http://www.latogalabs.com/2009/03/desktop-virtualization-sizing-scoping/ Virtualization, Cloud Computing, Technology of Business & Business of Technology Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:02:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.latogalabs.com/2009/03/desktop-virtualization-sizing-scoping/comment-page-1/#comment-234 latoga Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:41:49 +0000 http://www.latogalabs.com/?p=499#comment-234 I completely agree with you that per core pricing is the only thing that makes sense for the hypervisor and related management technology layers. It still kills me that so many ISVs don't understand how to license appropriately for virtualized environments (both the big ones that always come to mind as well as small ones). But, as one VP of Data Center Strategy commented in a recent meeting "If they don't support it running in a VM, good for me! Because I'll run it in a VM, not pay support and save myself a bunch on maintenance." I completely agree with you that per core pricing is the only thing that makes sense for the hypervisor and related management technology layers. It still kills me that so many ISVs don’t understand how to license appropriately for virtualized environments (both the big ones that always come to mind as well as small ones). But, as one VP of Data Center Strategy commented in a recent meeting “If they don’t support it running in a VM, good for me! Because I’ll run it in a VM, not pay support and save myself a bunch on maintenance.”

]]> http://www.latogalabs.com/2009/03/desktop-virtualization-sizing-scoping/comment-page-1/#comment-232 Chris Wolf Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:09:55 +0000 http://www.latogalabs.com/?p=499#comment-232 Good post, Greg. I agree with your comments on sizing. In my post, I had made assumptions on server platforms and should have stated them explicitly. I was assuming 8-16 cores in the 30-60 desktop VM consolidation density range. VMs per core is abosolutely how density should be judged. This is also why I think eventually we'll see hypervisor platform licensing based on physical cores, since it's the easiest and most accurate way to way the value of a virtualization software license. To be clear, I'm only condoning this model for the software that runs on the metail (i.e., the hypervisor and supporting services such as high availability). Software running inside VMs should have absolutely no ties to the physical hardware. Good post, Greg. I agree with your comments on sizing. In my post, I had made assumptions on server platforms and should have stated them explicitly. I was assuming 8-16 cores in the 30-60 desktop VM consolidation density range. VMs per core is abosolutely how density should be judged. This is also why I think eventually we’ll see hypervisor platform licensing based on physical cores, since it’s the easiest and most accurate way to way the value of a virtualization software license. To be clear, I’m only condoning this model for the software that runs on the metail (i.e., the hypervisor and supporting services such as high availability). Software running inside VMs should have absolutely no ties to the physical hardware.

]]>