Having lots of small VMs running of a large SMP-type of server would kill the budget. Also, some PaaS development such as rPath utilize JeOS (Just Enough O/S) to package and build a VM application appliance and only include required operating system components to create small and nimble VMs. If per VM licensing is the same across the board then you will see if area die out.]]>
Today we pay X$ per processor we license. We buy the biggest and fastest processors so that we can put Y number of guests on that processor. If we do our own math, we can figure out how much we spend on average per VM. While I do not know the number, I do know that in the environment I work in, the dollar amount is not far off.
In some environments we still use bare metal because the price of the hypervisor does not warrant the few number of gusts in that segregated environment.
We also have not put some of the advanced management features into play because we only need them for a few guests.
This new structure may very well be a cost savings and allow us to justify some of the advanced management features for the environments that could benefit from them.
Lets just hope that Virtual Center will have some features to allow us to manage our licenses easily.]]>
It’s upsetting in the sense that much of the ROI for investment over the past few years in new hardware and software has been based on increased consolidation and efficiency to provide the most cost effective VMs possible (in large part by maximizing the return on expensive ESX licensing). If VMware moves to per VM pricing that becomes far less important, almost inconsequential in some of our environments. It will even change our standard hardware platform since we’ve been CPU bound and have always tried to maximize cores/host for co-scheduling and increased ROI.
I will say this however, if it comes to pass it would break down the last barrier to virtualizing high IO or CPU applications for us, since the primary reason for not virtualizing them has been the lack of ROI on the hypervisor expense.
So VMware could potentially pick up licensing revenue on the last 20% of our operating systems, but more likely will end up loosing revenue when we migrate tier 2 and/or 3 environments to cheaper solutions where we don’t need the full feature set VMware provides.]]>
How ‘in theory’ does it give more flexibility?!?!? In the beginning of the year, you have an idea of how many processors/machines are running VMWare. Licensed by processor, you can run as many or few VMs as you wish/need to on that hardware platform. By VM Machine, the projected budget for next year flexes and shrinks as the number of VMs does.
Under an actual business/licensing model that includes annual budgets, this is a HORRENDOUS practice. This makes it easy for IT/Technicians to unintentionally screw those responsible for licensing compliance/budgeting. Good luck in any organization that isn’t completely disciplined…]]>