Tuesday, February 4th 2020

VMWare Updates Licensing Model, Setting 32-Core Limit per License

Feb 4th, 2020 14:17 Discuss (83 Comments)

VMWare, one of the most popular virtualization solutions commercially available for businesses and the industry in general, has announced changes to its licensing model. From now on, licensees will have to acquire a license per 32 CPU cores, instead of the former "per socket" model. This effectively means that users who had made a migration to AMD's 64-core EPYC CPUs, for instance, and who saved on both price-per core and VMWare licensing fees compared to Intel customers (who would need two sockets to achieve the same core-count, and thus, two licenses) are now being charged for two licenses for a 64-core, AMD-populated socket. This was a selling point for AMD - the company stated that their high-end EPYC processors could act as a dual-socket setup with a single processor, thanks to EPYC's I/O capabilities and core counts. VMWare claims this change is in line with industry standard pricing models.

Of course this decision from VMWare hits AMD the hardest, and it comes at a time where there are already 48 and 64 core CPUs available in the market. Should this licensing change be done, perhaps it should be in line with the current state of the industry, and not following in a quasi-random core-count (it definitely isn't random, though, and I'll leave it at that). From VMware's perspective, AMD's humongous CPU core counts does affect their bottom line. The official release claiming customers license software based on CPU counts may be valid, and they do allow for free licenses for servers past 32 cores until April 30, 2020. Of course, VMWare is also preparing itself for future industry changes - Intel will obviously increase its core counts in response to AMD's EPYC attack on the expected core counts of professional applications.

Source: VMware

Add your own comment

83 Comments on VMWare Updates Licensing Model, Setting 32-Core Limit per License

#51

notb

Xuperhmm , Source Is from VMware ? Why does schematic say "1 CPU 28 cores" when you see "Because up to 32 cores" ? they could fix it by "1 CPU 32 cores"

OMG. It's an example. There's nothing to fix.

#52

Xuper

notbOMG. It's an example. There's nothing to fix.

I wrote Is it from Vmware or not. If they're from VMware website there is NO Damn example , They're giant companies and their Word Must be Clear.But If It was Tech , then It's ok.

#53

moproblems99

londisteThink about it this way - a customer is using bunch of VMs on 64 cores. Before Epyc Rome they need 2 or more sockets to get there, now they can do that with 1 CPU socket. VMWare now sells one license instead of multiple they were selling previously.

Right, in the future they lose money. But not on current customers. That is demonstrated by the grandfathering current users with a free license.

#54

londiste

moproblems99Right, in the future they lose money. But not on current customers. That is demonstrated by the grandfathering current users with a free license.

VMWare in their announcement hints that there is a low enough number of customers using 48 or 64 core CPUs.

#55

notb

XuperI wrote Is it from Vmware or not. If they're from VMware website there is NO Damn example , They're giant companies and their Word Must be Clear.But If It was Tech , then It's ok.

Seriously, which part don't you understand?
There are 4 scenarios with explanation how many licenses are needed.
28 cores -> 1 license "Because up to 32 can be provisioned with 1 CPU license"
28 matches "up to 32". It could have been 4.

It looks as if AMD fans were butthurt because VMware said 28. And we all know Intel makes 28-core CPUs and AMD doesn't.
Hence - obviously - VMware is in bed with Intel, right?

#56

Easy Rhino

Linux Advocate

Haha you guys arguing over VMWare cpu licensing. Just wait until you hear about software licensing in the cloud!

#57

Xuper

notbSeriously, which part don't you understand?
There are 4 scenarios with explanation how many licenses are needed.
28 cores -> 1 license "Because up to 32 can be provisioned with 1 CPU license"
28 matches "up to 32". It could have been 4.

It looks as if AMD fans were butthurt because VMware said 28. And we all know Intel makes 28-core CPUs and AMD doesn't.
Hence - obviously - VMware is in bed with Intel, right?

Or they could write Up to 32 instead of 28 not to trigger this nonsense.

#58

windwhirl

XuperI wrote Is it from Vmware or not. If they're from VMware website there is NO Damn example , They're giant companies and their Word Must be Clear.But If It was Tech , then It's ok.

The picture is straight from VMware's news piece.

And I honestly think it's more than good enough to illustrate how the licensing scheme will change.

#59

notb

Easy RhinoHaha you guys arguing over VMWare cpu licensing. Just wait until you hear about software licensing in the cloud!

Well exactly. People making a fuss about VMware (mere few thousand USD per CPU) when SQL Server for a single 64-core CPU costs over ~~$900k~~$450k.
Software is expensive. Cloud is expensive.

Some people here seem to think companies buy servers and gather around them to admire the summer breeze.

