It might not look like it, but the StorageMojo elves have been hard at work combing the internet for publicly available pricing information. These aren’t exactly storage companies, but they are owned by a storage company, so what the hey?
Check out the new lists:
Help StorageMojo
Looking at VMware’s price list makes me wonder how cost-effective it is. Could someone who is knowledgeable on VMware explain how the pieces get put together to make a working configuration?
Comments welcome, of course.
Here’s a synopsis for VMware pricing, you buy licenses by two CPU (Sockets) combos, so if you can use one license pack for 2-single CPU quad core machine or a dual CPU quad core machines for the same price.
Starter Edition (limit 2 CPU – 8 GB RAM – no SAN) ~$1000 for 2 CPUs
Standard Edition (no DRS, HA, VMotion, or VCB) ~$3750 for 2 CPUs
Enterprise Edition (includes everything) ~$5750 for 2 CPUs
VirtualCenter (optional, to manage multiple ESX hosts) – ~$3500
Of course, Support and Subscription services are additional costs and may range from $750 for Starter for 2 years to $3500 for Enterprise for 3 years).
A very functional starter system for VI3 would be, two single CPU quad core systems with 8 GB of RAM, which should be able to handle approximately 20-24 VM’s. The VMware licensing cost for this system would be about $1400 for 3 years. If you included another $3500 for Microsoft Datacenter licensing, you would never have to buy an OS license for the host or the guest VM’s.
A larger VMware environment would be 4 dual CPU quad core machines with 16 GB of RAM. I’d suggest SAN storage, but the customer would have to evaluate the cost and reward of VMware Enterprise edition (and DRS/HA/Vmotion). These systems would be able to virtual approximately 64-72 Virtual Machines, and the licensing cost would be about $17000 including support. I’d suggest another $4000 for the VirtualCenter and VMware Enterprise Converter license as well. You can certainly manage without it, but most Windows shops will appreciate the integration with Active Directory, templates, and more granular rights assignment.
Yes, the licensing costs are higher than other Virtual Solutions, but how many more additional hosts would those solutions require (i.e. MS Virtual Server) or more time required for administration. Of course a very functional, limited use departmental or test/dev solution is the free VMware Server which replaces all the GSX quotes in your list.
Could you clarify the “If you included another $3500 for Microsoft Datacenter licensing, you would never have to buy an OS license for the host or the guest VM’s.”
I was under the impression you still need individual OS licenses. If I recall correctly Windows 2003 Enterprise edition you could use with 4 VMs (it’s about 4x the prices as standard but you get some added bonuses, like clustering), but unlimited with DataCenter doesn’t ring a bell.
Thanks.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/news/bulletins/datacenterhighavail.mspx
This site lists out the licensing information for “datacenter” licenses for Windows Server Edition. It allows for the use of unlimited virtual “OS” instances.
As quoted from the site. “Unlimited virtualization rights: Starting October 1, 2006, new servers licensed with Windows Server Datacenter Edition (and previous licenses with new version rights) will have license rights to run an unlimited number of virtualized Windows Server instances. By simply licensing the server’s processors with Windows Server Datacenter Edition, customers will be able to run Windows Server Standard Edition, Enterprise Edition, Datacenter Edition or a mix of the three editions without having to track the number of virtual machines or pay for additional Windows Server licenses.”
Regards,
Steven
p.s. The ability to run the number of instances of running OSs mentioned above is really dependent on the types of applications being utilized. On a 16x or 32x core machine an administrator must be very aware of what applications would be running when you start to get up into the 60-80 virtual hosts numbers.