SpringSource TC server and VMWare Virtual Image Licencing

I recently spoke with the very nice sales teams of both SpringSource and Vmware (same company I know but different divisions). The explained how the TC server is licenced:

One licence per CPU Socket

But….

Only for a maximum of six cores!

So for an 8 core server that’s 2 licences and for a 48 core server that’s 8 licences – simple enough?

Given that most CPUs come in 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 48 core jumps, 6 is a strange number.

Why not 8 core? I asked – “Good Question. dunno, VMWare decision” says the Spring guy.

Hmmmmm

6 is such an awkward licencing metric. A VMware ESXi virtual image will only take a maximum of 8 cores per image which means you need 2 licences per fully scaled out VMware Image or that you have to put a policy limit of 6 per image. Not liking that.

This completely goes against the point of using this Spring /TC server /VMWare stack which allows you to automatically add cores and start new images in an event based manner. How could this work unless you licences EVERY CORE in EVERY SERVER that you deploy this architecture too.  Otherwise there is no benefit in this approach.  Could you buy small servers to limit exposure?  Yes, of course you can BUT there will be no way to benefit of the Elastic Computing power that the stack promises.

So I guess they choose 6 cores to make sure they had multiple licences per socket and therefore multiple maintenance and support renewals year on year. I would much prefer to have one single more expensive licence per socket (regardless of size) which means I can predict the cost of the architecture to cope with future demands as without this predictability this architecture would be too risky from a cost point of view.

This would mean that every time you replace a server (faulty or whatever) it will probably come with MORE cores than the model you had before and therefore pushing prices up in an uncontrolled manner.

To be clear, I know that VMWare are not the only company struggling with this issue and have gone with what they may consider a safe model  but I have to say from an architecture viewpoint I think  they will see a lot less sales than they would if they licenced in a more predictable and fair manner.