Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

286 comments

Lesson: Licensing costs suck (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43275795)

VMware is not in a monopoly position anymore and can no longer dictate prices to people who have free alternatives.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (4, Informative)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43275889)

Nice for public facing websites and custom software but for a lot of enterprise apps they are certified only on VMware or hyper-v. You lose support on any other hyper visor

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43275935)

For now. But I've found hyper-v is at best an adequate product and VMware is obscenely priced, so in the end enterprise software houses will adapt as they did to a landscape that shifted away from closed source *nix solutions like SCO and Solaris. Sure, they may only support Redhat as far as distros go, but the fact is that VMware and Microsoft's shoddy little product hardly rate as the only virtualization solutions out there.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (0)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43276037)

No they're not.

Applications run on software, which then runs on hardware, RedHat is still Redhat & Windows server is still Windows server.

If you're thinking something like vSphere, that's not an enterprise app either.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/enterprise_application.html [webopedia.com]

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (4, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276495)

Well, up until the point you realize that there's a bug in the hypervisor which affects networking which affects the thing you're trying to virtualize.

In THEORY, the hypervisor you use doesnt matter. In practice, it absolutely does. For instance, pfSense (a firewall based on FreeBSD) has no integration tools from HyperV, and I dont believe has any virtualization drivers for VMXNet3 on ESXi. So HyperV will have no integration in being able to safely shut the VM down, and ESXi's performance with the networking will be less than optimal.

There can be other issues; the virtual hardware presented by one hypervisor or another may cause problems with certain OSes. Theres also big differences in performance; one chart I saw indicated 2-3x better performance on large numbers of HTTP requests to apache-on-ESXi compared to apache-on-HyperV.

Incidentally, the 3 top hypervisors (Xen, vSphere, HyperV) all fit that definition of enterprise that you linked.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (2)

MikeB0Lton (962403) | about a year ago | (#43276619)

You assume too much. Support for RedHat or Windows Server is not a 100% guarantee that a product will work fine when the OS is virtualized. There are many products out there that are not supported when virtualized, or that have support for specific virtualization platforms. Typically the compatibility issues surface when a product is extremely sensitive to time or where performance has been a problem in the test lab. This extends into desktop virtualization as well.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43276927)

sort of true

you can have memory and other similar bugs come up when you are running an untested and unsupported app/os/hyper visor combo

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (4, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276447)

HyperV isnt really an option for a lot of things, since its support for non-SUSE, non-Windows stuff is, shall we say, "lacking". Certainly you'll have a lot of fun getting pfSense running on it.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43275927)

VMware is not in a monopoly position anymore and can no longer dictate prices to people who have free alternatives.

Vmware is arguably facing a serious structural squeeze: Outside of a few neat-but-not-necessarily-all-that-widely-used features, virtualization technology is being commodified pretty aggressively. Vmware is still arguably the easiest to use; but that doesn't help them much with customers who are running enough servers that having a few gurus in house is cheaper than paying the license fees. Even worse, at the same time that team FOSS is chipping away at the large-scale market, Microsoft is essentially offering 'Buy Windows Server, get Hyper-V for free*', which is a pretty attractive offer for the outfits who aren't going to go for Xen or KVM; but need to run Windows Server stuff anyway, and probably have some MS-comfortable guys in the shop.

If it were just a squeeze from one direction or the other, I'd be less pessimistic; but forces are converging on them from both sides. Unless Vmware discounts their licenses to nearly free, their high volume customers aren't likely to stick with them, and having strong enterprise support and brand recognition isn't exactly going to save them from Microsoft(who has the same thing) on the low-volume smaller shop end. Blood Bath.

VMware for free (0, Redundant)

sys_mast (452486) | about a year ago | (#43276001)

....Unless Vmware discounts their licenses to nearly free, their high volume customers aren't likely to stick with them, ......

Oh, you want it free?

OK, here you go: http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere-hypervisor/overview.html [vmware.com]

All that ranting, and all you needed to do was ask.

Re:VMware for free (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43276007)

No live migration, no centralized management, none of the features the competitors offer for free.

Re:VMware for free (3, Insightful)

sys_mast (452486) | about a year ago | (#43276177)

....and of which none of the competitors do as good of a job as VMware. I guess you get what you pay for.

Now to play the next counter argument, one of the org's I support is small, with an appropriately sized IT budget (small)
They are very well served by Hyper-V, and the low cost is a major factor.