XuperOr they could write Up to 32 instead of 28 not to trigger this nonsense.

They did write an "up to 32" in another part of this graph.

#60

MoreOrLess

I think this will hit Intel worse then AMD. Rumors are that Intels next Xeon Ice Lake will have up to 38 cores and Cooper Lake up to 48 cores, so for a Intel system with 2*38=72 cores you need to buy 4 socket licenses while you get up to 128 cores with same licenses with a AMD system.

#61

Xuper

windwhirlThe picture is straight from VMware's news piece.

And I honestly think it's more than good enough to illustrate how the licensing scheme will change.

notbThey did write an "up to 32" in another part of this graph.

Well , You should think about the number 28, We have single socket MB and up to 32 cores ( Example AMD Epyc 7551p ). This schematic said 28 and that's "license required today".so If someone Buys single Socket 32 cores , Buyer has to buy Two license (28 + 4) or just one license ( I mean Before Announcement ) ? this is my question and makes me confused.

#62

I No

Can someone elaborate the idea on how this hurts AMD? I mean it's WMWare using AMD's hardware and "renting" it out. They paid for them they can "rent" them out on whichever plan they see fit.... All is see here is a wild shot in the dark that tries to victimize AMD, actually this is all I see lately.... Poor AMD .... please give it a rest already, the company is doing well enough even w/o anyone's whines and hissy fits over some weird connection between number of cores, furthermore before EPYC came along what was AMD's pitch for the server space again? How the heck did that fare? The only reason WMWare has a considerable amount of Intel's hardware is because they were the only option available at the time, or do you actually think that they threw out everything they had to make room for AMD's new CPU in one fell swoop? WM wouldn't have had 75%~ market share if they were running Bulldozer based Opterons ....

#63

moproblems99

XuperWell , You should think about the number 28, We have single socket MB and up to 32 cores ( Example AMD Epyc 7551p ). This schematic said 28 and that's "license required today".so If someone Buys single Socket 32 cores , Buyer has to buy Two license (28 + 4) or just one license ( I mean Before Announcement ) ? this is my question and makes me confused.

What? 28 < 32. Wtf would you need two licenses for? 32 or less means 1 license. 28 is less than 32. That means 1 license. Is English not your native language? Although basic math transcends language.

I NoCan someone elaborate the idea on how this hurts AMD?

It doesn't. The cost of an extra license for VMware is way less than the cost difference between a Xeon of any high core count and the Epyc 64 core.

#64

Xuper

moproblems99What? 28 < 32. Wtf would you need two licenses for? 32 or less means 1 license. 28 is less than 32. That means 1 license. Is English not your native language? Although basic math transcends language.

That's my question why 28 when Epyc 32 cores announced in June 2017.It took them near two year to change and fix this mess? you mean this ? I'm glad they fixed it.now it covers entire Intel/AMD System.

#65

moproblems99

XuperThat's my question why 28 when Epyc 32 cores announced in June 2017.It took them near two year to change and fix this mess? you mean this ? I'm glad they fixed it.now it covers entire Intel/AMD System.

What are you on about? There was no core spec on the last terms. You could have 2000 cores on a socket. It didn't matter. Now you can only have 32. If you already are a customer, you get free licenses to bring you back into compliance.

It was a serious question if English is not your native language. Because right now, the only mess is your understanding.

#66

Mysteoa

notbSuspicious? Because VMware wants to remain profitable? Get a grip. World doesn't revolve around cheering or attacking AMD.

They should have change the licensing to per core long before now, in mine opinion. Its just that hey picked a time when AMD are trying to grow. They also could have change it later when more companies have implemented high core cpus. Currently 32+ Intel cpu are non existend and it will take some time before they become more wide spread. In the short run it will hold AMD adoption until Intel gets its 32+ cores out the door.

Vya DomusSure but the thing is Intel will move on without doubt to more than 32 cores per socket as well, that's a certainty. Technically they already have a 56 core CPU, though from what I heard it's virtually nonexistent.

I agree, Intell will also have 32+ cores, but it will inhibit AMD growth in the short run.

#67

Xuper

moproblems99What are you on about? There was no core spec on the last terms. You could have 2000 cores on a socket. It didn't matter. Now you can only have 32. If you already are a customer, you get free licenses to bring you back into compliance.

I didn't know there was a license For single socket with unlimited cores.I thought there was a license for SS with up to 32 cores and this number 28 made me confused.

moproblems99It was a serious question if English is not your native language. Because right now, the only mess is your understanding.

No It's not my lang but it was serious mess at least price model.they didn't expect AMD could make 64 cores for single socket or they were waiting for AMD.who knows.

