If memory serves me, this is the way ADSM licensing was back in the
1.2 days. Except back then I believe the server would eventually cut
you off if you ran out of license, and you couldn't just register
another license without paying for it.
IMHO, the danger with capacity-based (or data-based) licensing is
that we get more data every year and the cost of storage goes down
every year. The expectation should be that the capacity-based
license fees should go down every year to compensate for the
growth. But if the vendor choose to not lower the license fee rates,
then they automatically get a bump in revenue by default, without
having done anything.
I'll agree with others who have said that any licensing scheme should
be relatively easy to figure out, and the current scheme is not. If
TSM provided the information (e.g., via Q LIC), then I think most
folks would be a lot happier about the new scheme.
At 06:19 AM 8/2/2007, Richard Rhodes wrote:
This is interesting. The other day I was talking to my manager
about TSM licensing and mentioned the big thread about
licensing confusion. He mentioned that he would LIKE it if TSM
used a simple capacity-based license. His reasoning was that it
would directly tie the cost of TSM back to what we use it for, and
let him more easily force issues around long/big retensions we have.
Paul Zarnowski Ph: 607-255-4757
Manager, Storage Services Fx: 607-255-8521
719 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-3801 Em: psz1 AT cornell DOT edu