So use the right tool for the job. Free with slightly less features VS. pay for more or better features.

Re:VMware for free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276267)

....and of which none of the competitors do as good of a job as VMware. I guess you get what you pay for.

Now to play the next counter argument, one of the org's I support is small, with an appropriately sized IT budget (small) They are very well served by Hyper-V, and the low cost is a major factor.

So use the right tool for the job. Free with slightly less features VS. pay for more or better features.

Not-as-good is still better than not-at-all.

Re:VMware for free (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#43276621)

Perhaps not as good as TODAY, but VMs and their management is a rapidly expanding area for Free Software.

Meanwhile, would you choose VMWare's free but no management or FOSS's free and some management? If the latter, VMWare is still in trouble. Essentially, they went from having a near exclusive on the whole thing to an ever narrowing space between free management tools and their incredibly pricy ones.

If they want to hold on to any of the low end, they're going to have to add more management capability. If they want to hold on to the high end, they'll have to charge less so that the price scales to the lesser (and shrinking) benefit offered beyond the free solutions.

Re:VMware for free (1)

Charles Duffy (2856687) | about a year ago | (#43276689)

....and of which none of the competitors do as good of a job as VMware. I guess you get what you pay for.

I wish you did -- then VMware ESX's SCSI emulation would actually be up to par with what's in qemu/kvm. Sure, they implement the mandatory mode pages, but you want anything unusual? Good luck.

Re:VMware for free (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276515)

by "competitors offer for free", you mean "XenServer offers for free", right? Im pretty sure you still have to pay for HyperV (or a minimum of 1 Windows server license) plus CALs, one way or the other.

Re:VMware for free (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43276083)

http://www.vmware.com/products/datacenter-virtualization/vsphere/compare-kits.html [vmware.com]

The free version gives Vmware workstation a run for its money(if you are OK with running your day-to-day OS on top of it, rather than it on top of your OS, or you have a second machine); but it is the toy seats by the standards of what they aren't exactly giving away.

Re:VMware for free (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43276269)

Check out that license again.... last I looked it was non-commercial use. Not only that, but its limited, no VSphere or any of that.

So this wouldn't really fly for...any of the use cases we are discussing. They may be best in breed for many features, but there is vanishingly little that they are the only game in town for.

Not only that, but as a "free" offering, they could stop offering it and stop updating it at any time, leaving anyone using it on the same buggy insecure version forever.

While its true an open source project may die, at least it dies, leaving you with options....and lets face it...nothing as high profile and highly used as the free hypervisors is just going to die off anytime soon.

Re:VMware for free (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276573)

Check out that license again.... last I looked it was non-commercial use. Not only that, but its limited, no VSphere or any of that.

If you can find that clause, id be interested; however the EULA they link makes no mention whatsoever of a specific edition, and they set no restrictions that I can see other than the ones imposed by the installed license.

And you do get to use "vSphere" the client, you DONT get to use vCenter. So no clustering, no automatic updates, no VSA or VCVA, no hardware acceleration on SAN, etc.

Re:VMware for free (1)

barc0001 (173002) | about a year ago | (#43277235)

You might want to point out to us where you saw "for non-commercial use" because I don't see that anywhere. I was always under the impression ESXi was a crippled first-ones-free method of getting companies to use VMWare and then upsell them when they realize there isn't central management, live motion, or support for more than 32GB of RAM/VM

Re:VMware for free (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#43276463)

....Unless Vmware discounts their licenses to nearly free, their high volume customers aren't likely to stick with them, ......

Oh, you want it free?

OK, here you go: http://www.vmware.com/products/vsphere-hypervisor/overview.html [vmware.com]

All that ranting, and all you needed to do was ask.

That's the hypervisor only, not any of the features that make VMware attractive to the Enterprise. That's kind of like someone complaining that Cisco hardware is expensive, and you offer a free supervisor engine that won't really do anything until you surround it with a $40,000 switch chassis.

Re:VMware for free? (1)

Geste (527302) | about a year ago | (#43276883)

We very much appreciated our free use of VMWare Server and ESXi even though they were feature/hardware-constrained. And even when they were acquired by EMC and then put out insane pricing with vSphere 5, we bought some because we needed what they offered with that at the time.

But we are a small department and we just can't afford to pay what they are asking for licenses and support. We can't expand.

