Thanks, Rick. The link I provided does make it appear more rigid now. I'm not a
salesman, but I guess everything is negotiable if the parties are willing to
dicker and it would make sense for IBM to push it's solution.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Rick Adamson
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:05 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU -
experiences
Steve,
Perhaps I should have stated YMMV as our negotiation with IBM took place when
the cap model was in its infancy and from reviewing the link you provided it
appears some aspects have changed.
Basically if you use TSM compression, deduplication, and/or ProtecTier, it
would be reflected in the licensing costs, if you choose another solution as we
did with Data Domain it is not. In the end we asked IBM to negotiate a
middle-ground number but were denied.
I only mention this for those who use Data Domain, or other non-IBM solutions
for dedupe and compression as it will ultimately affect the capacity license
model cost.
Hope that helps....
~Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Stackwick, Stephen
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 12:42 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU -
experiences
I'm a little surprised by this, as the TSM macros you run to calculate the
storage don't know (or care) about the storage device, i.e., they just report
the uncompressed storage amount:
https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21500482&wv=1
That said, if you are running TSM deduplication, that *is* reported with the
macros, so there would be a cost saving. Was IBM talking about a discount for
ProtecTier, maybe?
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Rick Adamson
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 8:44 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU -
experiences
Ian,
Our company looked into it and thought it may save some $$ and at the same time
simplify the OVERLY complex PVU license model used for TSM/IBM.
I'll start by saying to make sure you understand what TSM products are included
in the "capacity" license proposal. From memory I don't remember the exact ones
but it does not apply to all TSM licenses. This obviously means that the
capacity license model may be attractive to some and unattractive to others.
Your IBM rep should be able to clarify this.
Also, in our environment we use a Data Domain backend which as you may know
prefers all incoming data to be uncompressed and unencrypted. Since the TSM
servers have no knowledge of the DD processes it reports the raw storage
numbers before compression and deduplication which negatively affected the
capacity licensing pricing.
We opened discussions on this issue with IBM but they refused to budge or
negotiate an adjustment for the "actual" storage used. Needless to say that
position was not too warmly received and we 86'ed the whole discussion.
Interestingly, had we used IBM storage/deduplication on the backend they would
use the actual storage, but no such provision for Data Domain.
Good luck....
~Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Ian Smith
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 7:13 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU -
experiences
Hi,
We are in the midst of discussions on moving to capacity-based licensing from
the standard PVU-based method for our site. We have a large number of clients (
licensed via TSM-EE, TDP agents, and on client-device basis
) and around 1PB of primary pool data. As I understand it, there is no
published metric for the conversion from PVU to per TB licensing so I would be
really interested and grateful if anyone would like to share their experiences
of that conversion in a private email to me.
Many thanks in advance.
Ian Smith
Oxford University
England
|
