Vmware Shifts Pricing Strategy

[Red Squirrel]

http://www.networkcomputing.com/virtualiza...ual-machine.php

During the VMworld 2010 conference this week in San Francisco, virtualization software vendor VMware will implement a new pricing structure for its vCenter Server management suite that will be based on the number of virtual machines running on a virtualized server, not on the number of processors on the server. This shift in pricing policy, taking effect Sept. 1, is intended to better align the price of the software license to the value of virtualization technology to a customer. However, the change may cause disruption for some VMware customers who may have to pay more for VMware than they're used to.

The switch in pricing applies only to VMware vCenter, the company explained in a July 13 news release, which includes eight different management software products: vCenter Application Discovery Manager, AppSpeed, Lab Manager, Capacity IQ, Configuration Manager, Site Recovery Manager, vCenter Chargeback and Lifecycle Manager.

The change in pricing is needed because, while virtualization has become the answer to "server sprawl" in data centers, the popularity of virtualization has created a totally new problem of "virtual machine sprawl," said David Floyer, chief technology officer and co-founder of Wikibon.org, a Web site where industry analysts, vendors and customers share information about tech industry issues.

"Doesn't the world change quickly?" Floyer observed. "Virtualization is a victim of its own success."

With virtualization software charged per processor, he said, customers started buying servers with the highest-performing processors available and began loading those host machines with as many virtual machines (VMs) as they could. Individual departments within a company could create VMs without having to budget for the cost of new hardware and without receiving a chargeback from their IT department. Without having to justify the expense of a new server instance, VM sprawl resulted.


(more)


-----------------------



This sucks hardcore. This will screw over so many companies that rely on ESX clusters. So much for Virtualization being a way to save money.

It's funny though, because VMware is pretty much the top of virtualization. They invented it. Now they are starting to suck. The latest vSphere releases have been bloody bloated and slow, now this. Not cool.

At home I use VirtualBox, and while it's not perfect (or meant for server environments) it's free. I will always use free products at home. It's not that I have a problem with paying, it's I have a problem with the way companies just screw around with licensing, or add hidden costs everywhere. (MS is bad for that). Per processor was a good pricing scheme. You buy a server, you pay for a license, once, and you're good. Not anymore....

 

[jeremyshaw]

They have invented a new way to extract more money out of some IT groups...

 

[Roliath]

hmm

 

[NetJunkie]

This sucks hardcore. This will screw over so many companies that rely on ESX clusters. So much for Virtualization being a way to save money.

It's funny though, because VMware is pretty much the top of virtualization. They invented it. Now they are starting to suck. The latest vSphere releases have been bloody bloated and slow, now this. Not cool.

At home I use VirtualBox, and while it's not perfect (or meant for server environments) it's free. I will always use free products at home. It's not that I have a problem with paying, it's I have a problem with the way companies just screw around with licensing, or add hidden costs everywhere. (MS is bad for that). Per processor was a good pricing scheme. You buy a server, you pay for a license, once, and you're good. Not anymore....

It's not as bad as that. It's about the secondary products, not the core hypervisor. For some customers the pricing is better, it just really depends on your density and how the numbers work out. Most people expected this. CPUs are getting faster with way more cores. It actually makes chargeback easier for a lot of companies. Now they know what a single new VM costs them in licensing for some products.

 

[vsboxerboy]

From someone completely on the outside, this seems like it was inevitable. As the number of VMs per CPU goes up over time the revenue of VMware would have to fall unless things changed. Yeah, it sucks but they are a business.

 

[Thuleman]

I think it's unfortunate and will be one more thing customers will remember when the time comes to decide whether to stay with VMware or go with a competitor. As of now there's no real competition if you want everything VMware has to offer, but many shops don't need everything and may think about whether it's time to switch.

VMware has a long history of a "what else are you going to do" stance, but it can't go on forever, at some point there will be a viable competitor and just like the Internet current customers never forget.

