Preach it Wanda!

Steve Schaub
Systems Engineer, Windows
BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Wanda Prather
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:41 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Open Letter to TSM Product Mangement. Was Per terabyte 
licensing

I would like to add:

Whatever you decide is "fair" for licensing the client - whether it be
cores, or TB stored, or wombles, or hooha's, the client should REPORT BACK
to the server how many wombles or hooha's it is using.

The current system is most unfair to the customer, in that it requires an
unreasonable amount of work to figure out what is required for compliance.
If the client code can't figure it out, don't expect the human to.

"Solving" the problem by selling the customer another product, that is also
difficult to deploy on a large scale, is not the answer.

W

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Kelly Lipp <lipp AT storserver DOT com> wrote:

> This has been a good discussion.  I would like to change the tone a bit in
> order to help IBM product management as they ponder this issue.
>
> STORServer is an OEM of IBM TSM code and TSM is an integral part of our
> appliance.  We compete in the marketplace against just about everyone else
> in the backup space. The most difficulty we encounter is with respect to our
> licensing which is necessarily identical to IBMs.
>
> I have thought long and hard about how to decouple client licensing from
> our product and stay in compliance with our OEM agreement.  I have not come
> up with an idea.
>
> I postulate the following: a TSM client derives value from the TSM
> environment in two ways:
>
> 1. simply by having the ability to store and restore data on the TSM server
> and
> 2. from the intrinsic features the server uses to store maintain that data.
>  Some clients use server features relatively less while others use them
> relatively more.  The features used in the server are relevant to the
> overall business requirements rather than for a single client.
>
> At STORServer, we asses this value by determining how much it costs us to
> support an environment.  We can expect to field a certain number of support
> calls per customer with client side issues and certain number with server
> side issues.  The more clients a customer has, the more calls we'll get and
> the more sophisticated the server side is (larger library, more disk, server
> to server, etc.) the more server side calls we'll get.  To account for the
> client side calls is fairly simple since we have to pay IBM an annual
> support fee for the clients we've licensed from them.  We uplift this
> slightly to cover our costs of support.  On the server, we've taken the
> approach of basing the initial cost of our solution and ongoing support
> costs on the overall size (in Terabytes) of the server storage.  We have
> four tiers: micro, up to 40TB of storage, small 40-80TB, medium 80-120TB and
> large over 120TB.  The levels are somewhat arbitrary but reasonably reflect
> the STORServers in the field and correlated nicely with what our support
> numbers are telling us.
>
> I go into this as I think it would behoove IBM to consider a similar model.
>  A client doesn't necessarily benefit more or less based on the number of
> cores it has.  It does benefit, generally, from having the ability to backup
> and restore data.  The overall environment benefits from the presence of the
> TSM server as it is that environment that allows for the secure maintenance
> of critical corporate data.  It also provides services to recover after a
> disaster and finally, it provides a support organization to help a customer
> when it all goes wrong.
>
> The value of the solution is thus spread.  A licensing scheme that spreads
> this value is appropriate. A client has a license no matter how big or small
> it is.  Essentially a connection fee.  The more clients you have the more
> you pay.  The server is sized according to how much data is processed and
> stored.  The more data that arrives each day and the more data that is
> stored necessarily results in a larger server environment and thus more
> value.
>
> It is very easy to count how much or how many of each.  It is also easy to
> sell increments of licensing to accommodate growth.  I would not be inclined
> to sell a per GB/month type scheme as this is too difficult for customers to
> budget.  There must be a fixed component to licensing with a periodic "true
> up" period to make the scheme fair to IBM.
>
> Today, the licensing scheme is not fair to either party. Value as perceived
> by the customer is not tied to the number of cores in the processor and IBM
> cannot accurately determine if a customer is in compliance.  This is not
> acceptable by either party.
>
> As I write this, I recall an earlier version of the licensing model:
> clients were free and we paid for the server stuff.  It was priced by
> function.  For instance, we paid for DRM and its support.  That model wasn't
> correct as it rewarded the sites with large numbers of clients.
>
> One of you said it correctly: it's time to get this right once and for all.
>  We need a fair licensing model that ensures TSM continues to be a viable
> product in the marketplace.  That means one that rewards IBM for the hard
> work it does to provide the code and its support and one that provides real
> value to its customers.
>
> Subtract out the IBM bureaucracy and this is simple, right?
>
> Kelly Lipp
> Chief Technical Officer
> www.storserver.com
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> STORServer solves your data backup challenges.
> Once and for all.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> John D. Schneider
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:52 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
>
> Kelly,
>     You are right.  IBM's pricing model also has in mind IBM customers
> that have dozens of Tivoli titles, Websphere, etc., which all use the
> PVU model.
>     I think that IBM should build the license counting into the
> product, whether they want to use PVUs or whatever as the metric.  There
> is no reason why the the TSM client code could not be enhanced to gather
> whatever metric is in use and feed it back to the server.  This could be
