Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VMware Back-Pedals On vRAM Scheme, Back To Per-Socket Pricing

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the old-ways-is-best-ways dept.

Virtualization 70

Last year VMware introduced a complex pricing scheme based on the size of the memory associated with each virtual machine instance. New CEO Pat Gelsinger announced this week that this system (which he described as "a four letter word") has been deprecated, and VMware is back to more straightforwardly charging per physical processor. Adds reader hypnosec: "Pricing hasn't been announced yet but a file [PDF] present on VMware's site does give an indication about the new pricing."
Update: 08/28 17:18 GMT by S : Updated the headline and summary to reflect that the price is per processor, not per core.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

do they take virtual cash? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#41150731)

i have lots of bitcoins

Re:do they take virtual cash? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#41150777)

Well, I hear they take Canadian currency. That's definitely not REAL money.

Re:do they take virtual cash? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41150843)

It is now as it's worth more than American. With seemingly the inmates running the asylum now down there I expect the gap to get worse for you guys. THE MIGHTY CANUCK BUCK!

Isn't that per socket, not per core? (4, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#41150755)

The summary says this:

VMware is back to more straightforwardly charging per physical processor core.

But I think they mean per socket. (or maybe per physical processor, but not per core)

Re:Isn't that per socket, not per core? (0)

imp7 (714746) | more than 2 years ago | (#41150791)

Haha nope.

Re:Isn't that per socket, not per core? (2)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#41150831)

timothy needs to l2RTFA, which states:

per-CPU licensing, with no restrictions on the available cores per processor or the physical RAM per machine.

Re:Isn't that per socket, not per core? (2)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41150901)

Yep, reading the linked PDF. "For this example, a user has two 2-CPU (each with 6 cores) hosts with 128GB of physical RAM each that they wish to license with VMware vSphere Enterprise edition. Each physical CPU requires a license, so four VMware vSphere 5 Enterprise licenses are required. No additional licenses will be needed regardless of the number of virtual machines, amount of virtual memory (vRAM) or physical cores or RAM."

Re:Isn't that per socket, not per core? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41150931)

VMWare's PDF indicates no limit to the number of cores per socket, and no limit to the RAM per host.

Hooray! Ive been using the 4.1 free hypervisor for some clients because of RAM limits, but with this, vSphere 5 is now viable!
This really is great news for anyone trying to figure out if they needed to move to HyperV or Xen (at least, assuming you like working with vSphere).

Re:Isn't that per socket, not per core? (1)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151035)

Wait, you're using free vmware and your client's vm's have more than 32 gigs of ram? I'm hoping that's against your best recommendations to the client (and maybe they're cheap bastards). Otherwise that's retarded.

Re:Isn't that per socket, not per core? (4, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151379)

Not really. Sometimes there just isnt a budget for multiple machines, and it is better to start by consolidating old Windows 2000 systems off of incredibly old hardware onto newer hardware.

If the budget ever arises, we can quickly set up a full vSphere environment and migrate guests around; but there is a place for virutalization even if you cannot afford a SAN or any of the HA/DRS stuff. By consolidating, we have removed a lot of bad hardware and massively lowered switching and UPS requirements, which is incredibly helpful in this instance. The vSphere client also fits the needs of the customer particularly well, since before he relied on zillions of KVMs.

I cant go into many particulars, but sometimes youre given a bad network and not a huge budget to work with. Ideally we would have a SAN and at least 3 boxes with Enterprise licensing. We dont have that, but its not the end of the world and I still have a job to do.

Re:Isn't that per socket, not per core? (2)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#41152827)

I cant go into many particulars, but sometimes youre given a bad network and not a huge budget to work with. Ideally we would have a SAN and at least 3 boxes with Enterprise licensing. We dont have that, but its not the end of the world and I still have a job to do.

No shit. I am looking at a Network with 2 old SCO unix 5 boxes with one just acting as a slaved backup in case of Master failure. A 7 year old windows server 2003 box that is a domain controller. Two 7 year old XP pro boxes with specialized hardware a 2 year old windows server taking care of a PCI compliant CC database, and a brand new server that is fairly powerful just to run as a server for our mobile app. If I were to add a bunch of RAM and a second CPU to the new box add a SAN and a second box just like it with virtualization I could save power, have better back up and replace the 2 SCO Unix boxes the 2 windows servers and the mobile app server.
I would have power to spare everything would be backed up and we would still be able to expand if I wanted. Heck I might even have some extra power in the server room. Getting really low there.
But like you. There are issues with management and systems that mean that it will be like this for a while. I just have to make sure it works anyway.

vSphere Hypervisor (Free) has 32GB Host Limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151643)

Sadly, the 'vSphere Hypervisor' (ESXi Free Edition) is limited to 32GB of RAM on the host. It will disable its 'trial' mode if it finds more than that. You'll need to get the Essentials Kit ($500) for up to 3 2-socket hosts to get more than 32GB per host.

