Eric Siebert, of vSphere-land.com fame, has published the Top 25 blog list of 2010. If you look through the list there is some awesome bloggers out there. I take great pride in having met some of them at VMworld and VMUG events and look forward to more interactions with all these brilliant thinkers and communicators.
Congrats to all the excellent information sharers out there. You have all earned it.
On my side I am super ecstatic that I had 20 people vote for me. Thank you to all the readers of this blog.
I’m looking for some feedback and thoughts from the community to help define a reasonable Licensing Model that takes Physical & Virtual into account. From my view as a client I don’t think this is all that complicated at the end of the day.
More discussions with some vendors around licensing and I’m finding more and more that the following two axioms are defining these discussions:
- Vendors want to get paid for their software (obviously the most they can be). They are not stupid in most cases.
- Clients want to pay for what they use (obviously the least they have to). They are not stupid in most cases.
The challenges come from the fact that Vendors don’t get the following generally:
- A VM in VMware is limited in processing to the vCPUs it has.
- A vCPU is limited to what a given core is individually capable of.
- More clients might be willing to use your software if I didn’t need to pay for 12 cores of power when I only need 2 today.
- VMotion of a VM does not mean I’m suddenly gaining more cores of processing.
Clients get upset cause of the following items:
- When a Vendor assumes I’m an idiot and can pull the wool over my eyes. This a good relationship does not make.
- A Vendor goes and says a Virtual does less than a physical, then charges me more if it is virtual.
- A Vendor requires me to license this big physical box and I only want a couple cores worth or less than # of cores in physical box.
- I want to use your software and because I’m running it as a virtual you want to charge me more. I can’t even buy smaller physicals to use your software within my software budget (smallest thing I can buy within reason today is an 8 core system and I only need 2 cores worth).
- A Vendor limits me to some physical box even though the OS/Software will be on a virtual machine. (Who cares what physical box is on it as long as I pay for the CPU MHz I’m using? Your software doesn’t. Only your legal does.)
- If I buy a lot of your software you can cut me deals since I’m spending a lot of money with you and then I’ll be interested in licensing models by physical cores or just a volume level discount. I’d rather not start there if I can avoid it.
- We’ve seen what happens to good tech when licensing models can’t take tech into account. See the Mainframe and Computer Associates licensing stubbornness in the 80s contribute significantly to the rise of the distributed computing space. We don’t want to deal with that migration if we can avoid it.
So there’s some of the requirements I have come up with. What other requirements/gotchas can you think of that have got you in dealing with vendors? Anything different when dealing with Solaris or AIX or HP/UX virtualization?
Recently I have been involved in discussions internally on what it will take to get Business Objects onto a Virtual Machine. The main talk has been around potentially removing another equivalent product and moving entirely over to Business Objects. Then we got pricing for Business Objects.
The standard piece of hardware today is pretty hefty even a small 1/2U system. They come with multiple cores. You have to do a special order to get anything less than a dual/quad core today. An enterprise doesn’t order single sockets either. Kinda silly to save $500 when you can have 2x the power and be able to reuse this system in the future for other purposes.
They price and only price by physical cores in a system and on all systems their software could potentially run on.
Business Objects is blowing a potential sale since today we only need something like 6-8 cores worth of power today and making these systems into VMs is ideal. It isn’t like Enterprises are out to “screw” vendors. Yes we all want a deal though Enterprises just want to pay for what they use. If they would just license use of ~8 CPUs (virtual or physical or core) and let us make these VMs they win.
Even for us to make these physical is a joke. We have to disable cores and sockets to make us legal.
So.. BO is blowing it. They need to grow up and stop making Mainframe’s look cheap with their licensing policies.
Is this true? If so what’s Oracle’s game plan? They just buy Virtual Iron for a virtualization management. Appear to have a clue since they are buying Sun with a huge virtualization skill set and product line. Then this info comes along?
In a letter to Virtual Iron’s sales partners, Oracle says it “will suspend development of existing Virtual Iron products and will suspend delivery of orders to new customers.” And in a second letter to a partner speaking with The Reg, the company says it will not allow partners to sell new licenses to anyone – including existing customers – after the end of this month.
So is Oracle’s plan just to cannibalize Sun & Virtual Iron’s code and forsake all the customers they bought?
Makes me pretty sad since I’m a big Sun fan with OpenSolaris and I have the fear that they will do the same thing there.
Today’s big news:
Cisco has come out with a single stop full solution rack for CPU, Disk & Network in one using all the best of virtualization technology of Storage, Server & Networking. Tight VMware integration, all Cisco hardware & lots of virtualization technology at 10G.
Over the past several years I’ve kinda figured that Cisco has lost their way. Floundering a bit. Now I know someone at Cisco has a brain. VMware has blazed the path in recent history into the Enterprise Datacenter. The gotcha has been trying to integrate with networking and storage. This is in theory resolved by this solution of a fully integrated delivered product line.
So how does HP & IBM & Dell correspond with this?