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
|
