense core counts.

[sergeadam]

Robert Samples wrote:

sergeadam wrote:

I disagree. remove the core limit on edition. Edition license pricing should be based on needed features. licenses just cores. A single server loaded with 2 6 cores or a single 12 cores requires the same number of licenses because it can handle the same workload.

I was saying during the conversion of existing licensing to a "FLAT" Core license.  I could see where VMWare would hesitate to convert a Essentials/Standard License to a 12 core license... is all i was trying to account for.

i would agree, let "Features" Determine the license Level.  However, I could see where VMWare would want to offer incentives/value for enterprise/+ license by allowing for a higher core count over say standard/Essentials Licenses.

Essentials was a way to allow SMB to enjoy the higher "Feature Set" yet still limiting their consolidation ratios to a degree.  There needs to be some point that vmware can entice a customer to upgrade from Essentials to full blown Enterprise/+.  not sure a 3 HOST limitation would be sufficient with dense core counts.

Feature sets may be.

Or even simpler, drop the levels.

License hosts per cores.

License vCentre per server

License features per vCentre. Individually, or as bundles.

[sliptrap]

scowse wrote:

There is truth in that article from Eric.

"...VMware had to do something. Otherwise, the massive scale-up potential for servers would result in fewer hosts with fewer sockets -- and fewer licensing dollars for VMware."

Like I and many others have stated before we dont disagree with the new model, we disagree with the ludicrous entitlement amounts. Had they implemented this model and limitations 3 or 4 years ago it would have made sense but not today.

[Rumple]

I would also agree on a Per core pricing model…make the existing price be ~$600/core for enterprise features (that’s $3495/6 cores as an average starting price).

6 Cores are about the average socket/core count now so divide existing pricing based on this….

Leave everyone on S&S alone…new purchases follow the new core model…all pricing concerns go away…

When I purchase a new piece of hardware and I want 4 socket 12 cores with 1TB of RAM…well, I better budget for it when I buy it…

[rjb2]

From what I can tell, the new licensing has taken the focus completely off the Features of the software and placed it squarely on the vRAM.

[TysonL201110141]

The problem with per core licensing is that AMD CPUs have twice the cores as Intel CPUs. So clusters that are using AMD CPUs in their servers would pay twice as much for licensing for no additional compute power (since AMD and Intel CPUs are roughly equivilent).

[rjb2]

Robert Samples wrote:

oh well, it's probably to late now, they are on this path, and stuck on it.  No way they reverse, that would admit that they made a colossal mistake.  You dont get paid huge bonuses by making colossal mistakes.  better to drive the company into the ground and leave just before it get's really bad.

I would also think that it is probably too late for any sort of radical change, such as going to licensing by cores. They have surely put a lot of resources into the new model, including development cycles. A more likely change would be increasing the entitlements, or offering a more logical way of adding more vRAM than buying more CPU licenses. Preferably, the "right thing" would be a combination of these two things.

[Rumple]

So you are stating that per core, an AMD Processor provides ½ as many CPU computing resoruces as an equivalent Intel Server?

I would think AMD would argue with that statement…

In reality, a AMD 6 core and INTEL 6 Core should provide equivalent CPU cycles and computing resources…if AMD 12 core = Intel 6 Core…then the obvious choice is to purchase Intel because it may be marginally more expensive then AMD..the licensing cost savings would balance it out.

If an AMD 12 core is 2x as much computing resources, then purchase ½ the sockets to keep licensing in line with Intel…or just License all the cores and bask in the glory that is the holy grail of power….

[tomaddox]

rjb2 wrote:

From what I can tell, the new licensing has taken the focus completely off the Features of the software and placed it squarely on the vRAM.

There are new features?

[tomaddox]

TysonL wrote:

The problem with per core licensing is that AMD CPUs have twice the cores as Intel CPUs. So clusters that are using AMD CPUs in their servers would pay twice as much for licensing for no additional compute power (since AMD and Intel CPUs are roughly equivilent).

