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

[moproblems99]

Previously, when these fees were calculated, we didn't have CPUs offering >32 cores.

Per core licensing for software that runs on clients hardware is bullshit. It is the microtransactions of the business world. Whether I have 4 cores or 400 cores should be of no consequence to VMware. I am buying your product to run on my hardware. VMware has no extra load, or anything else, incurred by my usage. If I buy another separate machine, sure, by all means, another license is necessary.

There is almost no way this could give them more profits. They do this to keep what they are making now.

How are they losing money now? The same number of sockets are still the same regardless of how many cores are in a socket. This is for making money in the future.

Additionally, now anyone who has a > 32 thread CPU now has to buy another license. This will definitely grab more money now and in the future. If I was a prospective customer (I'm not because I got mine free), I would be searching for a different alternative.

 

[R0H1T]

This is definitely aimed at AMD, now whether Intel had an active role to play in this is another debate altogether but unlike last time Intel's hardly gonna leave that bread crumb so that the trail leads right back to them! I mean they are dumb but not that dumb, also hilarious to see some of the defenses in this thread like people haven't learnt a thing from the multiple financial scandals of the last 2 decades in particular

I wonder how the licensing costs will be structured when Intel launches its 10nm server chips. Would be interesting to see if there's any major change like this!

 

[Cheeseball]

No changes to current customers who have 32-core CPUs. It's a small price increase in licensing for corporations. No real effect on Intel or AMD directly.

This change only affects VMware's clients who have Enterprise Plus and Platinum packages (especially for those who use vSphere and vCenter). Horizon is sold by user anyways so no changes there.

 

[moproblems99]

I wonder how the licensing costs will be structured when Intel launches its 10nm server chips. Would be interesting to see if there's any major change like this!

I mean Intel has 48 and 56 core Xeons now so...

 

[Easy Rhino]

Apparently turning a sick profit is a conspiracy now.

 

[aiandenk]

The kind of people who do this professionally, not running an extravagant home NAS.
Last time I checked: ~75% market share.

So extravagant people that use proxmox are not professionals and can get this working in a job? not even CentOS/Fedora/RedHat + KVM?

 

[R0H1T]

I mean Intel has 48 and 56 core Xeons now so...

Only on paper, you do know they don't even list their prices right?
How to Tarnish Platinum: Sell It as Xeon 9200
The Intel Second Generation Xeon Scalable: Cascade Lake, Now with Up To 56-Cores and Optane!

 

[BArms]

You used to need at least 4 or more sockets to reach 32 cores. I don't see the conspiracy here, all VMware is doing is adjusting their pricing structure so they don't lose 75% of their revenue when more companies inevitably switch to AMD, and honestly I'm not sure why this is relevant to this audience at all.

 

[claes]

Hasn’t server software charging per core count been the norm for awhile now? I think Windows has been doing this since 2016, right?

http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/d/4/3d42bdc2-6725-4b29-b75a-a5b04179958b/percorelicensing_definitions_vlbrief.pdf

Windows Server 2019 Licensing Calculator - VirtuallyInclined.com

Windows Server 2019 has been out for a while now and other than some early adopter issues, it appears to be pretty stable now. I figured it was time to... Read more »

virtuallyinclined.com

 

[Berfs1]

The kind of people who do this professionally, not running an extravagant home NAS.
Last time I checked: ~75% market share.

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

Core density in sockets went up lately. VMware uses a per-socket licensing. If in 2020 we're getting twice as many cores per socket as we did few years ago, they have to react somehow.
They could either do this or drastically raise the fee itself. This was a much easier approach, but more importantly: much better for their customers.

Much "better" for their customers? Seriously? I mean honestly, if I were doing VMs on a certain computer, say it had 32 cores, but I had lots of VMs, how about if I wanted 16 cores to do the same amount of VMs with more cores allocated to each? The fact that you have to have multiple licenses when you go over 32 cores, NOT 22 CORES OR 28 CORES, says a lot about who they are targeting with this. Also, say in 5 years we have CPUs with 256 cores (quite possible), you want us paying more just for more licenses?
I should probably add that VMware has this offer on their press release: "Any customer who purchases VMware software per-CPU licenses, to be deployed on a physical server with more than 32-cores per CPU, prior to April 30, 2020 will be eligible for additional free per-CPU licenses to cover the cores on those CPUs."

