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



Show first post

44 comments

Userlevel 2

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.

yes proxmox backup is not as feature rich as veem...so we we should encourage veem to support proxmox, but also Proxmox is free and Proxmox backup is also free, so if you don’t need all those “extra features”, than yes Proxmox is a good alteritive that does include free backup. 

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.

Hello all,

Does anyone know what happens when the subscription ends? In this new scenario from Broadcom, if I migrate all my vSpheres to a subscription model and suppose I don't renew them, will all my VMs go down? Do we have a grace period as in Veeam?

Userlevel 2

Hello all,

Does anyone know what happens when the subscription ends? In this new scenario from Broadcom, if I migrate all my vSpheres to a subscription model and suppose I don't renew them, will all my VMs go down? Do we have a grace period as in Veeam?

not sure if it changes...probably not, but previously when the eval subscription or vmug sub (which is probably the most similar) ran out, the result was:
“For ESXi hosts, license or evaluation period expiry leads to disconnection from vCenter Server. All powered on virtual machines continue to work, but you cannot power on virtual machines after they are powered off. You cannot change the current configuration of the features that are in use”   Which likely results in the APIs for backup shutting down, so veeam backups will stop too.   

Added reddit link on the topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/vmware/comments/19faifh/new_vsphere_subscriptions_behavior_once_product/

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 +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 +8

That is a smart cash grab on their part. Due to current socket pricing and cores, Most people went with 32 core CPU’s.  2 CPU’s 2 licenses, away we go.   Keeping that in multiples makes sense. 

Now, this is where it gets sneaky.

SQL Enterprise licenses. Not even remotely cheap. Also based on core count.  I have multiple clusters of SQL Enterprise and to keep costs down, we had dual CPU’s but significantly lower core counts, with higher speeds.   We were using Dual 6 core CPU’s before that were blazing fast, They no longer make them. One cluster of 4 hosts, dual 6 core CPUs = 48 cores.  During an upgrade of that cluster I had to switch to 3 hosts, 8 cores per cpu and that was still 48 cores. No change 8*2=16*3=48

 

Targeting people with SQL Enterprise seems on par with what has been going on. Obviously we are a big enough shop, to A, have the money to pay for extra VMware licenses, and B, will have a bit harder of a time migrating away quickly. SQL Enterprise usually means we are using things like Always On and have some pretty critical systems we are not going to trust on another hypervisor without a lot of testing. 

 

Also, some little customer with 2 small hosts is most likely not worth their time right now in this transition. Sure, it’s income, but when you add in support and all the other added costs, they are looking specifically for profit. Large profit. If you get rid of 50% of your small customers, and keep the 50% that you make the most of, you can downsize staff and have higher profit margins overall.

This one will 100% effect me, but I don’t know how much yet. 

I will say this. While everyone is trying to wrap their heads around this, I’m not going to worry about it for a while. Too many rumors, overreactions and unknowns still. Whatever route they chose, was 100% thought out and planned. It may not be ideal for ME, but I can’t change it, and they know what direction they want to take. 

 

The product is still good for now and works great. If work don’t want to pay, we’ll switch, if they do want to keep paying, even better. I’ll do my job and cut costs where it makes sense.

 

 

 

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Not a problem.  We just had a call about this yesterday to work on our hardware changes and direction, so it was fresh.  😁

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/

 

Uau!!! It is a big bomb in the MSP market!

Userlevel 7
Badge +6

That is a smart cash grab on their part. Due to current socket pricing and cores, Most people went with 32 core CPU’s.  2 CPU’s 2 licenses, away we go.   Keeping that in multiples makes sense. 

 

 

I think you’re computing on a scale much larger than the environments I’m managing.  Most of my clients are running 16-cores or less on a single socket.  However, some of the older machines out there are running dual 8-core or dual 12-core sockets.  Internally, I have a two hosts running dual 12-core sockets but those are poised to be replaced this year.  At my primary site, I fortunately am running single socket’s, but I had to confirm this yesterday to be sure.

