License Pricing Insanity

PREDATAR Control23

That's funny,,,, he said "Petition".
As if IBM cares what the customer wants.:)

Can we open a petition on this site, I know there are some petition sites out on the web, or Perhaps we need to Open a new Top level thread.

Its definitely about time IBM started being forced to listen by sheer numbers because they clearly do not care very much about individual feedback.
 
PREDATAR Control23

heada... must be a shock for you... how do you plan the move from incremental for ever to have a full backup one in a while? or your DR?

and for petition... don't think it will work.. it's all coming to the one point money. IBM will lose support contract but will gain from other companies..

Same on our side.. we want a backup/dr solution that is cost effective.. and I think we will see these kind of move more often especially with the recession..
 
Last edited:
PREDATAR Control23

For me, there is a whole team in Spain that will engineer our migration from TSM to Networker so I only have to implement the migration and then perform support.

I feel like you feel when you need to put a pet to sleep. You know it has to be done but you don't like to do it.
 
PREDATAR Control23

After having some customers come in with Netbackup my manager is more firm in his stand for TSM over anything else. I agree pricing stinks, but IBM has NEVER been good at listening to their customers when it comes to licensing and pricing.
 
PREDATAR Control23

Does anyone have a link to when the pricing changed? I'm looking for a hard date to show some pricing 'before and after' for the life of our servers.

I have only known the PVU pricing model as I am new to TSM.

I have done some google but not finding anything.
 
PREDATAR Control23

We were a Veritas shop and EMC gave us Networker for free. After the 3rd incident of Networker losing data we kicked them out and opened up the bidding b/w Veritas and IBM. Ibm actually came in cheaper than Veritas.
 
PREDATAR Control23

IBM needs to listen. PVU for application server software or something like that is one thing, but for a backup client? Give me a break. I think someone mentioned a similar theme earlier.

There are cases where we backup a Windows server that holds no data. It runs a web server or something else that looks to a backend server so it's only a conduit to other things. We back it up for one reason......ease of restore so application owners don't have to reinstall applications and whatever config goes with that. So we only backup these once every 2 weeks or something. Just to keep up with Windows patching or some other little things that might go on them. But they could be boxes with a fairly substantial CPU core set, and we're paying PER CORE? For the BA client, and again for the Oracle, MSSQL, etc piece. Absolutely insane!

The PVU method is ok in certain situations, but IBM really needs to quicky revisit this for at least something like TSM, and maybe even more things. The posts I've read previous to this, with some major players having their companies begin (and sometimes already committed) to leave TSM is disheartening. It's a great product, but money talks and management listens. IBM should start listening too.
 
PREDATAR Control23

The thing that really gets my "goat" is how complicated the licensing can be (or was). We too went through an audit and nearly canceled a multimillion dollar purchase over 3 TDP Licenses. It took a month to do the audit, a few thousand man hours, all because a vendor sold us the licenses wrong for Domino and we short about $2000 worth of licenses.

And to top it all off, we were told "if you just use Tivoli License Manager, you won't have this problem". So let me get this straight, you want me to pay even more money to make sure I pay you more money???? Piss Off!!!

I used to hate TSM (when I first had to learn it) but now that I've got control of it, I actually like it. But I don't like it enough to spend the exhorbitant amount of money that is being demanded. Tapes are relatively cheap still and I can use 10 times as many tapes and still save money vs the licensing that seems to be coming down the pipe.

And as for VMWare, I suggest you use VRanger. We don't have TSM install on each ESX Server. We have it installed on 1 single core server. That single server backs up ALL of our VMFS Data for us, straight to primary and copypool storage at the same time. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we're told we can't do that, just so they can get more money. At that point, I have no doubt we would switch off of TSM. We are not that committed. It would take time, but we can dump it like a hot rock and be done with it within 6 months.

So I hope IBM is listening, because you can only demand a premium for so long before you price youself out of the market, like they have done countless times before.

James
 
PREDATAR Control23

I don't deal with licensing cost but my manager do, and I believed we spent roughly $100K for TSM licensing per year, *ouch*. I work for a higher education institution so we have to go through certain vendors the state certified, etc. so getting RFP/RFQ for TSM is limited.