 

[BArms]

Much "better" for their customers? Seriously? I mean honestly, if I were doing VMs on a certain computer, say it had 32 cores, but I had lots of VMs, how about if I wanted 16 cores to do the same amount of VMs with more cores allocated to each? The fact that you have to have multiple licenses when you go over 32 cores, NOT 22 CORES OR 28 CORES, says a lot about who they are targeting with this. Also, say in 5 years we have CPUs with 256 cores (quite possible), you want us paying more just for more licenses?
I should probably add that VMware has this offer on their press release: "Any customer who purchases VMware software per-CPU licenses, to be deployed on a physical server with more than 32-cores per CPU, prior to April 30, 2020 will be eligible for additional free per-CPU licenses to cover the cores on those CPUs."

Their only target is staying in business. AMD is going to have a lot of success with Epyc and they don't want to lose out on the inevitable. Get a grip. Nobody is going to buy Intel over AMD over VMware licensing costs.

 

[moproblems99]

I should probably add that VMware has this offer on their press release: "Any customer who purchases VMware software per-CPU licenses, to be deployed on a physical server with more than 32-cores per CPU, prior to April 30, 2020 will be eligible for additional free per-CPU licenses to cover the cores on those CPUs."

Ah ok, it sounds like any previous purchasers get grandfathered. That is a good compromise. While I don't like per-core licensing, I still understand why it is done. I have no problems with them doing this for new customers but it would have been dicky to make previous customers buy an additional. Good on them.

Only on paper, you do know they don't even list their prices right?
How to Tarnish Platinum: Sell It as Xeon 9200
The Intel Second Generation Xeon Scalable: Cascade Lake, Now with Up To 56-Cores and Optane!

Hey, Intel says it launched it Q2'19. Who am I to argue?

 

[R0H1T]

Their only target is staying in business.

Wait, so AMD with less than double digit market-share & the slow as snail uptick in Rome's adoption among enterprises ~ will get them bankrupt or what?
Your "defense" would sound justifiable if these companies were flocking en masse to AMD but that's clearly not the case! What this move does however is to ~

1. egregiously price the competitor (AMD) out of the market with artificial barriers thereby making the cost of going with AMD (high) core count solutions prohibitively expensive!
2. make sure that their customers stick to 32 cores or less, even though they'd have better alternatives!

Ah ok, it sounds like any previous purchasers get grandfathered. That is a good compromise. While I don't like per-core licensing, I still understand why it is done. I have no problems with them doing this for new customers but it would have been dicky to make previous customers buy an additional. Good on them.



Hey, Intel says it launched it Q2'19. Who am I to argue?

You said 48, 56 cores which clearly is vaporware even for their biggest clients. So what was your point again?

 

[Berfs1]

Ah ok, it sounds like any previous purchasers get grandfathered. That is a good compromise. While I don't like per-core licensing, I still understand why it is done. I have no problems with them doing this for new customers but it would have been dicky to make previous customers buy an additional. Good on them.



Hey, Intel says it launched it Q2'19. Who am I to argue?

I mean, to be honest, Intel has had 72 core single socket CPUs (Xeon Phi). But um, the problem I have with this per 32 core licensing is, how does it apply to SMT/HT/4T? If it is 32 physical cores, then it can be a problem since there have been CPUs that have 4 threads per core, meaning you can get effectively 128 logical processors when the chip has only 32 actual cores. I mean, a way to get around their new licensing scheme is to add more threads per core.

Oh man the fact that they mentioned 28 cores in this explanation, it really explains that they are targeting AMD. I mean, why else would they specifically mention "28" and not "24" or "16"? Maybe because, that is the max Intel can provide, and they are trying to provide the smallest disadvantages to owning AMD systems. Note, Intel is the only one that makes 28 core CPUs. AMD makes 8/12/16/24/32/48/64 core CPUs on their SP3 platform. Intel makes 4/6/8/10/12/14/16/18/20/22/24/28/28 core CPUs (basically in steps of 2) on their LGA3647 platform.

 

[windwhirl]

I mean, to be honest, Intel has had 72 core single socket CPUs (Xeon Phi). But um, the problem I have with this per 32 core licensing is, how does it apply to SMT/HT/4T? If it is 32 physical cores, then it can be a problem since there have been CPUs that have 4 threads per core, meaning you can get effectively 128 logical processors when the chip has only 32 actual cores. I mean, a way to get around their new licensing scheme is to add more threads per core.

VMware has only mentioned cores, not threads. The software is aware of the actual number of cores available.