Re:vSphere Hypervisor (Free) has 32GB Host Limit (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41152949)

My understanding was that that was tied to the new vRAM stuff, as 4.1 did not have any RAM limit on free. Can you provide a source for that? Are you sure this announcement doesnt change that?

Re:vSphere Hypervisor (Free) has 32GB Host Limit (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153429)

From the PDF:

VMware vSphere Hypervisor
VMware vSphere Hypervisor is a free product that provides a simple
and easy way to get started with virtualization at no cost. vSphere
Hypervisor provides only basic virtualization capabilities, allowing
customers to virtualize servers and run applications in virtual
machines in a matter of minutes. vSphere Hypervisor cannot
connect to VMware vCenter Server and therefore cannot be
centrally managed. Users can remotely manage individual
vSphere Hypervisor hosts using the vSphere Client. vSphere
Hypervisor can be utilized on servers with up to 32GB of
physical RAM.

Re:vSphere Hypervisor (Free) has 32GB Host Limit (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158717)

Thanks :(

And now... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#41150913)

And now, we might actually upgrade to v5. Probably.

Re:And now... (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151145)

yup... lets see the price

Re:And now... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41152493)

The prices are the same as before and now with Enterprise+ you get the basic cloud suite gratis.

Re:And now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41160929)

look carefuly at the maintenance cost change for vCloud

Too late, EMC (3, Interesting)

charnov (183495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151259)

Too late, EMC, we have already discovered KVM and are happily running on it.

Re:Too late, EMC (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151473)

Competition isnt a bad thing, and I rather like that vSphere 5 is now viable (assuming pricing is similar to v4).

Re:Too late, EMC (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153003)

KVM is great technology but what makes VMWare great is the management and tools. It's fairly straightforward and seamless. That's what sells it.

Re:Too late, EMC (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41155711)

KVM management isn't quite there yet, but libvirt is functional and quite useful even if it isn't as feature-full. It is quite adequate for many tasks and is improving.

Re:Too late, EMC (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 2 years ago | (#41163683)

Too late, EMC, we have already discovered KVM and are happily running on it.

I struggle to believe anyone has "happily" gone from a full vSphere environment to KVM anything.

ESXi free, maybe.

Suck it, EMC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151269)

You want all of your companies to have shitty pricing schemes? Prepare to lose customers.

I used to love VMware (2)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151271)

But I don't anymore. They have morphed into a 'giant' that now has a homepage with a million products. And each one comes with 20 price plans, and innumerable gotcha's in licensing terms and have only one interest - squeezing people for more revenue.
When as far as I could see, ESXi got worse from 4.1 to 5, this only underwrote the problem.

When I spent some time trying to talk to VMware people, and this was when I was trying to formulate a Hypervisor move at work, because we were SM/E - I can't tell you how disinterested, and in fact off putting VMware folks were. So the company chose HyperV over their product. I'm not a HyperV fan - and I try out different vendors at different times, but appalling lic terms, screw you attitude from their people, and 5.1 actually looking poor meant I lost interest in being a VMware supporter/invoker.

Since then they did an about turn and decided that in fact, if they lose the tech's and SM/E, they lose the next inbound group of people buying virt - and they started calling and wanting to talk. But damage has been done.

They still have great tech to be honest, but its being utterly ruined by 'marketing/management' for a lack of better wording, and given so much virtualisation is free these days, I can't see anything but death by a thousand nibbles.

It used to be that you could onbly really virt stuff their their products, but its simply becoming an untruth. Wether is server, or workstation, other options exist.

Re:I used to love VMware (3, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151517)

When as far as I could see, ESXi got worse from 4.1 to 5

In what way? Better HA, datastore heartbeating, removal of the 2TB-per-datastore limit, DPM, better ways of dealing with RAM contention (page sharing)...
there are a LOT of ways ESXi got better in version 5. Only regression Im aware of is that the VUM no longer does guest updates, but TBQH who really cares? Just use WSUS or your package manager in Linux.