Additionally, I attended a couple of TSM courses and I can tell you some of the institutions that sent their staff to TSM training concern more about data protection and management than cost (ie. nuclear power plants, DOD contractors, Government agencies). Furthermore, with all the federal regulations and guidelines for data retention (such as Sarbanes-Oxley) TSM is playing a critical role than ever.

Therefore, IBM caters TSM to institutions/CIOs that value data protection and management and will unlikely change TSM pricing structure. However, IBM might reconsider if enough TSM users migrated to different platform? That being said, if you used an inferior backup software you can always use the "my software ate my data" excuse when data is lost :smile:

We just added a new AIX server for TSM 5.5.2.0. Therefore, I don't forsee my institution moving away from TSM. In addition, I'm expecting TSM licensing cost to decrease as we migrate our servers onto VMware.
 
PREDATAR Control23

I can tell you this, the problem is not so much IBM but the folks who actually pay for it. With all due respect you have to be introspective on this. When unbiased due diligence is done, you won't have that problem in the first place. You're seeing a system where even people at the C-level already have established relationships and name brand "comfort levels". It's like deploying Microsoft products as a generally accepted practice. We all know better...but when there's a big brand name involved, there's the false perception that it's gotta be "just OK". Not so, usually, the reverse is the case.
Furthermore, we all tend to complain "after the fact". When you fall for solutions based on illusions of "free", it's paramount to remember that nothing is free. You pay for it now or pay for it later. So I think we all share the blame and have to be somewhat introspective before laying blame on others. Now I've competed against the IBM and EMC's for years and I'll tell you the stories do abound.

Alani Kuye
Phantom Data Systems Inc.
http://phantomdatasystems.com/opticalstorage.html
 
PREDATAR Control23

Hi

We still have HP Proliant DL360's , 380's, X340 X346 etc etc (pentium 3 too) servers running. Can someone give me the rough idea howmany PVU s per core those oldies would count for ?

Dyna
 
PREDATAR Control23

In this tread... You have the link to the IBM PVU license, Look post #50 The link is there..
For old Pentium... They are consider single core. So 1 Physical CPU = 100PVU.
 
PREDATAR Control23

Resurrecting an old thread here, but it's still relevant... we're getting ready to upgrade to 6.1, and in a meeting today my director says, "Hey... should we look at other options before we commit to this upgrade?". What could I say? TSM's a great product, but seriously... you can't even find a server with less than 4 cores... it's so friggin' expensive... and we don't even get BMR capabilities. I had to buy another product (Platespin) to do some P2P migrations earlier this year... almost thought about using Acronis for both the migrations and future backups...

We're an IBM shop for sure. Blades, iSeries, xSeries... Domino/Notes, TSM, Websphere... you name it. But I don't know how long it's going to stay that way if IBM doesn't stop bending us over...
 
PREDATAR Control23

It's always a good exercise to control your cost. especialy with the economic slow down. And yes IBM is quite expensive with there Licences the PVU concept. We went trought this process in 2009. We look at other alternative and this took about 6 to 8 month to do. This got us a good picture of our cost in backups.

The decission is always a question of cost. Does your maintenance/upgrade cost will be lower than the aquisition/implentation/trainning etc with another software for backup on a period of 3,5,7 years or more.

And yes IBM is really good at giving you a great price for the first 3 years and after without reason bring a 100% raise in your maintenance cost.
 
PREDATAR Control23

I've been spot checking some of our clients to calculate cost. Here are two examples:

We have approx 12 exchange servers running on 16 core SystemX E5530s. These servers are licensed at 70 pvu per core or 1120 pvu per server. We need to pay for 1120 PVUs of Exchange TDP and 1120 PVUs of BAClient.

Rounding our actual cost (not retail) we pay about $1 per PVU for Baclient and $1.50 per PVU for Exch TDP. The total is $2800 per exchange server for a year of reliable backup and more importantly restore.

Next up is an Oracle DB server that we use the TDP on. This server is a 16 core SystemX E7730 rated at $50 per core or 800 PVU. Our Oracle TDP is about $2 per PVU and our BAC is again $1 per PVU. The total PVU cost is $2400.

