TSM per Terabyte

PREDATAR Control23

Hi

I think I'm right in saying the select statement they use in that pdf is wrong, as it sum's occupancy from auditocc which includes copy data, where before it says licensing is only done on primary pools.

Cheers
 
PREDATAR Control23

Hi

I think I'm right in saying the select statement they use in that pdf is wrong, as it sum's occupancy from auditocc which includes copy data, where before it says licensing is only done on primary pools.

Cheers

It looks fine to me, as far as I have tried it, here and there. You should try it at your TSM, and see if it make sense.
 
PREDATAR Control23

It looks fine to me, as far as I have tried it, here and there. You should try it at your TSM, and see if it make sense.


Yes the sql works but I'm saying it gives the total storage of primary + copy pools. For this per TB licensing it says you only need the amount of data in the primary pools.
 
PREDATAR Control23

Yes the sql works but I'm saying it gives the total storage of primary + copy pools. For this per TB licensing it says you only need the amount of data in the primary pools.

I understand what you are talking about, but I think that you get only primary pool stored data with the query
E.g, I have one TSM server that shows around 10TB of stored data on TSM Monitor, but when I run query from that pdf, it shows me only around 5TB.
Knowing what is backed up on that server it looks reasonable to me that there is 5TB of primary pool stored data.
 
PREDATAR Control23

I think we will be seeing more customers asking for backupsets to be generated and stored for customers that use TSM for longtime backups.

Below is the tables columns in the auditocc table. As you can see the copy pool data is a separate column. The select statement from the pdf is:

select sum(backup_mb)+ sum(archive_mb)+ sum(spacemg_mb) as PRIMARY_MB from auditocc
This select statement does not contain the BACKUP_COPY_MB column, it only reports primary data.


NODE_NAME: xxxxxx
BACKUP_COPY_MB: 8929
ARCHIVE_MB: 0
ARCHIVE_COPY_MB: 0
SPACEMG_MB: 0
SPACEMG_COPY_MB: 0
TOTAL_MB: 19964
BACKUP_ACTIVE_MB: 0


/Hogmaster
 
PREDATAR Control23

Ah apologies people, I got it wrong.. (blushes)

hogmaster is correct... I have alot more data in my environment than I thought !!
 
PREDATAR Control23

Does any one got the pdf files??? cause the link look like down!
Please add the file to the site.
This is realy interesting new!

Thanks
 
PREDATAR Control23

Does the select statement return the "Front End" number or the "Back End" number that is mentioned in the PDF?

In the attached chart, if my select statement returns 100TB does that mean I will pay $901,000, or $2,400,000 for a license? I hope I am misinterpreting their dollar amounts.

View attachment 452
 
PREDATAR Control23

The select statement returns back end
You will pay about 700K or less for 100TB.

But, it looks like IBM is rethinking this licensing model, I am not very sure if this is still valid...
:-(
 
PREDATAR Control23

there alot of talk and you can find some presentation from IBM on the web or there FTP servers.

I,ve added the presentation to the tread!
 

Attachments

  • TSMFamilyCapacityPricing.pdf
    385.9 KB · Views: 235
PREDATAR Control23

That's the model that started this discussion.

When Mita201 said IBM is rethinking THIS license model, he was replying to a post regarding the Capacity Pricing so I think he's referring to that one as the one IBM is rethinking.
 
PREDATAR Control23

Yep, since the part number for the product has just dissapeared recently from IBM Partnerworld site....
 
PREDATAR Control23

in the uk this is available via special bid only and it appears that no two deals are the same and indeed the way it is worked out differs depending upon the IBM rep.
 
PREDATAR Control23

Some changes in TSM 6.x: note the REPORTING_MB: 0.22 in the follwing.
select * from occupancy
STGPOOL_NAME: FILEPOOL
NUM_FILES: 0
PHYSICAL_MB: 0.00
LOGICAL_MB: 4.17
REPORTING_MB: 0.22
 
Top