Re:I used to love VMware (2)

bpgslashdotaccount (1221626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41155913)

Can't access guest consoles via free browser plugin anymore on Linux.

Re:I used to love VMware (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158759)

Version 5 introduced a web client accessible from cross-platform (AFAIK) browsers. I dont have too much experience with it as I prefer the Windows client, but from what Ive heard it does most things the full client does, and is being improved greatly in 5.1.

Re:I used to love VMware (2)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#41152183)

True. 5.1 was a definite "disimprovement" - a Microsoft-like "change for change's sake." The company appears to be suffering MBA-itis (i.e. irritation caused by MBAs who think they are intelligent, managing people who actually are).

Re:I used to love VMware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41161153)

We run about 40 geographically spaced out 2-10 node ESX and Hyper-V clusters with FC shared storage at my company.
ESX, simple, easy to install, it is an ISO and maybe 15 minutes to get it up and running or to add an additional server into the cluster. Everything in your clusters are integrated into a single console (VSphere/Virtual center). Everything about the entire cluster can be monitored, managed, and configured from that single console. Including the virtual machines themselves. Sure, you may need to update some drivers and firmware for your hardware on occasion but you can do that pretty easy with PowerCli and scripts or directly from the server console on the ESX box if you enable SSH.

Hyper-V. Exact opposite. We have HP servers, same as our ESX clusters. a mix of DL380/580 gen5-8 servers. Install Windows 2008 R2 SP1 (we use Data Center), install all patches and updates, install all of the HP tools and drivers (PSP). Configure the networking and any network teaming (every adapter needs to be configured). Configure all of your clustered disks with MS or 3rd party multipathing software. Install and configure MS clustering and Hyper-V. Get all of that working. Now.. Do you want a decent front end for managing machines? That would be at least SCVMM, that requires another server and it own configuration. All integrated right? Not quite. Lets say you have a networking problem with a virtual machine network or SCVMM? Is it the local driver on one of the servers, the local teaming software, the cluster config? Hyper-V config? Are you having a storage issue and getting storage redirects? Which server is having the problem? Is it the local HBA, the multipathing software? A cluster issue? A Hyper-V issue etc. You have to bounce around and check every one of those places to figure out what is going on. Hyper-V is one thing on top of another, many different layers that each have their own configuration and management console or GUI. Notice nothing in any of the above has any type of monitoring, sure you could use SNMP but that's not much. What if a storage is filling up? CPU is 100%? A power supply on a server is bad? That is more software and more management above and beyond. It is a nightmare. We have experience with HP servers and Windows so we do script some of the Windows OS installs and driver installs and even use powershell scipts and policies to load and configure stuff and of the server roles but that is a task in itself and sometimes it takes longer for us to create and debug a specific script than if we just did the work manually. Bottom line, Hyper-V clusters with SAN shared storage has way to many layers for management, troubleshooting, and monitoring compared to ESX. WAY TO MANY.

Competition (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151287)

For a while Vmware was the only game in town and it shows. They were running as fast as they could to the "Well, how much you got?" pricing model where they ask for your financial statements and a blank check before they even give you price.

Now that they're seeing real competition from other Microsoft and other vendors, and cloud services in general, it seems that they're being a bit more reasonable about price.

At least they have a free product that's great for learning and hobbies. It's great to just have one physical server at home, and simply spin up a linux distro or windows installation whenver you need one. Heck, even my router runs on my vmware box (pfsense - freebsd distro)

No, you can't be Oracle. Not yours.

trollkoRe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151315)

Re:trollkoRe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153775)

you must be new here...

Amazing what competition does (5, Insightful)

MoToMo (17253) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151491)

To rephrase the headline:

"VMWare realizes that Hyper-V in Server 2012 is now competitive with vSphere in features; lowers prices in an attempt to lose fewer customers."

Re:Amazing what competition does (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153371)

hyperv?!!! really?!!!

Nobody serious would EVER run their virtualization infrastructure on windows boxes that need to be rebooted monthly for patches / just to keep them from randomly blue-screening. Yeah some idiot MCSE might, but I said nobody serious, and while these folks take themselves seriously, nobody else does.

No, xen and kvm have been around for quite a while, and are things people actually use (oh, like most VPS providers, Amazon, etc.).

I nearly spit my drink across the room when I read your post! Thanks for the laugh though!

Re:Amazing what competition does (0)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#41155747)

Troll? Looks like the Microsoft Munchkins are ion the march again.

