Decoding the new Broadcom VMware vSphere Licensing Packages (for Small Deployments)


Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Way back in December (really, it was only 4 weeks ago ?!?), I posted on my personal blog about the Broadcom acquisition of VMware, and how they were ending all of the current perpetual licensing and moving everything to subscription licensing. However, there were many, many questions, and FUD about the changes and what this would mean for licensing VMware products going forward. After many conversations with VMware, reviews of presentations VMware provided to partners and distributors and reading of FAQ's, I finally have an understanding of just what direction exactly VMware is going with their licensing and how it applies to the end user clients. Please note that this is more oriented towards the newly announced vSphere Foundation subscription and it's smaller siblings, vSphere Standard and vSphere Essentials Plus Kit subscriptions which are more oriented to the SMB space. And to be up-front, I'm not really going to talk about vSphere Foundation as that's really the replacement to Enterprise Plus, and not the space that I work in.

 

vSphere Subscription Packages and Pricing

 

First of all, what do you get with each Edition? And what features are included in each edition? I'll answer the last question first. As far as I know, the features within vSphere Standard and vSphere Essentials Plus are not changing. For example, Essentials Plus still includes vMotion, and Standard still includes Storage vMotion, etc. Second, what is this thing priced at?

 

Package Per Core MSRP Licenses Included/Notes
vSphere Cloud Foundation $350 vSphere Enterprise Plus, vSAN Enterprise, Aria Suite Enterprise, NSX Networking for VCF, HCX Enterprise, Aria Operations for Networks Enterprise, SDDC Manager
vSAN Enterprise 1 TiB free per-core licensed to be included in vSphere Cloud Foundation software release
vSphere Foundation $135 vSphere Enterprise Plus, vCenter Server Standard, Tanzu Kubernetes Grid, Aria Suite Standard, available Add-On's
vSAN Enterprise 100GiB free per-core licensed to be included in vSphere Foundation software release
vSphere Standard $50 vSphere Standard, vCenter Server Standard
vSphere Essentials Plus Kit $35 vSphere Essentials Plus, vCenter Server Essentials
*sold per 96-core kit, maximum of 3 hosts

vSphere Subscription Licenses included per License Package

 

And now for some context. The pricing listed above is 3-year ACV. I missed the ACV, and actually had to look that up after it was explained to me by our distributors. This pricing is the "Annual Contract Value". Meaning, if the contract is for 3 years for $35/core, the annual pricing is $35, but the overall contract amount will be $105/core. Note that there are 1, 3 and 5 year terms available and your price per core can vary between them.

 

Also note that there is now a 16-core minimum license per-processor as well, meaning that even if your single-socket server has 12 cores, you're going to need to pay for 16 cores. Of course, if your processor has more than 16 cores, or if you have dual (or even quad sockets, you're going to have to pay more. This falls in line with how Microsoft licenses Windows Server with a 16-core minimum, so those familiar with Windows licensing should be pretty comfortable with this.

EDIT:  I mistakenly posted there is a 16-core minimum per server, but @jon_may noted that it’s actually listed as 16-cores per processor, so if you have a two 8-core proc’s in your server, you actually need to buy 32 cores.  I’ll reach back out for further clarification on this.

 

See that asterisk and note on the Essentials Plus Kit licensing? While vSphere Foundation and vSphere Standard are sold per-core, Essentials Plus Kit's are sold only as a 96-core kit. This means that if you have a small environment like many of my clients do using 2 (or 3) hosts with a single 16-core processor, you're still going to need to pay for the 96-core kit when using Essentials Plus. This actually makes Essentials Plus more expensive than vSphere Standard where you license what you need. So, to make that a bit easier to understand, below are a few scenarios I came up with that I find to be more common in the SMB space.