Oh and yeah, I think that a “cash grab” is the correct term to use here.  Others have said it, and I think I would agree, that it seems that Broadcom is going to try and cash in on a year or two of renewals from SMB’s while they get their feet under them and look at alternatives while VMware focuses on their Enterprise and cloud-based offerings.

 

Now, this is where it gets sneaky.

SQL Enterprise licenses. Not even remotely cheap. Also based on core count.  I have multiple clusters of SQL Enterprise and to keep costs down, we had dual CPU’s but significantly lower core counts, with higher speeds.   We were using Dual 6 core CPU’s before that were blazing fast, They no longer make them. One cluster of 4 hosts, dual 6 core CPUs = 48 cores.  During an upgrade of that cluster I had to switch to 3 hosts, 8 cores per cpu and that was still 48 cores. No change 8*2=16*3=48

 

 

I just purchased licensing for SQL Standard, and we ended up licensing per-core as well because the SQL cluster will no longer be running just my Service Provider Console and ONE deployments, but also will be used for some data warehousing and integrations between our billing system and PSA, etc.  Because it’s hard to get a solid user count for the Server+CAL model, it made more sense to license per core.  However, my developer sprung on me using SQL Server Analysis Services yesterday which I think is more CPU intensive, so hopefully I won’t need to add additional cores and therefore core licenses.  I will say that I’m not jealous of your SQL clusters.  I had to deal with SQL and file server failover clustering at my old job, and aside from one client, I don’t have any of that in my current role.

 

 

Targeting people with SQL Enterprise seems on par with what has been going on. Obviously we are a big enough shop, to A, have the money to pay for extra VMware licenses, and B, will have a bit harder of a time migrating away quickly. SQL Enterprise usually means we are using things like Always On and have some pretty critical systems we are not going to trust on another hypervisor without a lot of testing. 

 

Also, some little customer with 2 small hosts is most likely not worth their time right now in this transition. Sure, it’s income, but when you add in support and all the other added costs, they are looking specifically for profit. Large profit. If you get rid of 50% of your small customers, and keep the 50% that you make the most of, you can downsize staff and have higher profit margins overall.

This one will 100% effect me, but I don’t know how much yet. 

I will say this. While everyone is trying to wrap their heads around this, I’m not going to worry about it for a while. Too many rumors, overreactions and unknowns still. Whatever route they chose, was 100% thought out and planned. It may not be ideal for ME, but I can’t change it, and they know what direction they want to take. 

 

The product is still good for now and works great. If work don’t want to pay, we’ll switch, if they do want to keep paying, even better. I’ll do my job and cut costs where it makes sense.

 

Yeah, I’m just trying to stay on top of it because I have to make these considerations for 50+ clients, and not just us.  Internal IT can be such an easier beast than MSP.  Still, there’s a lot of waiting for the dust to settle, but also a lot of strategic planning for the “what-if’s”.  The single issue for me is that if we end up moving away from VMware, the only real options at the moment are Hyper-V and Nutanix AHV.  Both are okay, but I don’t feel that either are as good as vSphere.  Proxmox and XCP-NG would be viable maybe after some further testing, but until Veeam as any sort of integrations with those products, I’m really not seeing them as viable alternatives.

Very, very good writeup!

We’re right now in the process of purchasing 2 new Hosts and has been on Essentials Plus beforehand. 

So it was spot on, helping a lot to clarify the mudded / FUD’ed landscape og VMware that Broadcom has createed.

Thanks, again @dloseke!

Userlevel 7
Badge +6
  1. ESS+ (essentials plus) vs VSphere standard 
    The limitations are: a. ESS+ maxes out at three hosts per vcenter essential. 96 cores max means 3 dual cpu with 16 cores each.

 

I’m seeing on Reddit that you can purchase two Essentials+ Kits and stack them, for a total of 6 hosts/192 cores.  I haven’t verified this in any documentation, but I’ve seen multiple posts about this.  This was not something you could do on the old kits. (to my knowledge)

 

  1. everything is always subject to change. 

