VMware Updates per-CPU Pricing Model

Inacurate

Inacurate

Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
520
Yesterday, VMware announced future updates (begins April 2nd, 2020...why not just choose April Fool's!?) to their pricing model to align with ever increasing core counts on CPUs. Thanks AMD! :)

https://www.vmware.com/company/news/updates/cpu-pricing-model-update-feb-2020.html
The biggest impact is, eventually, going to hit the pockets of those customers whose per-CPU core count is above 32 - based on the 'industry standard' on what defines a CPU.
1580837207923.png


However, if you act now and pay a separate S&H fee...
For the few customers who are currently deploying our software on CPUs with more than 32 cores, or for those that are in the process of purchasing physical servers with more than 32 cores per CPU, we are providing a grace period after the licensing metric change goes into effect on April 2, 2020
Click to expand...

VMware is trying to maintain licensing around the CPU, while also charging their users more for having additional cores.
Feels inherently wrong IMO, but I am looking at this as an outsider, so maybe it's acceptable and just how it works?

Anyone able to provide insight as to why they don't change to a per core model only?
 
...Because VMware is moving to this standard, it is easier for customers to compare software licensing and pricing between VMware ... and other vendors.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure that it's for "ease of comparison" and not to milk the cow. In no case does the amount paid go down, it will either stay the same or go up. <sarcasm> Think of the convenience! </sarcasm>


FAQ sums it up nicely:
Q. Can you help me understand the new model?
A: Under the new model, one CPU license covers up to 32 cores in a single CPU. If the CPU has more than 32 cores, additional CPU licenses are required. Under the previous pricing model no additional licenses were required if a CPU had more than 32 cores.
Click to expand...

^Bold Underline added by me.
 
Inacurate said:
based on the 'industry standard' on what defines a CPU
Click to expand...
I think VMWare just started losing credibility with that statement.
How does a 64 core CPU = 2 CPUs?
I mean it makes more sense to consider Rome as an "8 CPU" CPU than a 2 CPU

I think the "industry standard" is what ACTUALLY defines a CPU. 1 CPU = 1 Socket.
Dual socket = 2 CPUs
Quad socket = 4 CPUs

It would make much more sense to just charge per core if they really want to do that.
 
Sigh. More companies keep pulling this shit. Microsoft did it too. Back in the day they were "A socket is a socket is a socket" and all licensing costs were per socket. Multi-core chips were the same as single core and they leaned on certified vendors to do the same... Now? Oh ya, you'd better believe it is per core.

VMWare has always charged a ton for their stuff, and likes to get you with addons (like charges for more memory, or certain features) so there is no way they aren't doing this to try and make more money.
 
Sycraft said:
Sigh. More companies keep pulling this shit. Microsoft did it too.
Click to expand...

Microsoft went pure batshit crazy though. Going from license per server to per CORE. At least VMWare bundles up to 32 cores, they are still dumb for the changes. MS gives you the finger at 2.
 
Rockenrooster said:
I think VMWare just started losing credibility with that statement.
I think the "industry standard" is what ACTUALLY defines a CPU. 1 CPU = 1 Socket.
Click to expand...

I originally used harsher language as I was drafting my post, but being outside the circle entirely, I was not sure that's a fair statement.

Personally, I am NOT a fan of arbitrary limits - which is what I see VMWare doing here.
Could make a lot of analogies, but I think we all understand the scenarios.

Clearly, they ran the numbers and feel the market, and their revenue/customer base, will bear these changes.

Will be interesting to read what those defending the new policy say, I'm hopeful to see some discussion on that as I'm genuinely curious.
 
IRC we pay around 400K$ to VMware annually just for host licenses, before SRM and vrops , but lets all be honest , they offer you the ability to have the whole data center compute power on a single cabinet , and thats huge, it saves allot of money for enterprises on man-power , electricity, floor space ,equipment,maintenance and more.

you cant blame them when their businesses is getting hurt due to bigger core count (=less hosts needed)
 
unfortunateson said:
Why not just go to the core model rather than changing what a CPU actually means?
Click to expand...

Because they want to still get you for 2 CPUs if you have low core count CPUs.

This move mitigates the effects of high core count cpus on their licensing revenue while still allowing them to charge low core count users the same.

This is shady but well played. They did it early enough that I doubt their will be any real backlash because most users are unaffected. By the time CPUs with more than 32 cores become popular this will be old news and a long standing policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azrak
like this
That_Sound_Guy said:
Microsoft went pure batshit crazy though. Going from license per server to per CORE. At least VMWare bundles up to 32 cores, they are still dumb for the changes. MS gives you the finger at 2.
Click to expand...