So, our answer in 2012-2013 is the KVM-based ProxMox VE (proxmox.com) and we are thrilled with what we are getting for free. The gap really *has* closed a lot and I think this article makes that plain. We have some vSphere we'll run for a while, but I'd be surprised if we had any VMWare at the end of 2014.

(and EMC, now that our OpenIndiana ZFS boxes have been humming for 6 months, our Celerra will be decommissioned in April)

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (4, Interesting)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43276107)

This has been a long time coming, but before going all crazy on knocking VMWare... we wouldn't have VMs without them? VMs that revolutionized IT infrastructure.

I don't think they've even begun to react to the competition or perceive it, maybe this move by paypal will put Xen on their radar, but for the longest time they were THE ONLY virtualization provider because nobody else could do it, people who call VMWare a monopoly simply do not understand the nature of technology and innovation.

Ex. name one anti-competitive practice they've employed? I can name one that's not ESXi has always been free, and that is actually what openstack is starting to surpass ESXi making it a viable alternative to the ESXi full blown vizor.

You folks are right though, the licensing structure completely bends the little guys over, a simple solution (w vCenter) can easily run up in the 50k range for like 200-300 users, unacceptable. But... all they have to do is bring their licensing costs down... right?

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43276247)

I have nothing against them as a company, or as innovators(for reasons I'd rather not revisit, I once enjoyed the better part of a day grovelling through their documentation on simulating various PC timers, while ensuring certain sorts of consistency under varying CPU loads and across host migrations, a surprisingly hairy business).

I just strongly suspect that they are pretty much screwed.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276615)

Theyre screwed becuase they have the best product? They can change their pricing to be competitive if they really want; apparently they just dont see the need yet.

They wont be "screwed" until their competitors have better features than them, but if you check their competitor's marketing pages, you will notice that none of them claim to be better-- just that theyre a better "value". If / when VMware has to start claiming that, then theyre in trouble.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (1)

khasim (1285) | about a year ago | (#43276907)

They can change their pricing to be competitive if they really want; apparently they just dont see the need yet.

That's going to be a problem for them as well. Because their customers who have been paying the current price will be annoyed if the price drops just so VMWare can maintain marketshare.

They wont be "screwed" until their competitors have better features than them, but if you check their competitor's marketing pages, you will notice that none of them claim to be better-- just that theyre a better "value".

Except that "good enough" is good enough.

And once the smaller businesses go with a particular flavour of virtualization it becomes somewhat difficult to change. Their in-house expertise becomes focused on that flavour.

I started with VMWare back in the 90s. But I think that they're products are massively overpriced now.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276333)

I'm pretty sure IBM has had VM capabilities for a long-time on their mainframe hardware.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276663)

I don't think they've even begun to react to the competition or perceive it, maybe this move by paypal will put Xen on their radar, but for the longest time they were THE ONLY virtualization provider because nobody else could do it, people who call VMWare a monopoly simply do not understand the nature of technology and innovation.

Ex. name one anti-competitive practice they've employed? I can name one that's not ESXi has always been free, and that is actually what openstack is starting to surpass ESXi making it a viable alternative to the ESXi full blown vizor.

You folks are right though, the licensing structure completely bends the little guys over, a simple solution (w vCenter) can easily run up in the 50k range for like 200-300 users, unacceptable. But... all they have to do is bring their licensing costs down... right?

That's what "monopoly" means: being the only provider for a good/service. It's not necessarily negative but it's generally a bad sign for an industry because that position is often abused, hence anti-trust laws that (theoretically) more heavily regulate monopolies so they don't get away with abusing their power.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (1)

matrim99 (123693) | about a year ago | (#43276967)

First to market != monopoly

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276905)

>> Ex. name one anti-competitive practice they've employed?

You cannot replace the vSwitch. (Unless you are Cisco and give Vmware a lot of money).

You cannot replace the vShield Edge router and VXLAN implementations if you use their cloud management software.

These are critical components and VMware made sure they cannot be replaced with competition.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year ago | (#43277159)

Actually I never unstood why you have VMs on a system that you don't have to emulate. Ie, I use VMware on a Mac to run Windows stuff, but I can't figure out why run Windows on top of Windows? Sure there's the issue of making a sandbox, but surely there's more to it than that, it's an expensive and slow way to get something simple done. Some people have virtual servers, but what's the point of that if you end up with two servers on one machine that run more than twice as slow than if you just had the same server do both jobs directly.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276685)

MS offers Hyper-V because they've essentially given up on competing for web application market share. It's essentially "okay, do your LAMP--we don't care anymore". However, they still want the sever license.

Re:Lesson: Licensing costs suck (5, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43276027)

This story from Gigaom is a little more tempered than the article on Businessinsider. It quotes the Paypal director, saying they will continue to use VMware - if you read right through to the end of it.

http://gigaom.com/2013/03/25/mirantis-open-sources-its-openstack-cloud-management-tools/ [gigaom.com]

This, in any case, is not a "tipping-point" indicator.

With or without Mirantis or Fuel, Openstack is a tool kit for building your own CloudOS. Unless you can make a business based on the internal IP generated, there's no win here for most enterprise shops.

Amazon did this sucessfully - getting value from reselling access to raw infrastructure, based on development created for internal needs.

Yahoo failed at this, after more than a decade optimising their own OS layer for internet scale-out. They would have been better served to eliminate their OS engineering unit, buying common OTS Linux/Windows.

PayPal are somewhere between these poles. Having been on their own linux-based, scale-out physical architecture for more than a decade, they are well-positioned to derive value from Openstack. If you were Williams-Sonoma or Chevron? They do not want or need to become an OS developer/integrator.

But when will they accept bitcoin? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43275831)

Hi to Goatse and HOST files trolls.

My bitcoin address, send me your mod points and rage to address. Bitcoin addresses are the new goatse links!

1Dh7U6vTyNX4BnDJj8vnCLnxwrnKHp13LL

This is not off-topic, paypal is not without its criitics, and what bigger critic to a payment service is a payment service that criticizes all forms payment, including itself.

Bonus, captcha : calculi

Good Riddens (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43275865)

Theres something wrong with VMware that makes it think it can charge more for virtualization software than the hardware it is replacing. They need their asses handed to them for a few years to put them back in their place.

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43275931)

Because there's no value in saving electricity or having the ability to quickly migrate an entire operating system to new hardware in real-time.

Re:Good Riddens (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43275971)

Not when HyperV, Xenserver, Xen and KVM all do that for free.

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276109)

I used to tout XenServer as a "good enough" alternative to VMware, especially if you needed to spend that money elsewhere. Their last 6.1 release has been awful though. Citrix releases tend to lack polish, but regularly bluescreening VMs is a bit much.

Re:Good Riddens (2)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about a year ago | (#43276163)

And KVM just works and has for a very long time.

Re:Good Riddens (-1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43276511)

KVM is not so much a Type-1 Hypervisor, as it is a "jail" for the Linux kernel.

It does have a great utility, especially for hosting isolations and for just-in-time host creation.

But is is just NOT a real, NuMA aware, scheduling sensitive Hypervisor with a cluster awareness for capacity management, etc.

Re:Good Riddens (4, Informative)

PhrstBrn (751463) | about a year ago | (#43276747)

KVM is not so much a Type-1 Hypervisor, as it is a "jail" for the Linux kernel.

It does have a great utility, especially for hosting isolations and for just-in-time host creation.

But is is just NOT a real, NuMA aware, scheduling sensitive Hypervisor with a cluster awareness for capacity management, etc.

KVM is a type-1 hypervisor. I can't believe somebody with 3 digit UID is posting this misinformed crap.

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276207)

Yeah but you can't do half the things with HyberV that you can with VMware. VMware while expensive is miles ahead of anyone else in terms of Virtualization features.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year ago | (#43276339)

You are living in the past. VMware while still ahead is only barely so, HyperV and all the others have made huge progress to the point where unless you are a niche that depends on a very specific VMware scenario then it is very difficult to justify the premium they charge.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

batkiwi (137781) | about a year ago | (#43276455)

Can you name one thing VMWare does that HyperV with Server 2012 cannot do?

Re:Good Riddens (1)

Nkwe (604125) | about a year ago | (#43276609)

Can you name one thing VMWare does that HyperV with Server 2012 cannot do?

Access shared storage? (Do a live migration without moving or copying the underlying virtual disk images.)

Re:Good Riddens (1)

Wolfraider (1065360) | about a year ago | (#43277133)

Take a look at cluster shared volumes, Hyper-V has supported shared storage since 2008 R2.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about a year ago | (#43276457)

You may want to go and read about what each platform can do, because this is no longer accurate in many ways.

See here for more info: http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=13483 [aidanfinn.com]

Re:Good Riddens (3, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276709)

HyperV has been pretty buggy every time Ive used it (though I have not tried 3.0). Hot-adding USB, NICs, etc has been painful, when it even works without a reboot; there have been several times I've seen virtual NICs unresponsive until removed and re-added with 2 reboot cycles. Ive also seen scenarios where SCVMM was completely unresponsive because of some asinine dependency.

Xen I have little experience with, because it has apparently no ability to be nested in VMWare workstation. Unfortunate, since HyperV and ESXi are all quite happy to nest, with ESXi happy to nest 3-4 layers deep. I would still probably choose Xen over HyperV, because of HyperV's historically awful support of non-Windows stuff, and non-existant freeBSD support.

I admit Im a VMWare fanboy, because they seem to have the broadest OS support, the best performance, and the most sane tools. MS's virtual network editor was seriously bad last time i used it, nearly as bad as VMWare Workstation's. And to this day I cant think of a feature that the other two have that ESXi has, while I can definately think of features ESXi has that the other two dont (though probably not at the free level; the cool bits always seem to end up at Enterprise+).

Re: Good Riddens (1)

danomac (1032160) | about a year ago | (#43275961)

Even for nonprofits VMWare is excessively expensive. Most vendors are half price or so (some are even 75%), but not VMWare. If I remember right they were 95% of the original price.

They're insane.

Re: Good Riddens (2)

skovnymfe (1671822) | about a year ago | (#43276003)

That's how you get when you are too big on your own for too long, feeding shareholders money. The shareholders take over and the company suffers as a result of having to sacrifice creativity for profit. Happens all the time.

Re: Good Riddens (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276257)

The last CEO made structural changes to enhance profitability yet sacrificed the long term health of the company. For 5 years of "work" cashed in $60 million in stock grants in 3 days (Nov 2012) and was getting a $1.5M USD salary with cash bonuses.

The failed "new" licensing scheme that they tried to push thru in 2011 backfired because it was seen for what it really was, a cash grab.

The company has become extremely bureaucratic and has lost it's innovative edge. In essence it had become Microsoft. I guess that is what you get when you hire alot of management staff & executives from Microsoft.

They are responsible for their own shortcomings and present/future predicaments.

Re: Good Riddens (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276751)

..which generally gets others to realize that theres plenty of money to be had if only they get their act together. Amazing how many features and how much bugfixing HyperV got once MS realized that a decent hypervisor was a compelling feature.

Seems to me things are working as intended; this is how we ended up with multiple sweet browsers when MS stagnated.

Re: Even for nonprofits (4, Insightful)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43276015)

Being a non-profit or "not for profit" corporation does not mean that the employees and board members work for a pittance. Take a look at the salaries for Goodwill and the Red Cross and United Way in the San Diego area. Each chair makes more than $300,000.00 per year, sometimes substantially more when you include their "car allowance" and "living allowance" and "competitive allowance". A lot of their other employees are also extremely well paid. So there's no need to worry about "non-profit" behemoths like these not getting any sort of serious discount.

Re: Even for nonprofits (4, Informative)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year ago | (#43277101)

Each chair makes more than $300,000.00 per year

Absolutely disgusting, taking peoples charitable donations and living like lords.

I decided to check your facts, the president of red cross US gets $1million a year!! Some people have no shame.

Re:Good Riddens (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43276071)

Theres something wrong with VMware that makes it think it can charge more for virtualization software than the hardware it is replacing. They need their asses handed to them for a few years to put them back in their place.

It's name. VMWare was the first to virtualize the x86, and thus people bought into them by name alone. Sort of like how people used to buy IBM, or Microsoft. Now they buy VMWare.

And I know many a sysadmin who for their home system, refuse to run anything but the home versions of VMWare (notably on Mac, VMWare Fusion). They wouldn't even consider Parallels (nevermind VirtualBox).

VMWare has name recognition primarily. You'll never go wrong buying VMWare. Hyper-V is only done because it's Microsoft.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

Aaden42 (198257) | about a year ago | (#43276261)

In fairness, at least on Mac, VMWare slaughters VirtualBox and Parallels on performance. Worth the money, IMHO. On Linux/Windows it could well be a different story.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

Lashat (1041424) | about a year ago | (#43276873)

Open Source, Upstreamed, Accelerated OpenGL Linux Display Driver (vmwgfx) = Linux win for VMware.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276801)

I have no experience with Parallels, but you cannot compare Virtualbox with any of the other hypervisors. It is great for one-off projects, until it randomly devours your VM due to an upgrade (which happened to me, and was a documented bug); or until it hangs; or until you realize that its acceleration for one or another feature is limited to windows only.

VMWare workstation really is miles ahead of VirtualBox, and really is worth the price. I wish I could try HyperV on my home rig, but of course installing that feature locks my computer due to a mobo incompatibility. Regardless, as my intention is to have a home lab running ESXi, and as Im only aware of VMWare products being able to nest, that is the only option I have.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

chispito (1870390) | about a year ago | (#43276095)

charge more for virtualization software than the hardware it is replacing

That isn't why organizations virtualize.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43276351)

I have ~950 VMs on 14 servers.

Even at full price, I'm paying WAAAAY less in licensing than if I had to have all that hardware running, moreso when you throw on renting more space, paying for more power/AC/network/etc.

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276413)

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Re:Good Riddens (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43276453)

Happy to post a screen shot if you'd like.

About 100 VMs on a Dell R720 full of memory & fast hard drives is reasonable.

Yes, I don't have failover capacity among many other things, but mgmt isn't willing to pay for it.

Re:Good Riddens (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year ago | (#43276703)

*cough*bullshit*cough*

*cough*bullshit*cough*

What are you calling bullshit on? The value?

vSphere 5 Enterprise with Ops Manager is $4300/CPU. He has 14 servers, if each is dual-processor, then he'd pay $60K pruchase price plus $14K/year maintenance. Assuming that servers + storage cost him $15K + $500/year per server for hardware support, then his total initial cost is $270K + $21K/year for maintenance, or $284/initial + $22/year maintenance for each virtual server. How are you going to beat $280/server with physical servers? The datacenter network switch ports alone for a physical server may cost you more than $280.

Or are you claiming that 14 physical servers can't support 950 virtual servers? 67:1 is a fairly high consolidation ratio, but not unreasonable if they are typical lightly used office servers - 384GB of RAM and 16 cores of CPU in each physical server could easily support that load.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276881)

Generally most people arent going to need more than Essentials Plus, (for 3 hosts i think?) unless they really need DRS or DPM or the other fancy stuff. For more than 3 hosts, theyre going to want standard edition; you can get a kit of 6 CPUs for $11k. The cost of the backend SAN alone is generally going to exceed that, and I imagine that 3 2-socket, 8-12 core servers is going to run in the area of ~$25-40k.

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276431)

Probably you are not the target. My team manages several vmware "clusters" and the price is high but acceptable in this situation:

3 HP DL360 G8 24 cores each + 1 HP DL320 G8 for management + HP storage array + FC switch +UPS is close to $50k

In this case 1 vmware 3-hosts license for $3k is perfectly fine - less than 10% of the hardware cost.

Surely we could build something for less - KVM, cheaper hardware, no storage array but the main cost are people anyway
and $3k for saving their time is well worth it. 3 of us are able to manage several such clusters without much stress and not a single downtime
since the clusters were started.

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276623)

The expression you were looking for is "good riddance."

Re:Good Riddens (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43276637)

Theres nothing wrong with them realizing that huge numbers of IT shops are willing to pay that money.

You're right that it is refreshing to see some seriously healthy competition from Xen and HyperV, tho-- their prices are seriously painful.

OSS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43275867)

Open source winning again....

Re:OSS (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#43275985)

Open source winning again....

Consider PayPal, they may just be tired of sharing their vast revenue. Someone at the top wants to buy an island or new yacht and all those VMware fees would come in handy.

Re:OSS (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year ago | (#43276161)

... and all those VMware fees would come in handy.

And there is nothing wrong with that in my books. If anything, it's a great thing. Some big-wig wants to buy an island, migrates [some of] the company to open source and in doing so shows many smaller businesses that it is possible, it works and they feel more confident the next time some geek makes a suggestion like that in a meeting.

I am personally very tired of pushback from management based purely on the fact that they don't understand technology and have been trained to think that the best product must have the biggest price tag.

Re:OSS (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43276359)

"shows many smaller businesses that it is possible" assuming you have a dedicated department of people to make it happen.

This is where open source naturally leads (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43275881)

Soon all software companies will be bankrupt and you won't be able to find a job developing software at any price.

For those of you nerds who are upset about the world ignoring your pleas for "open standards" or whatever now, imagine how they will treat you when you are completely disenfranchised from the economic system. MBAs will happily replace you with open source, which just means you work for free, if they can increase their bonus by doing so.

But hey, it's free as in freedom! Same as in freedom is slavery. Only software developers are beaten down by society enough to believe that giving away their work for free is a good thing. I wonder how much this has to do with lack of confidence and bullying in schools.

Re:This is where open source naturally leads (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#43275923)

Soon all software companies will be bankrupt and you won't be able to find a job developing software at any price

You work at a software shop where you sell custom software "solutions"!

Re:This is where open source naturally leads (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43275945)

Don't respond to obvious trolls.

Re:This is where open source naturally leads (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276153)

Soon all software companies will be re-inventing themselves and I won't be able to find a job developing software at any price.

Fixed that for you...

Hypervisor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43275999)

OpenStack is not a hypervisor though. How could it be a direct replacement. Sounds like there is something missing.

Re:Hypervisor (2)

robmv (855035) | about a year ago | (#43276159)

OpenStack manages an Hypervisor, VMWare are many things an Hypervisor and a lot of administration applications (than only manage VMWare Hypervisor), OpenStack can manage multiple hypervisors [openstack.org] . I want to know what they will use? KVM or Xen?

Re:Hypervisor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276759)

I was trying to figure out the same thing, what Hypervisor are they going to plug in with OpenStack.

It's no biggie. You have to understand the big pic (5, Insightful)

Stu101 (1031686) | about a year ago | (#43276025)

Hi

Speaking as someone who spends 100% of their working week in VMware it's no biggie. A (very) small group of us look after a stack just as big as that.

With MS entreprise agreements that mean you now have to a seperate for each socket in the cluster (ie when DRS moves the guest to another cluster node or you get a host failure and HA kicks in) it costs an awful lot and also makes Hyper V looks more enticing to the bean counters as the Enterprise comes with all the Hyper V management tools..

VMware realise they cannot compete on cost and they have said as much. No matter what you say about Hyper V I have seen some nasty failures that just wouldn't happen in VMware (and lets not forget host failures can mean loosing 30 guests at one time (Lets not go into allowable failure scenarios..)

I have seen a Hyper V guest mentally shit itself and cause the host to fail in such a manner that the failed machines didn't restart. So rather than have a restart on another cluster member a guest was able to take out a host. Just wouldn't happen with VMware and it's highly advanced Virtual Machine Manager. VMware also has awesome other features including shared memory paging etc etc.

Big business craves stability over saving a few hundred bucks per machine. However VMware are coming up with interesting new stuff and more interestingly the more advanced features are flowing down into more basic editions.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43276063)

I have seen vmware virtual center swear a machine was running that was not. I got to migrate everything onto another machine in the cluster and reboot that host. This was what support had me do as we got so far down the road and I really needed that VM back up.

Nothing is perfect. The issue is the costs are not a few hundred per host, that would be acceptable. VMware will need to reduce its cost or it will lose market share.

Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (1)

Stu101 (1031686) | about a year ago | (#43276119)

Yep, I know its a few thou per socket depending on edition and such. I was on about a few hundred per VMs, but yep, I know what you mean :)

Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43276135)

If platform and information security are requirements, there's no alternative to VMware at scale.

I'd like to see PCI/HIPAA Openstack. ;-)

Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (1)

hf256 (627209) | about a year ago | (#43276337)

If platform and information security are requirements, there's no alternative to VMware at scale.

I'd like to see PCI/HIPAA Openstack. ;-)

Random slashdot commenter knows more about PCI than Paypal -- seriously where did you get that?

Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43276667)

They are running a single application - or at least a series of related applications against the same data set.

That's no problem. There's no mixed-trust issue, and everything in PayPal is assumed to be under PCI DSS, down to service reps desktops.

This is an unusual case - not close to typical.

Show me your mixed-trust cloud, with multiple applications and use cases with arbitrary connectivity requirements - like most data centers.

Now, where can you insert, manage and report on controls for security and compliance? How do you assert different policy regions, so that workloads of differing trust levels may share the same pool of infrastructure resource?

On Openstack, you can't. On Hyper-V, you have the same Systems Center and agents as the physical counterpart - and no usable network isolation.

Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276965)

Citrix is working on a product based on OpenStack that does just that, breaks down a datacenter or cloud into discrete chunks, down to individual server level if required to keep data segregated depending on the application.

Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43277103)

"On Openstack, you can't."

Or do you? Wellcome to regions.

Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (3, Interesting)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about a year ago | (#43276919)

Big business craves stability over saving a few hundred bucks per machine. However VMware are coming up with interesting new stuff and more interestingly the more advanced features are flowing down into more basic editions.

Just my 2 cents.

As somebody who has consulted on both you're 1000% correct, more than you think, even. The real structural advantage you get out of VMware over Hyper-V is that Hyper-V is another layer of lock-in--"free" is just to reel you in. The reality is that it isn't "free"--the cost is simply built into the license they've already sold you for Windows Server, however you've bought it. I went about 50 rounds with a guy who swore up and down Hyper-V really was "free!!!" I said "Great, how do you get it?"

"Well, first you buy Windows..."

Clueless--It is incredible the marketing power of "free" and how much money it separates people from everyday. And this doesn't even include what a hyperactive piece of crap Hyper-V is to deal with if you're doing anything other than a completely vanilla implementation...

Anybody pushing Hyper-V has obviously never experienced vSphere Enterprise Plus. Me likey very much, thanks.

EH? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276029)

So OpenStack is a management set of tools to manage a cloud, not a hypervisor, which VMWare, as generally accepted vernacular is. What hypervisor will they be going with?

They can't even beat a book seller (5, Funny)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about a year ago | (#43276061)

I thought the comment from this [arstechnica.com] was pretty telling:

VMware COO Carl Eschenbach jumped on the Amazon theme, saying, "I look at this audience, and I look at VMware and the brand reputation we have in the enterprise, and I find it really hard to believe that we cannot collectively beat a company that sells books

VMWare is completely lost if that is how they view their marketplace.

Re:They can't even beat a book seller (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43276085)

This is what happens when an MBA type person runs a tech company. He thinks more about brand and reputation than being the best in the market. He thinks marketing and commercials can replace good products that offer great value.

Re:They can't even beat a book seller (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276395)

I think that isn't right. Carl headed up sales at VMware for almost a decade. I think he just doesn't (or at least didn't) understand that Amazon isn't a bookseller. It's a tech giant with business and technical capabilities that are outside of VMware's core competencies and are going to be hard to match especially when they're laying off architect level infrastructure folks right and left.

Re:They can't even beat a book seller (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year ago | (#43277095)

Yeah that's what he thinks, because all those types of people are the same. Just like Asians and Black people...

Re:They can't even beat a book seller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43277173)

are mbas a race now?
0/10 poor trolling

Re:They can't even beat a book seller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43277187)

Clueless people aren't clueless?

Re:They can't even beat a book seller (1)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#43276329)

VMware COO Carl Eschenbach jumped on the Amazon theme, saying, "I look at this audience, and I look at VMware and the brand reputation we have in the enterprise, and I find it really hard to believe that we cannot collectively beat a company that sells books

Amazon is as much about selling books as Pepsi is about selling sugared water [wikipedia.org] .

OS less installs and thread level virtualization (1)

wanfuse123 (2860713) | about a year ago | (#43276599)

The next competition is going to be in OS less installs and thread based virtualization for servers, workstations and mobile devices. I am sure all the major plays will jump on the band wagon. As far as VMWare, I have been running my VMWare install for 4 years and have only needed to reboot it once and that was probably my fault when I had a routing loop. VMware is very stable. VirtualBox is less so but then again its a type 2 hypervisor ( I use the term hypervisor loosely so don't call me out on it) compared to ESX's type 1 hypervisor. Xen is a pain to get running. And my proxmox 2.0 install on Debian with KVM simply just works although it doesn't easily support lots of features ( at least it didn't 4 years ago when I used it). Being able to live migrate an infrastructure is very valuable. Having Purple screens of death or guest lockups or host lockups doesn't fly in the enterprise. Virtualization is rapidly becoming like a utility company, everyone expects it and no one wants to pay for it. Same will happen to all parts of the computer industry including programmers when the A.I gets good enough. There is no job that is safe in the world, everything and everyone can be replaced with something cheaper, faster or better. http://rawcell.com/ [rawcell.com]

More hemorrhaging coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43276775)

The State of Utah UEN(Utah Education Network) recently pulled out of negotiations with VMware and sent a directive to migrate to Hyper-V.

Ouch!

mod 3own (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43277057)

I love vmware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43277065)

NOT. F*ck those guys. Licensing terms, restrictions, privacy violations, internal breaches and loss of source code that they don't tell us about...sigh.

You are done.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...