Re:Amazing what competition does (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41156631)

Not a troll. Server 2012 is at 99% feature parity with vSphere, now has features vSphere lacks, and much larger ram pool support. If you are running Windows Server VM's especially, there really is no longer a reason to waste money on vSphere licensing. Even with Server 2008 R2 you had something reletivly equal to vSphere, just lacking in a few particular areas.

EMC dropping the vram entitlements is not enough, they need to completely rethink their pricing schemes. My business started migration to VMM/2008 R2 once SC2012 VMM was released to host all our Windows based server VM's and VDI enviornement. With Server 2012's SA release we are considering no longer purchasing new licenses of vSphere once SC2012 VMM SP1 is released to support it.

Re:Amazing what competition does (2)

bertok (226922) | more than 2 years ago | (#41157203)

Yes, really, Hyper-V 2012 might be usable.

Version 1.0 and 2.0 were "me too" products that weren't mature. Nobody in their right mind would use them for anything serious. Some people did, of course, but only because of some non-technical manager deciding they wanted "all Microsoft" or some-such nonsense.

Read the technical whitepapers on the 2012 release, it looks like someone at Microsoft finally "got it". It doesn't just have feature parity, it has some interesting new ones too that nobody else has, like good support for >10Gbps Ethernet. Apparently they took the zero-copy and low-latency network stack from the old HPC edition of Windows Server, and bolted it onto the generic server editions. Supposedly it can do 40 Gbps for a single TCP stream without special tuning! For comparison, it's hard to find a Windows server that can do more than 3 or 4 Gbps in loopback, let alone across the wire for a single stream. Combined with Microsoft fixing most of the issues with SMB2, it looks like using plain file server clusters might be not just a viable replacement for a low-end SAN, but a serious performance upgrade. For small business or workloads without critical data, this is going to massively reduce costs.

Time to choose.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41152305)

Seriously, I have been trying to decide on VMware or Parallels. I used to run both a few years ago and loved VM, but they recently killed my licence key when I upped my OSx. I dont know if my Parallels licence key still works yet. I havn't tried.
For someone that is not going to simply play games, which virtual machine software would you recommend?

This is why I use VirtualBox... (2, Insightful)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#41152571)

VirtualBox costs a very reasonable $50 if you want to deploy it commercially. It competes well with VMware on features and speed, and is user-friendly enough to recommend to small businesses.

VMware is expensive, the licenses are confusing, and overall it's just become a gigantic pain in the ass.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153101)

VirtualBox is not a competitor to ESXi. Maybe that's a reasonable solution if you're a small business that needs a small handful of servers virtualized on really cheap hardware running Windows 7. But at that point you might as well install the free version of ESXi.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153109)

Thank you for your recommendation. I will move all 4000 of my enterprise's VMs to an unmanageable platform on a type 2 hypervisor where I have none of the features that add flexibility and are actually important.

Licenses are confusing? Know what you want before going to buy it. The names of products VMware chooses is stupid, but if you're comparing VirtualBox to vCenter and ESXi at the Enterprise Plus level, then you need to do more research before you comment on these sorts of things.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41153593)

Thank you for your recommendation. I will move all 4000 of my enterprise's VMs to an unmanageable platform on a type 2 hypervisor where I have none of the features that add flexibility and are actually important.

Licenses are confusing? Know what you want before going to buy it. The names of products VMware chooses is stupid, but if you're comparing VirtualBox to vCenter and ESXi at the Enterprise Plus level, then you need to do more research before you comment on these sorts of things.

If your vms are Linux you should try OpenVZ. Sorry you must try it.
Also you can manage KVM and OpenVZ with proxmox ve which is enterprise class product.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158329)

OpenVZ does not compare to ESXi at all. It doesn't perform the same task by any stretch of the term - it is a container virtualisation solution, which involves running one copy of the OS with containers running within it. Most commercial software you'll encounter in the enterprise (exempting web hosting providers) does not officially support this configuration. Also, OpenVZ comes with no support, which is a necessity for the enterprise. You could get Parallels Bare Metal Virtualisation if you wanted support, but Parallels leaves a bad taste in many admins' mouth.

So no, OpenVZ isn't an option.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161565)

OpenVZ is more lightweight on hardware resources. If you want an hypervisor you can get KVM unless you are using Windows or MacOS X (which no cloud or corporate server infrastructure worth its salt should be doing). If all you want is a couple of instances of Windows or MacOS X you can just use something like VirtualBox.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#41185079)

You shot all your credibility when you injected your Linux fanboy mentality into your argument. Many corporates worth their salt happen to use Windows and OS X servers. My ISP's billing and account management system is running on OS X server. My employer's core systems all run on Windows Server (appropriately secured and managed, of course). There is nothing wrong with either of those configurations. Our virtualisation infrastructure is vSphere, in case you were wondering. VirtualBox does not meet our requirements, including around vendor support (VirtualBox has none), and we have a shit-ton more than "a couple of instances".

