Comparison of Hypervisor Licensing Models

As a close VMware partner in Central Europe, we at Geetoo recognize that this transformation has raised many questions among our customers.

The new core-based licensing model not only introduces new possibilities but also necessitates adjusting the approach to calculating IT infrastructure operational costs. For some organizations, this might be a budgeting challenge; however, this model also offers numerous advantages, such as more efficient infrastructure consolidation, greater flexibility, and support for modern solutions. 

A crucial task is to design IT architecture considering these new licensing conditions to fully utilize the environment’s capacity, allowing customers to benefit from infrastructure modernization without significantly increasing costs.

Despite the aforementioned changes, we believe that VMware remains an ideal solution for enterprise environments with high demands on performance, scalability, and reliability, thanks to its advanced features. Technologies like vMotion enable zero-downtime migration of virtual machines between hosts, facilitating maintenance planning and disaster recovery.

Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS) efficiently distributes workloads among servers, optimizing performance and resource utilization. VMware NSX allows for flexible and efficient management of network resources and the creation of modern Software-Defined Networks (SDN). This provides organizations with greater flexibility, improved automation, and faster deployment of new network services according to current needs. VMware also offers replication between data centers, ensuring continuous availability and rapid data recovery for critical applications. 

In our comparison with the open-source alternative Proxmox VE and Microsoft Hyper‑V, we focus on how different licensing models and technologies can affect the overall costs of operating an IT environment. Our goal is to provide an objective perspective on which hypervisor might be most suitable for your project, considering your infrastructure needs, available budget, and long-term growth strategy. 

Comparison Based on a Model Environment

The subject of the comparison is a model calculation of licensing costs for the VMware vSphere hypervisor at prices before the licensing model change, after transitioning to the new licensing model, and a comparison with the costs of hypervisors like Proxmox VE and Microsoft Hyper‑V.

In the article, we address individual comparisons of pricing costs for licensing coverage of model examples and state the positives or negatives each licensing model brings. In the physical server environment, for the model calculation, the volume of allocated computing resources is applied so that the environment is 100% utilized while maintaining capacity for High Availability (HA).

Number of VMs	Allocated vCPU/​Ghz	vRAM Capacity*	Disk Space
20	120	480GB	11TB

Licensing Coverage Costs

The table below shows the monthly amount for licensing or service coverage for each case of different licensing models (VMware) or different types of hypervisors (Proxmox VE). All prices are listed without 21% VAT and are indicative. Currency conversion to CZK is based on the exchange rate valid on September 6, 2024. 

Product	Units	Purchase Price	Monthly Amount When Spread Over 36 Months**
VMware Flex Core Pricing*	480GB vRAM	–	46 272 Kč
VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF).	48 VCF Cores	–	23 760 CZK
VMware vSphere Standard (VVS)	48 VVS Cores	146 880 CZK	4 080 CZK
Proxmox VE – Premium Subscription	3 CPU Sockets	–	6 388 Kč
Proxmox VE – No Subscription	3 CPU Sockets	0 Kč	0 Kč
Microsoft Windows Server 2022 & Hyper‑V & System Center 2022 (CSP)	48 CPU Cores	219 243 CZK	6 090 CZK

Advantages & Disadvantages of Individual Hypervisors

1. Licensing and Costs:

• VMware:
  • Commercial solution requiring paid licenses.
• Proxmox:
  • Open-source and free but offers paid support. All features are available in the basic installation; none are hidden behind paid versions. 
• Microsoft Hyper‑V:
  • Commercial solution implemented in Windows Server, which requires a license.

2. Guest Operating System Support (Hosted VMs):

• VMware:
  • Very broad support for various operating systems (Windows, Linux, BSD, macOS on Apple hardware). High compatibility. 
• Proxmox:
  • Supports a wide range of operating systems (Linux, Windows, BSD). Utilizes KVM, which has robust virtualization support. 
• Microsoft Hyper‑V:
  • Optimized primarily for Windows but also supports Linux. Support for other OSes is more limited than VMware and Proxmox. 

3. Management and User Interface:

• VMware:
  • Offers a sophisticated management interface (vCenter) with rich features for scaling, monitoring, and managing large clusters. High user-friendliness but requires advanced knowledge. 
• Proxmox:
  • Web interface is simpler and user-friendly. Everything is centralized, allowing management of virtual machines and containers (LXC) from a single platform. However, not all configurations can be performed solely from the GUI, requiring deeper knowledge of the underlying GNU/​Linux OS and its management via the terminal console. 
• Microsoft Hyper‑V:
  • Management is done through Hyper‑V Manager or System Center Virtual Machine Manager (SCVMM) for larger deployments. Management is intuitive, but deeper integration with Windows Server requires knowledge of this environment. 

4. Functionality and scalability:

• VMware:
  • Offers advanced features for enterprise environments, such as live migration (vMotion), High Availability (HA), Distributed Resource Scheduling (DRS), and replication between data centers. Highly scalable. 
• Proxmox:
  • Supports features like live migration and clustering but not in as advanced a form as VMware. It’s a good choice for small to medium-sized environments at most. 
• Microsoft Hyper‑V:
  • Offers features like live migration, failover clustering, and replication, but some advanced features require using System Center. Scalability is good, especially in Windows-focused environments. 

5. Container Support:

• VMware:
  • Has dedicated container support through VMware Tanzu, allowing Kubernetes integration for running containerized applications.
• Proxmox:
  • Natively supports LXC containers alongside KVM virtualization, enabling the operation of containers and virtual machines side by side.
• Microsoft Hyper‑V:
  • Container support through Windows Containers and Hyper‑V Containers. Deep integration with Docker and Kubernetes, but primarily within the Windows environment. 

6. Performance:

• VMware:
  • Excellent performance with optimizations for various scenarios. VMware is known for its stability and optimized resource management. 
• Proxmox:
  • KVM is very efficient and provides excellent performance with low overhead. Outstanding performance in Linux environments. 
• Microsoft Hyper‑V:
  • Well-optimized for Windows servers, but for Linux systems, performance may be inferior compared to KVM or VMware.

7. Support and Community:

• VMware:
  • Commercial support with very good services, extensive documentation, and a large user base. Strong support for the enterprise segment. 
• Proxmox:
  • Active community and available paid support. Documentation is extensive, but community support is the mainstay for problem-solving. 
• Microsoft Hyper‑V:
  • Microsoft offers paid support and robust documentation. The community around Hyper‑V isn’t as large as that of VMware or Proxmox. 

8. Integration with Existing Systems:

• VMware:
  • Excellent integration with many enterprise technologies and systems, including cloud solutions like AWS and Azure.
• Proxmox:
  • Good support for open-source systems and tools. Integrates well with various platforms, but enterprise integration can be more complex. 
• Microsoft Hyper‑V:
  • Excellent integration with Microsoft systems, including Active Directory, Windows Server, and Azure. A great choice for businesses using the Microsoft ecosystem. 

Summary:

• VMware is ideal for large enterprises and environments requiring advanced features, scalability, and good manufacturer service support.
• Proxmox is a good choice for small to medium-sized businesses seeking a flexible, open-source solution with good performance.
• Microsoft Hyper‑V is most suitable for organizations with Windows infrastructure and tight integration with Microsoft products.

Feel free to contact us if you’re looking for the best virtualization solution design for your business. Our experts are happy to help you optimize your IT infrastructure to meet all your performance, reliability, and cost-effectiveness requirements. 

Contact Us