XCP-ng pricing
-
@black3dynamite That appears to charge based on the amount of available CPU's that could go into a host.
That approach is similar to what many businesses do. Microsoft obviously has dumped this idea though and gone with core counting and a minimum number of cores.
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@black3dynamite That appears to charge based on the amount of available CPU's that could go into a host.
Microsoft obviously has dumped this idea though and gone with core counting and a minimum number of cores.
And this is the best way to do it. Any other way doesn't make sense.
-
@obsolesce This is what I found so far from their subscription agreement.
https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-subscription-agreement
-
@dustinb3403 So you think only your opinion matters on what the pricing should be? You dont pay for their backup software, you dont pay for XS license, you arent their target audience for their support product either.
This project wouldnt even exist without Citrix essentially abandoning XS(or whatever they started calling it this week) and charging people for things like the ability to do live storage migrations.
This is meant for people who want to keep using something like XS but not pay for standard hypervisor features, just support. If youre comfortable supporting this hypervisor yourself you can just skip out on buying support from them, or get it when you need it.
Far as pricing goes, as long as it is cheaper than an Enterprise License XS per socket, and the support is competent, it is worth it for their intended audience, ie people willing to spend money for support.
They are essentially selling what XS licensing was up until 2018. Full featured for free, pay for support. -
@momurda said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 So you think only your opinion matters on what the pricing should be? You dont pay for their backup software, you dont pay for XS license, you arent their target audience for their support product either.
The target audience is SME space, which I currently work in. Just because I support and recommend the community edition of different projects, doesn't justify your stance of "only your opinion matters".
Pricing globally for any major software or OS or even hypervisor vendor is based on core counting to appropriately license a client entirely.
This project wouldnt even exist without Citrix essentially abandoning XS(or whatever they started calling it this week) and charging people for things like the ability to do live storage migrations.
Doesn't matter with the point of this conversation. . .
This is meant for people who want to keep using something like XS but not pay for standard hypervisor features, just support. If youre comfortable supporting this hypervisor yourself you can just skip out on buying support from them, or get it when you need it.
XS is still priced at $345/socket on xenserver.org (Socket pricing, which is still a better approach for Olivier not getting hosed on a customer who would abuse the Per Host rate)
https://xenserver.org/discuss-virtualization/get-support.html
Far as pricing goes, as long as it is cheaper than an Enterprise License XS per socket, and the support is competent, it is worth it for their intended audience, ie people willing to spend money for support.
They are essentially selling what XS licensing was up until 2018. Full featured for free, pay for support.You hope, have you ever looked at the support costs for xenserver?
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
@black3dynamite That appears to charge based on the amount of available CPU's that could go into a host.
Sounds that way, but seems unlikely.
-
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
That approach is similar to what many businesses do. Microsoft obviously has dumped this idea though and gone with core counting and a minimum number of cores.
MS always did it on the number that did go in, not the number that could.
-
@scottalanmiller said in XCP-ng pricing:
@dustinb3403 said in XCP-ng pricing:
That approach is similar to what many businesses do. Microsoft obviously has dumped this idea though and gone with core counting and a minimum number of cores.
MS always did it on the number that did go in, not the number that could.
I know this, I was discussing the screenshot that was posted. MS only charged for what was used.
-
@momurda said in XCP-ng pricing:
So you think only your opinion matters on what the pricing should be? You dont pay for their backup software, you dont pay for XS license, you arent their target audience for their support product either.
This is ridiculous. If they were going to monetize this project so heavily they should have skipped the kickstarter phase.
Why can't @DustinB3403 care about the product and want the best of both worlds? This idea is in it's infancy and now is the best time to try influencing the creators. If they don't want input then they shouldn't be asking for it.
IMO it's crazy to just say "f#%$ you" to the entire SMB market. I'm certainly not going to pay $4000 a year, each, for both of my 4-core hosts. I'd like to support the project somehow but I don't think I'll be able to convince my boss to just donate money to them either lol If I can say this will cost us $500 a year and we'll get 3 tickets a year (using proxmox's plan/pricing), then I can at least present that without sounding insane.
-
The argument I'm trying to make is 1) protect olivier from the customers that would abuse the support and 2) make it so that the good customers (big and small) don't get raked over the coals.
Which likely means a per-core cost (or per host* (really doesn't make sense)) and some sort of tiered support plans, like @bnrstnr 4 tickets a year or some such system.
Which is highly effective, cost wise for everyone. Olivier won't get rapped by shitty customers, and customers can up their support level to "Please wipe my ass Tier" if they so choose.