Nah, they have 16 core bundles for many products. You have to remember that Microsoft is all over the place with licensing and it is super complicated.
 
Sycraft said:
Nah, they have 16 core bundles for many products. You have to remember that Microsoft is all over the place with licensing and it is super complicated.
Click to expand...
Yeah keeping track of microsoft licensing is quite literally a full time job, which is why it employes licensing experts to tell you what licensing you should be purchasing and in what quantities based on your use case scenarios that you present to them.
 
unfortunateson said:
Why not just go to the core model rather than changing what a CPU actually means?
Click to expand...
They likely will once they redefine their product stack, they will probably start selling Socket licenses, and a single socket license will provide you one socket up to 32 cores, then a core license that provides you and additional number of cores, probably sold in quantities of 8 cores per. What I fear is the eventual time when they stop charging per core and start charging per thread... Because I see it happening where AMD and Intel start subdividing their cores further and 1 physical core becomes 3 or 4 threads, on consumer desktops this wont be a needed thing but servers yeah core count is king.
 
(Adjusts tinfoil hat) So I wonder what Intel offered them to do this.

Seriously though with the demand for servers only increasing I doubt they're doing this because everyone is replacing their current servers with less CPUs that have a higher core count. As such I don't think this can be considered protecting revenue as much as trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie.
 
So I asked by Dell rep about the licensing changes and the prices are going down as a result, so the base license which covers the 32 cores is going down so people only using up to 32 physical cores pay less people who use more pay slightly more but he doesn't have final numbers yet but the goal is to make the entry point more affordable to try to get more people using the paid version not the free one.
 
Lakados said:
So I asked by Dell rep about the licensing changes and the prices are going down as a result, so the base license which covers the 32 cores is going down so people only using up to 32 physical cores pay less people who use more pay slightly more but he doesn't have final numbers yet but the goal is to make the entry point more affordable to try to get more people using the paid version not the free one.
Click to expand...
Wonder how it will apply to the essentials plus kit since that is their entry level "actual vmware" package vs buying separate licenses.
 
Lakados said:
Jokes aren’t jokes unless they are funny. It’s kind of the definition of a joke.
Click to expand...
The point was that VMware is coming like Oracle, especially due to their upcoming ridiculous per-core/socket licensing model.
Obviously they aren't owned by Oracle, and I have no clue how you inferred that out of what I said (which was obviously a joke), and your comments of pointing out VMware's ownership was totally unnecessary and asinine.
 
Red Falcon said:
The point was that VMware is coming like Oracle, especially due to their upcoming ridiculous per-core/socket licensing model.
Obviously they aren't owned by Oracle, and I have no clue how you inferred that out of what I said (which was obviously a joke), and your comments of pointing out VMware's ownership was totally unnecessary and asinine.
Click to expand...
it would be easier to say that VMWare is becoming like the rest of Dell
 
Not sure why anyone is surprised or upset about this. When vmware first came out, cpus were 1 core per physical socket, probably when they developed their licensing model too. Makes sense that over time the licensing would change (maybe it already has a few times). The per vcpu (thread) licensing seems a better way to go, except for the fact that hyperthreading with 2 or possibly 4 threads per core, that the performance of each virtual core (thread) goes down, so that pricing in and of itself would cost more for less performance, even on just a 2-multithreads per core level of multithreading vs no multithreading. Per core does seem the most fair, and have limit on max threads per core that the license covers.

It's expensive but ultimately saves hardware costs and adds to uptime. That's not free.
 
GoodBoy said:
Not sure why anyone is surprised or upset about this. When vmware first came out, cpus were 1 core per physical socket, probably when they developed their licensing model too. Makes sense that over time the licensing would change (maybe it already has a few times). The per vcpu (thread) licensing seems a better way to go, except for the fact that hyperthreading with 2 or possibly 4 threads per core, that the performance of each virtual core (thread) goes down, so that pricing in and of itself would cost more for less performance, even on just a 2-multithreads per core level of multithreading vs no multithreading. Per core does seem the most fair, and have limit on max threads per core that the license covers.

It's expensive but ultimately saves hardware costs and adds to uptime. That's not free.
Click to expand...
Not even that expensive but everybody is licensing per core, VM hosts, software providers, as core counts go up and sockets go down it was bound to happen more and more, give it 5 years and I bet we will see it per thread. Especially if AMD and Intel actually managed to split the cores further so 1 core = 3 or 4 Threads.
 
Yep. They can come out with a per thread cost, based on say current license $/48. So not all the way to 32 hyperthreaded (64) core price efficiency, but close. So we would need a shitton more licenses, but they'd be cheaper. I think it will happen too, as all the CPU vendors can do to increase performance at this point is jam in more cores...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top