 

vSphere Subscription Licensing Scenarios

 

Host/Core Count vSphere Package Total Cores MSRP vSphere Package
(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Essentials Plus 32 $10,080 3-Year Term, Licensed as a 96-Core Kit
(3) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Essentials Plus 48 $10,080 3-Year Term, Licensed as a 96-Core Kit
(3) Hosts, 32 Total Cores per Host vSphere Essentials Plus 96 $10,080 3-Year Term, Licensed as a 96-Core Kit
(1) Host, 16 Total Cores (or less) vSphere Standard 16 $2,400 3-Year Term, Standalone Host
(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Standard 32 $4,800 3-Year Term
(2) Hosts, 24 Total Cores per Host vSphere Standard 48 $7,200 3-Year Term
(3) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Standard 48 $7,200 3-Year Term
(3) Hosts, 24 Total Cores per Host vSphere Standard 72 $10,800 3-Year Term
(3) Hosts, 32 Total Cores per Host vSphere Standard 96 $14,400 3-Year Term
(4) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Standard 64 $9,600 3-Year Term
(5) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Standard 80 $12,000 3-Year Term
(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Foundation 32 $12,960 3-Year Term
(3) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Foundation 48 $19,440 3-Year Term
(3) Hosts, 32 Total Cores per Host (or less) vSphere Foundation 96 $38,880 3-Year Term

vSphere Subscription Licensing Scenarios for Small Deployments

 

As a brief summary of the above table, if you are a small or medium sized business and have a small server footprint running your virtual environment, you'll find that vSphere standard may fit the bill better than Essentials Plus. If you running single-socket hosts, or are running a less than a total of 24 cores per host, it's going to be to your advantage to license the more feature-rich and pay less than the cost of the Essentials Plus Kit. However, if you're running with a higher core count or multiple processors, and are utilizing up to 3 hosts, Essentials Plus Kit's do have a space in which they'll cost less than the Standard licenses, assuming that you don't need the additional features included in the vSphere ESXI Standard licenses. If you're in the larger Enterprise Plus space, vSphere Foundation includes some great features including some vSAN licensing included, and this pricing may be lower than you're currently paying for Enterprise Plus, but you already know it's going to still be more than pretty much any of the variations of the Essentials Plus and Standard licensing.

 

vSphere Perpetual to Subscription Migrations

 

I should note that pretty much all of this pricing applies to more of the greenfield territory where you're purchasing licensing for the first time. If you already have vSphere licensing in place, and you're using Essentials or Essentials Plus licensing, your VMware costs are almost certainly going to rise over what you may have been paying already for SnS (Software & Support) renewals although it should also be noted that VMware has listed that there will be "Attractive pricing for customers migrating from perpetual licenses". I don't have any details on what the cost will be to migrate from existing perpetual licenses, but hopefully that will help alleviate the sting, at least a little bit, for those using Essentials and Essentials Plus kits currently.

 

So What Does this Mean to Me?

 

This should come to no surprise, but usually moves like this are to increase revenue. Mean, expect pricing to go up. While Broadcom is touting lower prices for their Enterprise (VMware Cloud Foundation and VMware vSphere Foundation), pricing is certainly going up for smaller business with light-weight deployments. If you're greenfield, this isn't as noticable, but if you're already a VMware customer, and you're utilizing the vSphere Essentials or Essentials Plus licensing, expect to pay a lot more at renewal time. With that said, there's been a lot of discussion in the community around VMware alternatives. Many of the alternatives discussed are enterprise-ready products such as Microsoft Hyper-V and Nutanix AHV (which is built on-top of RedHat KVM). However, there's also discussion around other, generally open-source products that haven't quite hit their enterprise stride yet, but have great potential, including Proxmox, also based on KVM, and XCP-NG which has it's roots born in Citrix XenServer when Citrix discontinued in-house development and open-sourced the project. While I'm not sure that either option has hit the main-stream for enterprises, small deployments such as homelab's and some small businesses are beginning to utilize these hypervisors, and are continuing to to develop their features and functionality. While I don't think they surpass how "well-baked" vSphere is, should Broadcom not continue the development into these products, I feel that these less common alternatives will gain more of the market share.

As posted on my personal blog

 


44 comments

Userlevel 7
Badge +17

Good summary Derek!

We just renewed ours in Aug. I don’t like subscription licensing personally. VMW tried their darndest to get us on it, and I was like NO WAY!

I like socket-based; even with Veeam. Main reason I don’t like VMware’s subscription-based licensing is two-fold - 1. I get more ‘bang for my buck’ with sockets; 2. cost → 2-fold increased cost here, at least for SMBs. a. is as I stated..less VM density allowed w/out sockets; b. you are *forced* to renew support each yr. For the past 11yrs here at my org, I’ve used VMW support 4x...and maybe twice in 1yr. In other words, we don’t purchase it cuz we don’t need it. Generally, my boss and I can handle most issues. Also, we are not quick to upgrade to new versions, so I let all those quirks get worked out by others 🤪 As you stated tho...it’s all about the “cha-ching” 💵 💵

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Good summary Derek!

