Software licensing and virtualization

SWsoft CEO Serguei Beloussov just had his article published at News.com. I’ve already touched on the subject of licensing here and there in my blog, but I never did a post specifically on licensing. I want to use the opportunity and make a little commentary.

Wider adoption of virtualization caused a growing debate on the licensing issues. Why? The most common definition of virtualization would be an ability to run multiple “virtual” execution environments in a single “physical” environment (I put words in quotes because you can use Virtuozzo to partition your VMware VM, and then virtual and physical are all of a sudden relative terms).

Software vendors quickly figured that they can charge you multiple times because you’ll be running multiple instances of the same software. Seems logical? Not quite and not to me.

1)    Most of the application vendors were forced by the pressure from the customers to give up “per-virtual” fees. For example, Microsoft SQL Server license allows running multiple instances for free – one license covers them all. So, why should one pay for an additional license only because it’s running in a virtual machine? As a result, Microsoft SQL Server is licensed per physical CPU socket, regardless of number of instances and whether they’re virtualized or not.

2)    OS vendors are still not sure about their position. Despite SQL Server and Windows Server reporting to the same VP, Microsoft charges you for every virtualized Windows Server. This seems weird to me for couple of reasons.

·         First off, an OS is supposed to manage hardware resources in a way that multiplexes them safely between applications. As far as I’m concerned, I still have the same hardware. As a user of the technology, why should I even be concerned about all these layers of virtualization beneath my application? Why should I pay many times for managing the same hardware? Hopefully, Microsoft will address this when their Windows Virtualization makes a debut in 2008 (or whenever).

·         Second, “virtual” instances are usually defined as independently installed. What if a software vendor creates multiple instances of an application or an OS without actually installing it or even creating a second physical copy? Yes, I mean Virtuozzo and the templates, which do exactly that.

I personally don’t feel good about being charged the full price of Windows 2003 Server as many times as I have running instances of Windows on my test server. With virtual appliances and trend to encapsulate services in virtual environments, things are only going to get worse.

Yes, I know that Microsoft allows to run 4 VMs for free, if you use Windows 2003 Server R2 as a host OS. I’m not sure how they came up with the magical number 4, but for Virtuozzo on Windows the typical number of VEs is more like 40 (four with zero) than 4.

Having said all that, I urge you all to read Serguei’s article at News.com for perspective on virtualization technology and the ramifications on software licensing.

Post a comment - let me know what you think.

VM sprawl is getting real

Techtarget has an interesting article on VM sprawl issue. The key takeaway is that even now, with VMs accounting for only 1% to 2% of OS instances, people already start experiencing VM sprawl. What will happen in a couple of years when this number is up to, say, 20%?

The article also mentions automation as a potential solution. Unfortunately, automation only helps to an extent, and here is why:

1)    Errors. The more distinct instances you have to perform a management operation on, the more likely this operation is to fail. This is due to the fact that all instances were provisioned and configured completely independently from each other and most probably have subtle differences, which nevertheless can make the management operation fail.

2)    Time. The more instances you have, the more time it takes to complete the operation. Let’s imagine you need to install 20 Megabytes of updates (or 2 Gigabytes of service pack) into a VM. The fastest the update can be completed is the same speed as it does in a non-virtualized environment, and it will need to monopolize the hardware for the duration of the update. VMs compete for the same set of hardware resources, so all other VMs will be stalled. Alternatively, the update can be run at low priority, but then it will take much longer to finish. Now, all of the above needs to be repeated as many times as you have VMs on the machine.

In my opinion, people will find out that automation is not a good enough answer shortly after they face the VM sprawl issue, and there is not that much time left.

Now, time for shameless self-promotion. Virtuozzo is free from VM sprawl effect. Our template-based architecture solves this problem in a MUCH more effective way than any automation solution.

As usual, your comments and e-mails are very welcome!

 

Virtuozzo at LinuxWorld

SWsoft will participate at the upcoming LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco from August 14 to 17 where we’ll feature Virtuozzo and preview our next product release. You can learn more about the OpenVZ project (sponsored by SWsoft), as well. If you go, stop by our exhibit #434.

Also, my colleague, Carla Safigan, has a conference session, “Real World Consolidation Through Server Virtualization” on Thursday, August 17 at 10:15 am in room 303. Make a note to attend.

More information can be found at http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/live/12/events/12SFO06A