Author: "Lamb, Charles P." <cplamb AT NPPD DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:31:58 +0000
Hi................. We are switching from IBM servers (x3650-Mx) to CISCO Blades (UCS B200-M3) in our VMware environment. We are receiving pricing from our IBM VAR for the CISCO blades that very high
Look into Storage Based licensing as an alternative. We switched to that model for the large majority of our backups (535TB). Also worked out a hybrid setup where we purchase n-PVU licenses for boxes
Author: Chavdar Cholev <chavdar.cholev AT GMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:55:06 +0200
Two options I can see: 1) Ask you IBM rep for sub-capacity licensing for TDP for DB 2) You can use: backup archive client ( I backup this dump to TSM with backup-archive client I personally will not
Author: "Schaub, Steve" <Steve_Schaub AT BCBST DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:04:37 -0500
If this is all VMWare, and the UCS blades have twice as many processors, shouldn't you only need half as many of them? Core count would be the same? -steve Hi................. We are switching from I
Author: "Lamb, Charles P." <cplamb AT NPPD DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:24:42 +0000
Steve............... No, the CISCO blade memory can be just so large to be effective. VMware memory usage sizes the server/blade. I asked your question many months ago and was told by the consultant
Author: "Prather, Wanda" <Wanda.Prather AT ICFI DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:06:12 +0000
If you are using TSM/VE, look at the options in VE 7.1 for doing DB restores right out of TSM/VE snapshots, rather than using TDP for Databases. I haven't gotten the opportunity to test it myself, it