Is that really insane? I don't think so.
 
PREDATAR Control23

When I started this thread the pricing model was very steep and IBM did not seem to be competitive when Symantec was giving away Netbackup (I'm not lying they were giving it away and just requiring a support contract). Since then it appears things have become more reasonable.
 
PREDATAR Control23

IBM Licensing Nightmares

I have to second el.b00ty's post from this past January. I almost thought it was me; our shop is very very similar. I know some folks don't think long term, but I do. I'm always thinking 5 years down the road, building my infrastructure today to meet the needs tomorrow.

But when I see PVU Licensing schemes from IBM, I start to shutter. Yes, the license is still cheaper than the hardware, but these costs add up quickly. Yesterday, I had a single core, dual processor system handling Domino. So we were licensed for TSM TDP and the BA Client at 200 PVU as well as Domino itself. Today, I have a single socket quad core HX5 doing the same job. The PVU costs went from 200 to 280. And so what? It is only 200 PVU, right? Wrong! Start multiplying those costs across all the hardware.

My costs for doing the same bloody job (nothing changed, just the hardware) doubled in 5 years! Only hedge fund managers get that rate of return (and apparently IBM). And to top it off, IBM Increased it's PVU core costs from 50 to 70 instead of leaving it at 50 (for the dual core systems). In a few years when Quad Cores are dinosaurs and all I can lay my hands on are Octicores, my costs more than double AGAIN; 560 PVU to still do the same job! That is provided IBM doesn't raise the costs of the Octicores from 70 PVU to something higher in the interim. They obviously have no problem raising their PVU licensing costs. Thank God the Insurance Companies haven't taken notice!

And I don't want to hear about the "you can disable cores" kind of talk to save on licensing. I didn't buy the hardware to cripple it, I bought it to do a job! It doesn't seem appropriate to punish a business with additional licensing costs when they are just buying hardware upgrades, and that business doesn't really have a choice on the processor cores any more.

Yes I know, more cores means more work by a single system and we can consolidate. Great! For some folks that may be true, good on them for trying to save money by consolidating. For other shops, that is not a possibility. Why would I consolidate ALL of my Domino infrastructure into a single system. Looks too much like the "all of my eggs in one basket" kind of thinking. That is a bad idea and it is just not worth the risk if the system goes down. (BTW - Quality from IBM hardware is declining if you haven't noticed ... look for loose screws in your HX5's, I found them).

So, what do I see happening? I see people dumping IBM Software in droves! That is what I see. And I have already seen it happening! The pace will only increase over the next few years. And IBM will just raise their costs on their existing customers to make up the difference until somebody gets a clue and figures out why. We almost dumped some IBM Software this past budget and you can rest assured that the question will come up again in future budgets (just for the record, I fought against dumping Domino). In the grand scheme of things, IT folks have little power on how much they can spend. You make your case and you get a budget. But no finance manager is going to let you double your software costs every 5 years! I can guarantee it! Sooner or later, you all will face the decision, "I can keep running IBM software and Dump a lot of the other things we need to actually run the business, or we switch vendors and keep the business running". Kind of a no-brainer to me!

BTW - here is the real reason for my rant. The amount of work necessary to do the calculations to determine the correct number of PVU is too time consuming. I can easily tell you how many systems I have, and how many processors (which is irrelevant for just about every other vendor software solution we employ) are in each system. But getting down in cores, processor type, processor vendor, it's a lot of work! Too much work! What IT Shop isn't short staffed already? And now I'm forced into doing work I shouldn't have to do counting cores and identifying processor types to determine if I have to buy 50 PVU or 70 PVU, or 120 PVU. So I complain face-to-face to our sales rep that a better solution should exist for licensing and that costs are getting too high with multi-core systems. His response, "We have software you can purchase that can do this for you; licensed on the number of cores it finds of course." I kicked him out! He obviously wasn't listening to what I was saying.

I hope someone from IBM sees this post and does start to listen. Next budget, I can guarantee you, IBM is going to lose some business from us (maybe more than just software). We may be one business but I know for a fact, we are not the only business considering the switch.
 
Last edited:
Top