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41154089)

I'm sure if you learned how to use a Unix shell, you'd find VirtualBox a lot less confusing. The entire thing can be managed from the command line. If you want lessons, precious little AC, I can give them to you.

Of course, if your business is jacking around your customers and finger-fucking them with extra charges for dubious "important" features, than I forgive you your insolence. It's important to be able to jew over as many people as possible, right?

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (4, Insightful)

Bugler412 (2610815) | more than 2 years ago | (#41153901)

EMC purchases a company then that company's licensing becomes confusing, expensive and fragmented?! No way that could happen! /sarcasm

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | more than 2 years ago | (#41156675)

Yeah, funny and somewhat true. To be fair though, their licensing has always been a mess, even pre-EMC.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158351)

EMC's newest strategy appears to be to purchase a company, then retire it and rebrand the products as VMware (with an appropriately confusing massive markup). We just had our helpdesk solution ripped out from under us this way.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (2)

CimmerianX (2478270) | more than 2 years ago | (#41154283)

VirtualBox and VMWare ESXi hosts are 2 different products. If you need a small 1-4 PC environment for testing or coding or whatever, run from a PC or server for free... virtualbox is the way to go.

For a large enterprise, Virtbox will not cut it. Lack of many of the features that esxi has for centralized data, moving virtual hosts between physical hosts... HA, etc...

Citrix Xen Server is a nice alternative, but still lacks the maturity of vmware.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (2)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#41154383)

VirtualBox has long had support for centralized data, moving running virtual machines between physical hosts, HA, etc. In fact, the whole thing can be controlled and scripted from the command line. Last I checked ESXi still had features that can not be accessed thusly.

Perhaps the 2.x branch of VirtualBox didn't compete with ESXi, but times have changed.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41162823)

I'd like to have some of whatever you're smoking buddy. Having the features is insufficent. Where are the management tools to back it up? "scripted from the command line" doesn't cut it. PHBs will start yammering about "TCO" when you start telling them to script everything.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#41171211)

It's pretty sad that you work in a company run by incompetents who won't give you the freedom to implement a solution that doesn't have buttons to push.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

CimmerianX (2478270) | more than 2 years ago | (#41166621)

Last time I looked at the 'Teleportation' Feature of Virtual Box, it did work, but required quite a bit of work on the admin to prep a new host to receive the Virtual host. IIRC, the new host OS had to have a VM prepared with all settings matching for the Virtual Host to teleport correctly. There were also smaller errors that could be worked around, but still present. It may have matured since then, but I remember it was troublesome.

I'm a fan of Virtual Box. Don't get me wrong. But when I'm asked to spec out a product for a large deployment, Vmware is my usual choice unless budget constraints force me into Xen.

virtualbox competes against other products (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41154291)

Like VMware Workstation or Player.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41154313)

you clearly don't know what you are talking about if you are comparing virtualbox with vmware, especially since we are talking about vmware vsphere and not workstation, virtualbox is fine if you need a vm on your pc but it's absolutely terrible on a server
vsphere is an OS that acts as an hypervisor not just a software that you can install on an existing os that let's your run a vm

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41154511)

I know exactly what I'm talking about. vsphere is just a micro-Linux installation. You still have a host OS, it's just slimmed down. This is, of course, quite possible to do with VirtualBox as well.

The other big problem with vmware and other closed-source products is that they all have manufacturer backdoors. They can't be trusted in a real enterprise situation when there is worthwhile data to protect from snoopers.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 2 years ago | (#41155475)

Nope, you definitely have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (2)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158419)

No, there's no host OS, only the hypervisor. Once the Linux kernel (vmkernel) bootstraps ESXi, vmkernel itself gets contained into a VM which operates as a sort of control session. That's how I've heard it explained anyway. No host Linux at all.

And of course, you have no evidence of your backdoor claim, so you just shot all your credibility in one fell swoop.

Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41160905)

wow, massive misunderstanding there of what vsphere is.

YOU FAIL IT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41152579)

so that you don't grandstanders, the started work on *BSD but Fr3eBSD and committees stagnant. As Linux

Go AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41152587)

Are we buying AMD Opteron 6200 processors from now? 16 cores (for now) with 256 GB RAM.

