« Additional EMC NFS Integration with VMware now GA | Main | A little EMC/NetApp Fun to help cure cancer »

March 10, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Chuck Hollis

Thanks for setting the record straight Chad.

Sometimes, I wonder what happens at NetApp. They've got a good product (shouldn't that be enough?), but these continual overstatements erode credibility for all of us.

And that's not good for anyone ...

-- Chuck

Dave B

Just a quick correction on an otherwise great update! View 4 is licensed on the number of desktops managed, not per physical host - it helps tilt the TCO equation even more towards storage related costs.

Chad Sakac

@Dave B - agreed, but vSphere ESX/ESXi is licensed per host :-) That's what I meant, but thanks for the clarification.

Vijay Swami

I think what Dave B. means is: for example when you purchase a View 100 pack, it includes vSphere AND View licenses for 100 concurrent users. It doesn't matter if you spread those 100 users across 5 vSphere hosts or 6 or 10, because you get "unlimited" vSphere licenses for *desktop* use (this is key as you are NOT allowed to run server workloads on vSphere "for desktop" licenses per the EULA). You can install vSphere on as many hosts as it takes to support your 100 users. This is a recent change in View 4 compared to View 3. So technically, the number of view users on a vSphere host has no bearing on licensing TCO in View 4 when purchased this way. In View 3 you got a fixed number of ESX licenses, in View 4 you do not have that restriction with the bundle. You can choose to purchase View as an "add-on" license which does NOT include vSphere licensing only View-- this lets you mix desktop workloads in an existing vSphere server virtualization environment-- useful for small environment that have excess capacity in their vSphere environment and want to introduce some VDI in there.

Again, its just licensing semantics, and probably better left for sales guys :) and not really relevant to the overall technical post, but IS relevant to understanding VDI TCO (VMware have made it more capex "friendly" with this View 4 licensing scheme), so I thought I'd mention it for posterity.

Chad Sakac

@vijay @ Dave B - thank you for your clarification. I think I need to go back and review the licensing changes :-)

Most of the View deals I'm involved in the customer has a ELA and is looking for a View ELA addendum, or the View stuff is simply incremental standalone licenses, which may be borking my understanding.

BUT, the point you're raising is valid. Will go back and understand the changes in licensing better.

Thank you!

Dave B

Good luck with the licensing manual - even our sales guys have had issues... ;-)

(There seems to be a sweet spot of 32 or 64 vdi guests per host - we originally were trying to cram guests on hosts before we realised how the licensing works. Just wanted to make sure google had it indexed for anyone else that hits this!)


great article. IOPS is everything in VDI. Quick Note View 4.5 will have storage tiering. This will compleatly change the layout and storage design.

Vaughn Stewart


Ouch! You're being rather critical here on a number of points.

Regarding market share I'm surprised with your comments as you and I share emails which include market share estimates from a third party which is in the know. Dare I suggest you have cherry picked the quote you have in this post to fit your needs?

On accuracy, we did have one promote a market share and incorrectly cite the source as VMware. As you know, we have addressed this issue.

On the subject of accurate communications I find it ironic that in this post you state "the VMware View/EMC Launch tour..." I trust this is a typo and not a deliberate misrepresentation of the VMware View Launch tour.


Maybe you could clean up your post (for accuracy sake)

I really like the foundation this post provides around storage caching techniques. Unfortunately you fails to cover advanced caching technologies available to non-EMC array platforms.

Any reason why you would misrepresent your competitors technology? Again, I don't believe this is your intent; however, I would advocate that you ask for some feedback before you attempt to tackle storage technologies that are beyond EMC's capabilities

Transparent Storage Cache Sharing is HUGE with virtual infrastructures. Check out this post, it will begin to demistify the 'magic.'




Chad Sakac

@Vaughn, I'm sorry if it hurt, Vaughn. I told the NetApp folks at PEX (ask around) I was justing going to let the crazy claims slide unless it kept popping up, but that claim has no support, and did keep popping up.

Next - you and I exchanged emails on the earlier dialog with the View team, and some data came back that linked View and share with DR use cases. You correctly stated that View+DR may not correlate with DR, so that's not the thread I used - because I agree.

I asked the View team directly what they felt was a fair comment. They aren't saying Netapp doesn't have a great solution.

They are saying that a "9 of 10 customers" is "based on our VDI run rate and overall VDI market size, also supported by what we are hearing from our software partners, we don't see how this can possibly be true."

Heck, they aren't even saying "NetApp isn't a leader in this space" (I'm not saying that either), but simply that a claim of 9 of 10 customers isn't supported by any data of any kind, and doesn't seem reasonable.

Next - the VMware View launch tour is sponsored by parties (sometimes NetApp, sometimes EMC, sometimes both, sometimes others). The link I provided are the EMC sponsored locations, hence VMware/EMC launch tour. If it helps, I will remove that comment.

Next - If I have done any misrepresenting of PAM-II and the impact of block de-duplication on PAM, forgive me and correct me, but please be specific.

Note that in my caching section, I give several props to NetApp (and direct them to you, where you are free to say whatever you would like), but also point out there are other ways of solving the problem.

I think that cache (read and write) efficiency (just like non-volatile storage efficiency) is an ongoing effort across the storage vendors, and glad to say we're delivering a lot there. I DO disagree that all workloads can be served via a read cache backed by SATA, regardless of efficiency. But in the end, customers choose.

NOTE IT HERE FOR THE RECORD. EMC's view is that flash technology will exist on servers, as cache (read and write) and as a non-volatile storage tier. Like most things, there are more than one answer, more than one use case.

Noted for the record?

Speaking of "misrepresentation of competitor's technology" I'll refrain here from pointing out consistent claims made that I think are incorrect regarding vCenter integration (and VMware integration in general), and will make them on your blog, where you can comment. I have noted them several times, but they continue.

Vaughn Stewart


I'm not sure how we are so far apart in terms of IOPs per desktop. I cited 4-8 in my post, you cite 8-15. Maybe we could cite a 3rd source in order to better educate your readers?



Server Virtualization

That's quite an informative Vmware update, thanks for the thorough research!

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • BlogWithIntegrity.com


  • The opinions expressed here are my personal opinions. Content published here is not read or approved in advance by Dell Technologies and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Dell Technologies or any part of Dell Technologies. This is my blog, it is not an Dell Technologies blog.