Truth….and it has been evolving from the start.  I think they’re getting there, but staying on top of it all, and filtering through the FUD and misinformation, or outdated information has been a task to say the least.

Good article 

 

a couple points of clarification. 
 

1 KVM really doesn’t have any origin from RedHat. Both are Linux distros but different branches. 
Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) is a free and open-source virtualizationmodule in the Linux kernel that allows the kernel to function as a hypervisor. It was merged into the mainline Linux kernel in version 2.6.20, which was released on February 5, 2007.[

  1. ESS+ (essentials plus) vs VSphere standard 
    The limitations are: a. ESS+ maxes out at three hosts per vcenter essential. 96 cores max means 3 dual cpu with 16 cores each. 
    b both ESS+ and vSphere standard lack virtual distributed switch, DRS and storage vmotion features of vSphere STD: 
  2. and remenber other adv features are add-ins available with VCF and vSphere foundation versions. 
  3. everything is always subject to change. 
Userlevel 7
Badge +6

Very useful article! However, to be VERY PRECISE, in the section "vSphere Subscription Licensing Scenarios" instead of "(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less)" shouldn't it rather be "(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) IN ONE CPU per Host"? As far as I undertand, If we had "(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) but IN TWO CPU, 8-core each CPU" would mean that you have to count: 2 (hosts) * 2 (CPU) * 16 (cores minimum per CPU) = 64 cores.

 

Am I right?

 

Yeah, I had to correct my posting a couple weeks ago because I had initially believed that Broadcom followed the same licensing standard as Microsoft where it was a 16-core minimum per host, but it was pointed out and I have corrected that it’s a 16-core minimum per CPU.  Meaning, if you have dual 10-core CPU’s in a host for instance, you need to buy 32 cores of licensing for that single host.  Assuming 2 or 3 hosts, it may make more sense to buy an Essentials+ Kit for 96 cores vs buying the same in Standard unless you need the Standard feature set. That does significantly narrow the gap where Standard may be cheaper for smaller deployments if you have multiple sockets per host. I probably need to further clarify my table on exactly how that total core count is derived.

I’m fortunate in that a couple years ago my recommendation for my clients when scoping hardware was to purchase single-socket servers with 16 cores so that we still were safe on a per-socket count, but were buying right up to the core minimum for Windows Server and not leaving anything on the table for performance while not having to pay extra for additional cores.  That strategy is playing out in the long run for me, but we do have some clients with RAM-dense hosts where we had to utilize dual-sockets and thusly it’s going to cost more come “renewal” time to stay with VMware.

Userlevel 2

Very useful article! However, to be VERY PRECISE, in the section "vSphere Subscription Licensing Scenarios" instead of "(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less)" shouldn't it rather be "(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) IN ONE CPU per Host"? As far as I undertand, If we had "(2) Hosts, 16 Total Cores per Host (or less) but IN TWO CPU, 8-core each CPU" would mean that you have to count: 2 (hosts) * 2 (CPU) * 16 (cores minimum per CPU) = 64 cores.

 

Am I right?

This is how I understand it to be as well.   Standard licensing is not just per core but Per Core per CPU, with a minimum 16 core commit (again per CPU).  So if you have two hosts with dual quad core CPUS, with standard you would need to licenses 16 X 4 Minimum.
 
Looks like standard features have changed since perpetual: https://www.vmware.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/vmware/en/pdf/docs/vmw-datasheet-vsphere-product-line-comparison.pdf

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

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 +6

Very, very good writeup!

We’re right now in the process of purchasing 2 new Hosts and has been on Essentials Plus beforehand. 

So it was spot on, helping a lot to clarify the mudded / FUD’ed landscape og VMware that Broadcom has createed.

Thanks, again @dloseke!

Thank you, I’m glad I was able to help!

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.

 

Comment