We just renewed ours in Aug. I don’t like subscription licensing personally. VMW tried their darndest to get us on it, and I was like NO WAY!

I like socket-based; even with Veeam. Main reason I don’t like VMware’s subscription-based licensing is two-fold - 1. I get more ‘bang for my buck’ with sockets; 2. cost → 2-fold increased cost here, at least for SMBs. a. is as I stated..less VMs allowed w/out sockets; b. you are *forced* to renew support each yr. For the past 11yrs here at my org, I’ve used VMW support 4x...and maybe twice in 1yr. In other words, we don’t purchase it cuz we don’t need it. Generally, my boss and I can handle most issues. Also, we are not quick to upgrade to new versions, so I let all those quirks get worked out by others 🤪 As you stated tho...it’s all about the “cha-ching” 💵 💵

I think you nailed it exactly part of the reason they moved to subscription.  Higher renewal cost equals more revenue.  SnS was pretty cheap for renewals honestly, especially when it came to Essentials and Essentials Plus Kits.  I very rarely use VMware support.  I had a couple times at my old private cloud hosting job, but since then I think in 7 years I’ve opened maybe 2 cases with VMware.  Really, it’s the entitlements to the newer versions that makes it worthwhile.  vSphere+ sounded kinda neat, but that extra cost….not worth it for most of us. 

For Veeam, I was resistant to moving from Perpetuals socket-based licensing at first, but it’s gotten better after Veeam revamped the pricing structure early on.  That said, internally I use rental licenses as a VCSP, and honestly it’s probably a bit easier to sell BaaS to some of our clients than it is to buy licensing and then constantly have to deal with renewals.  Plus you pay for what you use.  For some businesses that just makes sense, but for larger enterprises with high VM density, VUL’s may not make as much sense.  As I understand it, Enterprise agreements can still get perpetual licensing.  But for most, or those with hybrid loads, VUL’s might make more sense.

Userlevel 7
Badge +17

VMW (basic) support is a joke. Not worth any money imo. Premium..or whatever it’s called..is ok. Well, was the last time I used it several yrs ago. I really wanna look into another virtualization solution, but time to play around with it is always an issue.

Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Great summary Derek.  I am waiting to see how our Partner status moves with them now but we have been assured we are good.  Hopefully it does not change much for us.

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Great summary Derek.  I am waiting to see how our Partner status moves with them now but we have been assured we are good.  Hopefully it does not change much for us.

That’s a whole different animal.  I was concerned about not even maintaining a partnership with VMware due to the new Partner Program being invite-only.  However, after some deeper reading, Broadcom has published that they intend on bringing along all active partners.  That is, all Partner’s that have had an active contract in the past year.  However, I believe partnership levels will be affected based on their information published.  But most folks don’t quote know where they will fall.  More of that information should be coming out by the end of the month with emails going out to the primary and secondary contacts for each partner.  There is/what a lot of FUD around the initial annoucements, but I think it won’t be as bad as folks assumed early-on.

 

FAQ excerpt regarding VMware Partner Connect Providers and being invited into the Broadcom Advantage Partner Program, as published in the VMware Partner Programs End of Life & Transition FAQ updated 22-DEC-2023v1.1

 

Userlevel 6
Badge +3

Love the write up @dloseke, especially the call out that vSphere Standard might actually be cheaper now than essentials for some SMBs. 

As mentioned by others, I’m watching and waiting to see what shapes up for Service Providers as well, given they were always licensed very differently to end-user agreements. 

Userlevel 1

Very helpful article.

It is a bummer for the SMB space if the prices you laid out stick.  

For those entry level customers with a single host or two hosts, I suspect this is going to be a difficult sell going forward.  

With all the talk about Proxmox and those alternative options, I don't really see one sticking or being the leader of the pack until a big player like Veeam comes with support for backups.

Whoever can pick up some backing by the larger software vendors I think will ultimately come out on top.

Userlevel 7
Badge +8

I’m quite concerned about our environment when we renew. We have many hosts and SRM. I’m going to consolidate as many hosts as I can and see what the future holds. 

