One other mistake that is easy to make, and the mistake is always
to give higher processor count and price, is to not distinguish
Hyper-threading on Windows boxes.
Many tools can't tell the difference, and therefore you would end up
paying for 8 processor cores on a 4 core server.
David Longo
>>> Wanda Prather <wanda.prather AT JASI DOT COM> 2/24/2009 5:45 PM >>>
By any chance do you back up a lot of desktops? I've seen more than 1 case
where the IBM rep actually pulled the wrong numbers for a quote when there
were a bunch of desktops involved. (The licensing is confusing for
everyone, not just customers...)
Your IBM rep should be able to SHOW you the breakdown for the quote, i.e.
how many "value units" they are charging you for TSM basic clients, Oracle
clients, Mail clients, etc. It's a pain to do your own verification of the
quote, but it protects you in cases like this to be able to compare this
years charges vs. last years. There is a table on the web that shows the
"value units" you need for each type of processor/core/machine.
BTW, a little known fact: you can also go to a different business partner
and get a 2nd opinion quote, if the 1st one doesn't cooperate. IBM may not
like it, but you aren't obligated to play with who they tell you to.
Overall IBM is better off keeping you as a customer.
Also remember, if by chance you are moving anything to VMWARE, you only have
to pay for the processors in the physical host, no matter how many clients
you run.
Same if you are running multiple AIX LPARs on 1 physical box.
If you are running something like Oracle TDP on an LPAR in an 8-way box, and
the Oracle LPAR is restricted to using only 2 processors, I believe you only
have to license the 2, not the 8, for the Oracle TDP.
The only way I can think of you should have gotten a 4X maintenance quote
for TSM, is if you essentially got it free on some special deal in the first
place, or you've upgraded a lot of your machines to higher-power boxes.
Another option, go back to your IBM rep and TELL them this won't do and
you're going to walk; see what alternatives they can come up with- maybe
they could at least phase it in over a few years.
I'm pointing this stuff out because a) I've seen it happen when it was just
a MISTAKE, and b) both YOU and IBM are going to be better off keeping you as
a customer. Unless you have a really tiny environment, even an increase in
your maintenance (not 4X, but some increase) is going to most likely be
cheaper for you than the initial cost of one of the other backup products
(and none of the others are as good!)
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Conway, Timothy
<Timothy.Conway AT jbssa DOT com>wrote:
> AS far as I know, there was no audit. The "audit tool" is about as
> worthless as it could be without being actually harmful. You'd think
> all the clients could return CPU type, count, and IDs and have a
> complete answer right there in the TSM server. Over the past couple
> years, we've greatly shrunk our number of physical servers, so we know
> it's fewer CPUs than we originally bought for.
>
> I wish I had more of a role in this than "This is what we must have
> done. Make it happen".
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Bell, Charles (Chip)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Alternatives to TSM
>
> I thought the audit was so last year... Is it making a comeback? :)
>
#####################################
This message is for the named person's use only. It may
contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information.
No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you
receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and
all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it,
and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use,
disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you
are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to
monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views
or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the
individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views
or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender
is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions.
#####################################
|