Bring on the comments from the unwashed masses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41152661)

Virtualization is free so VMware is going to die quickly.

Just like Microsoft died the day Linux/BSD and OpenOffice were made available for free.

tac-O (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41156389)

It seems they have no strategy (1)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | more than 2 years ago | (#41158061)

These guys are so all over the map, it's amazing. Just like this post. Is anybody actually steering this ship? The only things that outnumber the silly (for the most part) bullet points of new features for each new VMware release, are the times they change the frickin' product names and the details of their licensing. It's like business via improvisation with these guys. Just random shit left and right. And their web site? Holy crap, I think they need more products.... my eyes just glaze over. It is nicely set up, with pop up menus, but damn, just the sheer number of Products/Solutions... overwhelming really.

I guess you can't blame them though; they need to diversify as their core products become commoditized and commonplace if they wish to stay relevant. More on that below. They just seem unfocussed, throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, almost. Sort of like playing the lottery.

They need a new killer app, plain and simple. And it needs to have a mid-long term strategy and laser focus. I have no idea what that could be.

One thing that's interested me is the virtual desktop angle. It seems like it's been slow on the uptake for reasons such as the cost of the terminal was no different than a PC, plus you also need the back end servers and storage. So really, your costs would increase; why bother? But with the proliferation of cheap ARM/Android devices, it's only a matter of time before there's a $75 palm sized device, with just the right feature set, to act as the terminal: USB for mouse/kbd; HDMI for display, Ethernet, quad A9 clocked up, running a lightweight Linux or Android hosting a VNC/RDP session. These devices already exist, but they're just too slow at this price point at this time. See the Mk802 [google.com] for reference. The only problem with that device, is it is pretty anemic. Single core A10@1Ghz/1GB DDR2/3; not quite there yet, but still a fun toy. If it had twice the cores and clocks, we'd be talking an almost disposable desktop replacement; just keep your current KVM setup. So another 18 months we should have that power at that price point; if there's a viable open source virtualization environment sporting live vmotion that's a snap to configure, VMware's ESXi/vSphere/VDI goose is cooked.

One thing they could do to make some sure fire bucks for a couple of years at least, and to get their VDI platform standardized, would be to have the aforementioned devices manufactured in quantity to hit a below $99 price point, bundle that with their VDI crap, and get some interest generated. Once the desktop can be replaced with a throw away device, things get very interesting. And so what, you don't get the early adopter tax anymore and in order to generate interest by keeping the device cost low (subsidizing it almost I guess), you forgo that bit of profit on the hardware. But you license a ton more software for a year or two before this setup, too, becomes commonplace & easy to replace with free software.

The Thrill is Gone

To expand on my earlier rambling, what were their core products? GSX Server, then ESX, then ESXi-vSphere combo. These things once seemed almost magical, but now we completely take them for granted. The engines of these products, their hypervisor, have become commodities. The focus has left the hypervisor, though improvements still abound. But hell, they give it away now. The special sauce is vCenter, and everyone's favorite trick: live migration. That right there is really 90% of the magic,and the reason we gladly hand over 5 figures for licensing; the rest is just gravy. The minute there is a free, reliable, easy to set up environment that supports Xen or KVM and live migration, the jig is up on the vCenter special sauce and that cash cow is dry. I give it a year or two. I get there's a lot more to it than just live migration. For instance: storage vmotion. Great trick, being able to live-migrate the VMs disk store; realy realy cool to migrate from the old array to the new one with 0 downtime/outages. But really, it's more a convenience for migrations, or for balancing out your data stores after some monkeys randomly fill some to the brim and leave others with several hundred gigs free. So yeah, a convenience really.

So they need a new killer app to really focus on. And no, putting "cloud" in the name doesn't count.

VMWare's latest Ad email (1)

Fyzzler (1058716) | more than 2 years ago | (#41160911)

I am on their mailing list as a customer and nearly fell out of my chair laughing today, reading their most recent PHB Ad email.

It was all about how their latest VCloud offering would OPERATIONALIZE your Cloud, and VDirector would magically train your admins. They even threw in BPM, the only thing the email was missing was any mention of DevOps. They are totally marketing to Management now, and not to the techs.

$1,268.00 or free? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#41161131)

$1,268.00 for the lowest tier offering limited to 32GB RAM, or Xen or KVM with no such limitation?

Tough decision there.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?