Er, no. With AMD, you get double the physical compute cores, which probably equates to 40-60% greater performance than existing HyperThreaded Xeons or almost double the performance with HT turned off. Also, the latest AMD blades we bought were about half the cost of the equivalent Xeon-based blades and we were able to pack in a third more RAM.

[johndennis]

LOL!  I just received my first message from a VMware competitor (whose name I won't mention because this thread is not about that).  The subject was:

Create a vTax Shelter

And it went on to say:

VMware recently announced the vSphere 5, with a new licensing model based on the total memory of your vSphere environment (vRAM). This change in licensing will lead to much higher costs--as much as two to three times more when moving from vSphere 4 to vSphere5.

Come on VMware-Get off your posteriors and do something before it's too late!  Your competition smells blood and is circling...

[tomaddox]

rjb2 wrote:

I would also think that it is probably too late for any sort of radical change, such as going to licensing by cores. They have surely put a lot of resources into the new model, including development cycles. A more likely change would be increasing the entitlements, or offering a more logical way of adding more vRAM than buying more CPU licenses. Preferably, the "right thing" would be a combination of these two things.

I don't see that this is true at all. It's probably a pretty minor code change in vCenter, and, since vSphere 5 is not available to download yet, they can make the changes without even having to release a patch or update. Now is very much the time for VMware to fix this Charlie Foxtrot.

[TysonL201110141]

Mark Hodges wrote:

So you are stating that per core,  an AMD Processor provides ½ as many CPU computing resoruces as an equivalent Intel Server?

I would think AMD would argue with that statement…

In reality, a AMD 6 core and INTEL 6 Core should provide equivalent CPU cycles and computing resources…if AMD 12 core = Intel 6 Core…then the obvious choice is to purchase Intel because it may be marginally more expensive then AMD..the licensing cost savings would balance it out.

If an AMD 12 core is 2x as much computing resources, then purchase ½ the sockets to keep licensing in line with Intel…or just License all the cores and bask in the glory that is the holy grail of power….

Yes, that is what I'm saying. While I haven't put them through their paces myself CPU reviews have implied that Intel cores are roughly twice as powerful as AMD cores.

I of course could be wrong since I haven't done the testing myself.

[Rubeck]

I'll chip in also just to say that this licensing thingy was really a punch in my face when reading it... Being a long time ESX fan, that really made me sad. 

I don't really care if this will hurt a single 0,1% only of the VMware customers, but this is IMO a 0,1% to many of them....! Doing a bomb drop like this on paying SnS customers wallets was not what I would expect from VMware... But hey, we all live to learn new stuff and to be reminded of money rules the world...

Even that we as a customer are not being effected by this, which is pure luck, I'll repeat what I've said in the danish forum: "Paul, take your new licensing policy and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, please"

I'm out...

/Rubeck

[jmounts]

TysonL wrote:

Mark Hodges wrote:

So you are stating that per core,  an AMD Processor provides ½ as many CPU computing resoruces as an equivalent Intel Server?

I would think AMD would argue with that statement…

In reality, a AMD 6 core and INTEL 6 Core should provide equivalent CPU cycles and computing resources…if AMD 12 core = Intel 6 Core…then the obvious choice is to purchase Intel because it may be marginally more expensive then AMD..the licensing cost savings would balance it out.

If an AMD 12 core is 2x as much computing resources, then purchase ½ the sockets to keep licensing in line with Intel…or just License all the cores and bask in the glory that is the holy grail of power….

Yes, that is what I'm saying. While I haven't put them through their paces myself CPU reviews have implied that Intel cores are roughly twice as powerful as AMD cores.

I of course could be wrong since I haven't done the testing myself.

This is 100% true.

If you use esxtop's Cpu %rdy as an indicator, then you can see for yourself.

If I take 2 8way SMP VM's on a single dualsocket quad core system(8 cores), the AMD's %rdy goes through the roof, while the Intel's does not.

Intel does multithreading alot better then AMD does.

and the systems im comparing are a 2950 and a r805 both with 32gigs of ram.