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Very helpful article.

It is a bummer for the SMB space if the prices you laid out stick.  

For those entry level customers with a single host or two hosts, I suspect this is going to be a difficult sell going forward.  

With all the talk about Proxmox and those alternative options, I don't really see one sticking or being the leader of the pack until a big player like Veeam comes with support for backups.

Whoever can pick up some backing by the larger software vendors I think will ultimately come out on top.

 

This is MSRP pricing.  Prices will vary.  I can say that our partner pricing from Disti was better, but still not going to make the Essentials Plus Kit reasonable.

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Love the write up @dloseke, especially the call out that vSphere Standard might actually be cheaper now than essentials for some SMBs. 

As mentioned by others, I’m watching and waiting to see what shapes up for Service Providers as well, given they were always licensed very differently to end-user agreements. 

 

Yeah, that was something I questioned them on….in what scenario would it make more sense to utilize Essentials Plus instead of Standard.  And really, it’s only when you have 3 or less hosts but you’re using more than 72 cores in total, so basically 3 hosts with 24 cores, like dual 12-core processors (or 2 hosts with dual 18-core processors if those exist.  Something along those lines.  If you’re in the narrow area of having between 72 and 96 cores and 2-3 hosts, then it makes sense.

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Great post, thanks @dloseke !

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

 @dloseke, As mentioned by others, I’m watching and waiting to see what shapes up for Service Providers as well, given they were always licensed very differently to end-user agreements. 

Ruh roh…

https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/10/broadcom_ends_vmware_partner_program/

Userlevel 7
Badge +20

 @dloseke, As mentioned by others, I’m watching and waiting to see what shapes up for Service Providers as well, given they were always licensed very differently to end-user agreements. 

Ruh roh…

https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/10/broadcom_ends_vmware_partner_program/

Yeah this is going to be a painful ride.

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

With all the talk about Proxmox and those alternative options, I don't really see one sticking or being the leader of the pack until a big player like Veeam comes with support for backups.

I feel like this is the sticking point as well.  This is the reason I feel products like Hyper-V and AHV will still be the top choices if enterprises choose to move away from vSphere.  However, I did mention here in the past that Veeam should be looking at backups for alternatives like Proxmox and XCP-NG.  With that said, I’ve been told a few times in other forums when people talk about Proxmox and I question backups that Proxmox does have a backup server built add-on.  I doubt that it’s going to be as featured as Veeam and will have the basics, but it does have the function.  I don’t know anything about XCP-NG and backing it up.

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Thank you @dloseke , great post. I just want to mention about “Many of the alternatives discussed are enterprise-ready products such as Microsoft Hyper-V and Nutanix AHV (which is built on-top of RedHat KVM).”

Nutanix AHV doesn’t built on-top of Redhat KVM, AHV is KVM based hypervisor.

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Thank you @dloseke , great post. I just want to mention about “Many of the alternatives discussed are enterprise-ready products such as Microsoft Hyper-V and Nutanix AHV (which is built on-top of RedHat KVM).”

Nutanix AHV doesn’t built on-top of Redhat KVM, AHV is KVM based hypervisor.

Sure, I suppose that it’s semantics and saying that AHV is KVM-based is probably a better way to state it. AHV has a lot of other tech added as well as I understand it as it’s been a couple years since I took a good hard look at AHV.  Thanks for the input and correction.

you mention that there is a 16core minimum per host 

 

Documentation I have seen states that its 16 cores minimum PER CPU. 

 

might be worth confirming as that changes the costs a lot… 

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

 @dloseke, As mentioned by others, I’m watching and waiting to see what shapes up for Service Providers as well, given they were always licensed very differently to end-user agreements. 

Ruh roh…

https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/10/broadcom_ends_vmware_partner_program/

Keep in mind, this article simply references the fact that Broadcom has ended the VMware partner program. That information came out almost immediately after the acquisition finalized. I’m not really sure why the register wrote this article so *long* after the information came out, but it added nothing of value to the discussion other than quoting people that don’t know what’s going to happen next.

This information you screen capped here is far more interesting and valuable than that article. 

Great summary Derek.  I am waiting to see how our Partner status moves with them now but we have been assured we are good.  Hopefully it does not change much for us.