 

[NetJunkie]

I think it's unfortunate and will be one more thing customers will remember when the time comes to decide whether to stay with VMware or go with a competitor. As of now there's no real competition if you want everything VMware has to offer, but many shops don't need everything and may think about whether it's time to switch.

VMware has a long history of a "what else are you going to do" stance, but it can't go on forever, at some point there will be a viable competitor and just like the Internet current customers never forget.

Remember. This licensing change isn't for vSphere/ESX. It's for the other vCenter-based apps. No one else has those apps and functionalities. VMware is working out a pricing model for them. But ESX isn't changing.

 

[Thuleman]

That's understood, but that's also what I mean, eventually someone else will create equivalent functionality, it's inevitable.

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's understood, but that's also what I mean, eventually someone else will create equivalent functionality, it's inevitable.

Yep. There already is, but they just don't hold a candle to VMware... yet.

There's Qemu, KVM, Xen etc. I tried KVM I believe, but it was very slow. (took like 5 hours to install windows xp).

What I would love to see if VirtualBox getting in the server market. Their app is more for desktop virtualization, where you always have the VM open, but would be awesome if they did like ESX where it runs in the background, and you just have a client to connect to see all the VMs and pick the one you want to manage and so on. Eventually they might, who knows. Out of the free solutions, this is the best one I've tried.

 

[lopoetve]

It's not as bad as that. It's about the secondary products, not the core hypervisor. For some customers the pricing is better, it just really depends on your density and how the numbers work out. Most people expected this. CPUs are getting faster with way more cores. It actually makes chargeback easier for a lot of companies. Now they know what a single new VM costs them in licensing for some products.

And remember, this is for the add-on products, not for ESX itself.

 

[/dev/null]

Yep. There already is, but they just don't hold a candle to VMware... yet.

There's Qemu, KVM, Xen etc. I tried KVM I believe, but it was very slow. (took like 5 hours to install windows xp).

What I would love to see if VirtualBox getting in the server market. Their app is more for desktop virtualization, where you always have the VM open, but would be awesome if they did like ESX where it runs in the background, and you just have a client to connect to see all the VMs and pick the one you want to manage and so on. Eventually they might, who knows. Out of the free solutions, this is the best one I've tried.

You should try KVM as a part of Proxmox VE. Something was waaaaaaaaaay misconfigured if it took 5 hours to install windows (or you were swapping like crazy). XenServer is a good way to experience Xen as well.

 

[Valnar]

Cisco, Avaya, Microsoft and now VMware - all charge a lot of money for their wares. Its the nature of the business. But none of them hold a candle to Oracle. All of them bow down to the penny pinching machine that is Oracle.

 

[lizardking009]

You should try KVM as a part of Proxmox VE. Something was waaaaaaaaaay misconfigured if it took 5 hours to install windows (or you were swapping like crazy). XenServer is a good way to experience Xen as well.

I have a spare box that I just loaded Proxmox VE on. 2008 R2 and XP both loaded in roughly the same amount of time as on ESXi and Hyper-V on other boxes. I had 2008 R2 natively on the box prior and the VM loaded in the same amount of time.

 

[Red Squirrel]

You should try KVM as a part of Proxmox VE. Something was waaaaaaaaaay misconfigured if it took 5 hours to install windows (or you were swapping like crazy). XenServer is a good way to experience Xen as well.

Yeah I found that odd too... so its not normal then? I may try it again at some point. I liked the simplicity of it, and the fact that VMs run in the background, but you still have a client where you can connect to the server and manage the VMs and view the console. Is there certain processors or configurations it does not like?

 

[lizardking009]

Yeah I found that odd too... so its not normal then? I may try it again at some point. I liked the simplicity of it, and the fact that VMs run in the background, but you still have a client where you can connect to the server and manage the VMs and view the console. Is there certain processors or configurations it does not like?

There's a built in Java VNC client that connects to the console of the VM.

My setup is an Phenom II 1055T on an Asus motherboard, 8gb RAM, 2 Intel SSDs, and 4 2tb drives.

KVM does disable caching or use writethrough caching by default. This is very safe, but slow. You can enable write back caching for more speed.