Besides, you can add as many threads per core as you like, but performance will go up just a little bit or will even go down. SMT beyond 2 threads per core has very limited uses where it actually achieves better performance, which is why we haven't seen it beyond certain POWER processors, if I remember correctly.

Oh man the fact that they mentioned 28 cores in this explanation, it really explains that they are targeting AMD. I mean, why else would they specifically mention "28" and not "24" or "16"? Maybe because, that is the max Intel can provide, and they are trying to provide the smallest disadvantages to owning AMD systems. Note, Intel is the only one that makes 28 core CPUs. AMD makes 8/12/16/24/32/48/64 core CPUs on their SP3 platform. Intel makes 4/6/8/10/12/14/16/18/20/22/24/28/28 core CPUs (basically in steps of 2) on their LGA3647 platform.

Eh, Microsoft did this same change in their Windows Server licensing schemes a few years ago, I don't understand why VMware doing it would be because they're targeting AMD because of Intel.

Bah, actually, MS did it worse. The WS license is 2-core pack, and you have to get one for every pair of cores, last I checked.

I wonder if they still push for those CALs too...

 

[claes]

You 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?

 

[moproblems99]

You said 48, 56 cores which clearly is vaporware even for their biggest clients. So what was your point again?

My point is there is sap in trees. VMware knows Intel has, or will have, cpus with more than 32 cores. If not today, then tomorrow.

VMware could give two shits and a moth ball what hardware there software goes on. Dollars aren't red or blue. They are green.

 

[londiste]

How are they losing money now? The same number of sockets are still the same regardless of how many cores are in a socket. This is for making money in the future.

Think 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.

 

[Bronan]

Open source software is free, but is not without costs. It's often more expensive in the end. That's why VMware is a giant.

And no: VMware did not increase their license price. They slightly changed the pricing model.
If you have a VMware set up on a <=32 core CPU, nothing changes.
In fact, if you already use a >32 core CPU, they'll give you a free license for the surplus cores. So this will only affect new systems.

Its not giving a free license where do you see that they do so?
This clearly is to hurt AMD the most because they have a long term dealing with intel, and clearly comes out of the shareholders not being happy that their friends gets hurt by AMD.
Its pure nonsense if you had ages the per socket license and now switch to core count, there is no other reason than hurt those companies who went for the not intel brand.

 

[londiste]

Its pure nonsense if you had ages the per socket license and now switch to core count, there is no other reason than hurt those companies who went for the not intel brand.

Twofold increase in cores per socket sounds like a very real reason...

 

[R0H1T]

And the timing's not even a little bit convenient is it? I mean sure everything's a coincidence these days, unless you're there recording the minutes of these meetings.

 

[londiste]

And the timing's not even a little bit convenient is it? I mean sure everything's a coincidence these days, unless you're there recording the minutes of these meetings.

There is nothing convenient about timing. VMWare has been mulling over a change like this for a while. 64-core Epyc was released a few months ago that clearly got them going and 64-core Threadripper was the final nail in the coffin. These being processors specifically from AMD is pretty irrelevant - any similar processor from Intel would have gotten the same result.

Besides, twofold increase in core count has not happened in a very long time, much less with the same economic impact.

 

[notb]

Its not giving a free license where do you see that they do so?

Any customer who purchases VMware software licenses, for deployment on a physical server with more than 32-cores per CPU, prior to April 30, 2020 will be eligible for additional free per-CPU licenses to cover the CPUs on that server.

Update to VMware’s per-CPU Pricing Model

VMware is working to align our product offerings to industry standard licensing models and projected changes in the hardware market.

www.vmware.com

This clearly is to hurt AMD the most because they have a long term dealing with intel, and clearly comes out of the shareholders not being happy that their friends gets hurt by AMD.

Shareholders are certainly not happy about revenue being as much as halved.

Intel's well-being has no role here, but you're right saying that Intel and VMware are partners. One makes 90% of server CPUs and the other 75% of rather fundamental software.
But don't worry. Maybe AMD will get to that some day.

And, seriously, take a moment to learn how this licensing works. It's not that complex...

 

[laszlo]

is a win-win for all companies as i see; amd don't loose anything as a client who will buy a 64 core cpu will have the job done faster than on a 32 core one; even they pay more for license, the extra paid license difference will be a small% compared to growth induced by faster cpu...

 

[Xuper]

Yes they do. They charge per 32 core sets and per socket, as shown in the picture below. Nevermind, I misunderstood. The picture is still valid, though.
View attachment 144024

hmm , 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"