That’s a whole different animal.  I was concerned about not even maintaining a partnership with VMware due to the new Partner Program being invite-only.  However, after some deeper reading, Broadcom has published that they intend on bringing along all active partners.  That is, all Partner’s that have had an active contract in the past year.  However, I believe partnership levels will be affected based on their information published.  But most folks don’t quote know where they will fall.  More of that information should be coming out by the end of the month with emails going out to the primary and secondary contacts for each partner.  There is/what a lot of FUD around the initial annoucements, but I think it won’t be as bad as folks assumed early-on.

 

FAQ excerpt regarding VMware Partner Connect Providers and being invited into the Broadcom Advantage Partner Program, as published in the VMware Partner Programs End of Life & Transition FAQ updated 22-DEC-2023v1.1

 

 

Seems a lot more information has come out about how the non service provider crowd will deal with licensing. I’m still waiting to see how service providers will be affected.

Userlevel 7
Badge +8

I hope all this gets ironed out shortly. So much confusion and speculation. Reddit threads are going wild 

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

you mention that there is a 16core minimum per host 

 

Documentation I have seen states that its 16 cores minimum PER CPU. 

 

might be worth confirming as that changes the costs a lot… 

 

Oh wow….I went back and read the slides and that is something I’ve missed.  You are correct….so if you have dual proc machines, but something like 8-cores per proc, you’re actually looking at 32 cores for that single machine rather the actual 16-cores.  I have to wonder if that’s a typo on their part, but given how expensive VMware has become with the new licensing (many customers are reporting 300% price increases), I can’t say I’d be super surprised about it being that bad.  Fortunately most of my clients are running single processor hosts, but that’s insane.

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +20

you mention that there is a 16core minimum per host 

 

Documentation I have seen states that its 16 cores minimum PER CPU. 

 

might be worth confirming as that changes the costs a lot… 

 

Oh wow….I went back and read the slides and that is something I’ve missed.  You are correct….so if you have dual proc machines, but something like 8-cores per proc, you’re actually looking at 32 cores for that single machine rather the actual 16-cores.  I have to wonder if that’s a typo on their part, but given how expensive VMware has become with the new licensing (many customers are reporting 300% price increases), I can’t say I’d be super surprised about it being that bad.  Fortunately most of my clients are running single processor hosts, but that’s insane.

 

No, the 16-CPU core count is correct.  We learned that for our sites so if you are under 16 core count you still pay for 16.  If you are over there is a charge too.

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

 @dloseke, As mentioned by others, I’m watching and waiting to see what shapes up for Service Providers as well, given they were always licensed very differently to end-user agreements. 

Ruh roh…

https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/10/broadcom_ends_vmware_partner_program/

Keep in mind, this article simply references the fact that Broadcom has ended the VMware partner program. That information came out almost immediately after the acquisition finalized. I’m not really sure why the register wrote this article so *long* after the information came out, but it added nothing of value to the discussion other than quoting people that don’t know what’s going to happen next.

This information you screen capped here is far more interesting and valuable than that article. 

Great summary Derek.  I am waiting to see how our Partner status moves with them now but we have been assured we are good.  Hopefully it does not change much for us.

That’s a whole different animal.  I was concerned about not even maintaining a partnership with VMware due to the new Partner Program being invite-only.  However, after some deeper reading, Broadcom has published that they intend on bringing along all active partners.  That is, all Partner’s that have had an active contract in the past year.  However, I believe partnership levels will be affected based on their information published.  But most folks don’t quote know where they will fall.  More of that information should be coming out by the end of the month with emails going out to the primary and secondary contacts for each partner.  There is/what a lot of FUD around the initial annoucements, but I think it won’t be as bad as folks assumed early-on.

 

FAQ excerpt regarding VMware Partner Connect Providers and being invited into the Broadcom Advantage Partner Program, as published in the VMware Partner Programs End of Life & Transition FAQ updated 22-DEC-2023v1.1

 

 

Seems a lot more information has come out about how the non service provider crowd will deal with licensing. I’m still waiting to see how service providers will be affected.

 

The Register article is referencing CSP’s being dropped, whereas the almost immediate press release just listed Partner, and not specifically CSP’s as far as I know.  With that said, there’s be a huge lack of information all around from Broadcom, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they sat on some of this info as well before publishing as there certainly has been changes where they reversed course briefly, etc.  I will note that since I’m not a CSP, I don’t get to see the CSP-specific information in the Partner Connect portal.

Now I’m seeing reports of partners not being invited into the new Partner Program unless they are bringing in $500,000+ in annual revenue.  I personally haven’t gotten an invite into the program yet, and we for sure do nowhere near 500k as a small MSP.  The frustrating part is that if we end up terminated as a partner, how do we procure licensing for our clients?  To my knowledge, that information hasn’t been released and I know others are asking the same question.  

I also find it interesting the shear amount of opinions and information that is being released/leaked.  Broadcom said they would handle this acquisition better than they did CA and Symantec, but I agree that it sure doesn’t seem like they’re doing that.  If feels like they’re very much targeting enterprise customers and are pretty much leaving SMB’s out in the cold. 

 

https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/18/broadcom_vmware_channel_disruption/

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

you mention that there is a 16core minimum per host 

 

Documentation I have seen states that its 16 cores minimum PER CPU. 

 

might be worth confirming as that changes the costs a lot… 

 

Oh wow….I went back and read the slides and that is something I’ve missed.  You are correct….so if you have dual proc machines, but something like 8-cores per proc, you’re actually looking at 32 cores for that single machine rather the actual 16-cores.  I have to wonder if that’s a typo on their part, but given how expensive VMware has become with the new licensing (many customers are reporting 300% price increases), I can’t say I’d be super surprised about it being that bad.  Fortunately most of my clients are running single processor hosts, but that’s insane.

 

No, the 16-CPU core count is correct.  We learned that for our sites so if you are under 16 core count you still pay for 16.  If you are over there is a charge too.

But is that per processor or per server?  If you have a server with dual 12 core processors, do you have to buy 32-cores of licensing?  Because the documentation says “per CPU minimum”.  Microsoft licensing for Windows is a 16-core minimum “per server”.

Userlevel 7
Badge +20

you mention that there is a 16core minimum per host 

 

Documentation I have seen states that its 16 cores minimum PER CPU. 

 

might be worth confirming as that changes the costs a lot… 

 

Oh wow….I went back and read the slides and that is something I’ve missed.  You are correct….so if you have dual proc machines, but something like 8-cores per proc, you’re actually looking at 32 cores for that single machine rather the actual 16-cores.  I have to wonder if that’s a typo on their part, but given how expensive VMware has become with the new licensing (many customers are reporting 300% price increases), I can’t say I’d be super surprised about it being that bad.  Fortunately most of my clients are running single processor hosts, but that’s insane.

 

No, the 16-CPU core count is correct.  We learned that for our sites so if you are under 16 core count you still pay for 16.  If you are over there is a charge too.

But is that per processor or per server?  If you have a server with dual 12 core processors, do you have to buy 32-cores of licensing?  Because the documentation says “per CPU minimum”.  Microsoft licensing for Windows is a 16-core minimum “per server”.

It is per processor not per server.  So, if you have a dual 12 core system you are going to get 2 x 16 core licenses from VMware.

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

you mention that there is a 16core minimum per host 

 

Documentation I have seen states that its 16 cores minimum PER CPU. 

 

might be worth confirming as that changes the costs a lot… 

 

Oh wow….I went back and read the slides and that is something I’ve missed.  You are correct….so if you have dual proc machines, but something like 8-cores per proc, you’re actually looking at 32 cores for that single machine rather the actual 16-cores.  I have to wonder if that’s a typo on their part, but given how expensive VMware has become with the new licensing (many customers are reporting 300% price increases), I can’t say I’d be super surprised about it being that bad.  Fortunately most of my clients are running single processor hosts, but that’s insane.

 

No, the 16-CPU core count is correct.  We learned that for our sites so if you are under 16 core count you still pay for 16.  If you are over there is a charge too.

But is that per processor or per server?  If you have a server with dual 12 core processors, do you have to buy 32-cores of licensing?  Because the documentation says “per CPU minimum”.  Microsoft licensing for Windows is a 16-core minimum “per server”.

It is per processor not per server.  So, if you have a dual 12 core system you are going to get 2 x 16 core licenses from VMware.

 

Okay, yeah, that’s….greedy.  Thanks for confirming.

Comment