#68

claes

MysteoaThey should have change the licensing to per core long before now, in mine opinion. Its just that hey picked a time when AMD are trying to grow. They also could have change it later when more companies have implemented high core cpus. Currently 32+ Intel cpu are non existend and it will take some time before they become more wide spread. In the short run it will hold AMD adoption until Intel gets its 32+ cores out the door.

I agree, Intell will also have 32+ cores, but it will inhibit AMD growth in the short run.

www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/10

www.networkworld.com/article/3435727/two-amd-epyc-processors-crush-four-intel-xeons-in-tests.html

www.vmware.com/reusable_content/vsphere_pricing.html

:rolleyes:

#69

windwhirl

notbwhen SQL Server for a single 64-core CPU costs over $900k.

Tell me you're joking. Because I honestly can't wrap my head around that number.

Edit: And I thought Windows Server licensing scheme was nuts.

#70

moproblems99

windwhirlTell me you're joking. Because I honestly can't wrap my head around that number.

Edit: And I thought Windows Server licensing scheme was nuts.

Yes, he is off by a few hundred thousand. But it doesn't take away from the Ludicrousness at all.

Microsoft has not changed the price of SQL Server since SQL Server 2012 went to a core-based licensing model. Here's the retail pricing for SQL Server 2019:

SQL Server Enterprise Edition: $7,128 per core
SQL Server Standard Edition: $1,859 per core
SQL Server Standard Edition Server Licensing: $931 plus $209 per named user client access license (CAL)

redmondmag.com/articles/2019/11/08/sql-server-2019-licensing.aspx?m=1

#71

BArms

moproblems99Yes, he is off by a few hundred thousand. But it doesn't take away from the Ludicrousness at all.

redmondmag.com/articles/2019/11/08/sql-server-2019-licensing.aspx?m=1

It's not that ludicrous for many, many companies, in Finance and other non-sexy industries where I've worked for years, they often struggle to hire good IT/DB talent so giving them easier to use tools with better support is their only option. Not saying it's right, but these expensive options fill a void that currently exists.

#72

notb

windwhirlTell me you're joking. Because I honestly can't wrap my head around that number.

Edit: And I thought Windows Server licensing scheme was nuts.

I forgot SQL Server is sold in 2-packs. So it's half of what I said.
Why nuts? Not for what you're getting. Some databases are even more expensive.
It's a fundamental tool for most companies - an investment. It either makes sense or not. Nothing "nuts" about it.
Construction companies pay similar sums for excavators or other essential machines. Would you call them nuts? :P

You have to think about how this stacks up.
Lets say you want to start a new on-remise system in a company (some ERP or analytics). You need hardware, database, backup, the actual software you want (e.g. ERP), some consulting help and training. And that's just for production. You also need a DEV/ACC environment which will be much cheaper but still...
So you may end up with something like:
server: $200k
virtualization software: $10k
database: $500k
target software (e.g. ERP): $500k
consulting: $100k
training: $100k
DEV/ACC: $100k (cheap server, cheap/free non-prod licensing)

This sums up to $1.5M for a project (and that's without workforce cost). That's the figure you're going to show to your management board.
It's important to understand this - especially when you read a discussion on a gaming forum and people tell you that everyone will suddenly jump to AMD because EPYC is $3000 cheaper than a Xeon.

#73

TheUn4seen

claesYou guys are nuts. You do realize that the majority of companies who actually use this software is buying thousands (yes, not hundreds, *thousands*) of cores at a time, right?

As you can see, self-proclaimed "enthusiasts" are firmly planted in the consumer space, utterly oblivious to the intricacies of the enterprise market.

All things considered, its not a major change. VMware is used by companies running software worth millions and used to make millions, not by home users. In this space they effectively sell performance, and limiting the performance achievable within a single license is actually quite common in HPC world. Otherwise the software creator would earn exactly as much on a client running the software on a supercomputer (potentially generating massive income) as on a small-time one, which would not be very productive.

#74

notb

claesYou guys are nuts. You do realize that the majority of companies who actually use this software is buying thousands (yes, not hundreds, *thousands*) of cores at a time, right?

Absolutely not. Datacenters are not "majority of companies".
Anyway, how is that important? License cost scales with cores/processors. So it doesn't really matter how many servers you want to set up. Virtualization cost is multiplicative (just like energy etc).

#75

claes

Because most users are investing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) on hardware and the licensing fees pale in comparison, as you pointed out :love:

Add your own comment

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

VMWare Updates Licensing Model, Setting 32-Core Limit per License

83 Comments on VMWare Updates Licensing Model, Setting 32-Core Limit per License

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

VMWare Updates Licensing Model, Setting 32-Core Limit per License

Related News

83 Comments on VMWare Updates Licensing Model, Setting 32-Core Limit per License

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts