Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the old-ways-is-best-ways dept.

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.

6 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't that per socket, not per core? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

    1. Re:Isn't that per socket, not per core? by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  2. Too late, EMC by charnov · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  3. Amazing what competition does by MoToMo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  4. Re:I used to love VMware by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:This is why I use VirtualBox... by Bugler412 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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