> true of Websphere clients and most of the others.  Build the code to
> count the licenses quietly in the background, and provide a simple
> report you can call from the product to find out what you are using.
> Compliance would be easy.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> John D. Schneider
> The Computer Coaching Community, LLC
> Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226
> Cell: (314) 750-8721
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
> From: Kelly Lipp <lipp AT STORSERVER DOT COM>
> Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 6:48 pm
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>
> And remember, too, that the PVU thing contemplated something like a DB2
> license. Perhaps you had two or three systems that would run DB2. It did
> not contemplate something like TSM where EVERY system in the environment
> would have the software running. Keeping track of a couple of systems
> and their various processor/core/PVU stuff is relatively simple. Keeping
> track of that same thing across several hundred (never mind your case!)
> is very difficult.
>
> The "one size fits all" mentality of Tivoli software clearly missed the
> mark with TSM.
>
> Kelly Lipp
> Chief Technical Officer
> www.storserver.com
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> STORServer solves your data backup challenges.
> Once and for all.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> John D. Schneider
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:47 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
>
> Kelly,
> You are right, IBM must build their license model to ensure the
> profit they expect. We can't blame them for doing this as a business.
> They can't give their product away for free.
> But the PVU based licensing model is a huge problem for an
> environment like ours that has over 2000 clients of all different shapes
> and kinds. Lots of separate servers, but also VMWare partitions, and
> AIX LPARs, and NDMP clients, etc. Keeping up with the PVU rules is a
> huge effort, especially the way IBM did it. In Windows, the OS might
> tell you that you have 2 processors. But is that a single-core dual
> processor, or two separate processors. The OS can't tell, but IBM
> insists there is a difference, because it counts PVUs differently in
> this case. That is too nit-picky if you ask me, and places too
> difficult a burden on the customer. There are freeware utilities that
> will correctly count processors IBM's way, but to run them on 2000
> servers is a pain, too. We ended up writing our own scripts to call a
> freeware tool IBM recommended, then parse the resulting answer to get
> the details into a summarized format. As if that wasn't enough, the
> freeware tool crashed about 20 of our servers before we realized it.
> Boy, was that hard to explain to management!
> It is also very objectionable to us that they don't have
> sub-processor licensing for large servers like pSeries 595s. We have a
> 128 processor p595, with a 2-processor LPAR carved out of it running
> Oracle. Even if we aren't running Oracle on any of the other LPARs, we
> have to pay for a 128 processor Oracle license. That is insane, and bad
> for everybody, including IBM. We also have to pay for 128 processors of
> regular TSM client licenses, even if we have only allocated half the
> processors in the p595. These are unfair licensing practices, and just
> make IBM look greedy.
> To simplify the license counting problem, we are looking at IBM
> License Metric Tool, but it is a big software product to install and
> deploy on 2000 servers, too, just to count TSM licenses. ILMT 7.1 was
> deeply flawed, and 7.2 just came out, so we are going to take a look at
> that.
> From my perspective, a total-TB-under-management model would be very
> easy on the customer, as long as it was reasonably fair. It would be
> easy to run 'q occ' on all our TSM servers and pull together the result.
> You could find out your whole TSM license footprint in 10 minutes. The
> first time we had to it counting PVUs, it took us two months.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> John D. Schneider
> The Computer Coaching Community, LLC
> Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226
> Cell: (314) 750-8721
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
> From: Kelly Lipp <lipp AT STORSERVER DOT COM>
> Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 3:05 pm
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>
> And the key to that would be to add the phrase "in some cases..."
>
> No matter what IBM does there will be happy people and unhappy people.
> While a core based model doesn't make sense to many of us, a per TB
> model may turn out to make even less sense.
>
> To argue on their side, they must find a model that is compatible with
> the industry and that does not diminish their own cash flow. We need for
> IBM to continue to enhance the product. They do that by keeping us as
> customers and by attracting new customers. That balance is a lot harder
> than one may think.
>
> I was fairly vocal about this at a previous Oxford. While we're the
> loudest of the constituent parties, we also matter the least from a cash
> flow perspective: new customers actually spend more money (they've
> already gotten ours). The dance is tricky and sometimes comes down to a
> "they won't really leave (where would they go?) so let's worry about
> them but not too much."
>
> As I own my own business I can understand the complexity they face. It's
> really hard, though, not to simply say it's their problem.
>
> Kelly Lipp
> Chief Technical Officer
> www.storserver.com
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> STORServer solves your data backup challenges.
> Once and for all.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Steven Langdale
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:38 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
>
> He was a bit cagey about the actual cost, but said we should expect
> approx
> 20% reduction in overall cost. Not pursued it as yet.
>
>
> Steven Langdale
> Global Information Services
> EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation
> ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175
> ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782
> ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817
> + Email: steven.langdale AT cat DOT com
>
>
>
>
>
> Kelly Lipp <lipp AT STORSERVER DOT COM>
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> 28/09/2009 19:00
> Please respond to
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
>
> To
> ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
>
>
>
>
> Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009
>
>
>
> Really. How much does a TB of storage cost?
>
> Kelly Lipp
> Chief Technical Officer
> www.storserver.com
> 719-266-8777 x7105
> STORServer solves your data backup challenges.
> Once and for all.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
>
> Steven Langdale
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:02 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
>
> My Tivoli S/W rep here in the UK is happy to sell by PVU or per TB.
>
> It sounds like it's not quite made it over the water yet.
>
>
> Steven Langdale
> Global Information Services
> EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation
> ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175
> ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782
> ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817
> + Email: steven.langdale AT cat DOT com
>
>
>
>
>
> "John D. Schneider" <john.schneider AT COMPUTERCOACHINGCOMMUNITY DOT COM>
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> 28/09/2009 15:38
> Please respond to
> "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
>
> To
> ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
>
>
>
>
> Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009
>
>
>
> Duane,
> I asked our TSM rep this question, and he asked Ron Broucek, the
> North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader. His response was:
>
> "just a rumor at this time as we occasionally evaluate pricing
> strategies to make sure we're delivering the right value in the
> marketplace.
> Ron Broucek
> North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader"
>
> So if he says it is just a rumor, then how do you know IBM is offering
> both? Do you have this from a reliable source within IBM?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> John D. Schneider
> The Computer Coaching Community, LLC
> Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226
> Cell: (314) 750-8721
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
> From: "Ochs, Duane" <Duane.Ochs AT QG DOT COM>
> Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 9:07 am
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>
> We are actually looking into the cost difference.
> From what I understand, IBM is offering both. However, per terabyte
> licensing eliminates sub-capacity licensing.
> And it is your entire site. Not just where it works out best.
>
> We are in the midst of passport renewals and found an increase due to
> core type upgrades.
>
> Previously we had older xeons using 50 PVUs per core. And the new
> machines replacing the older ones are either same cores but at xeon 5540
> cores which are now 70 PVUs or double the cores.
> They brought up per TB licensing. Since then sales has sent me two
> E-mails inquiring total number of hosts, total TSM sites and total
> library capacity at each.
> I was hesitant to say the least.
>
> It's been about a week and I haven't heard back yet. When I hear more
> I'll drop a line.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Skylar Thompson
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:02 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Per terabyte licensing
>
> We're in that boat too. We have a GPFS cluster we expect to grow into
> the petabyte range, so unless IBM sets the per-byte cost *really* low
> we'll get hammered with that licensing scheme.
>
> Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote:
> > Or more costly. We have test VM servers with quad-core processors
> running
> > 15-VM guests. If I started counting by T-Bytes backed-up, it would cost
> > a lot more than 4-CPU's!
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > David Longo <David.Longo AT HEALTH-FIRST DOT ORG>
> > To:
> > ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Date:
> > 09/25/2009 03:22 PM
> > Subject:
> > Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing
> > Sent by:
> > "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> >
> >
> >
> > Haven't heard that.
> > My first thought is that it would make licensing
> > a LOT easier to figure out!
> >
> > David Longo
> >
> >>>> Thomas Denier <Thomas.Denier AT JEFFERSONHOSPITAL DOT ORG> 9/25/2009 
> >>>> 3:09 PM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> > Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting
> > processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to
> > licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor
> > cores. Where can I find more information on this?
> >
> >
> > #####################################
> > This message is for the named person's use only. It may
> > contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information.
> > No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you
> > receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and
> > all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it,
> > and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use,
> > disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you
> > are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to
> > monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views
> > or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the
> > individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views
> > or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender
> > is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions.
> > #####################################
> >
>
> --
> -- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
> -- Systems Administrator, Genome Sciences Department
> -- University of Washington, School of Medicine
>

-----------------------------------------------------
Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail 
disclaimer:  http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm