ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU - experiences

2012-07-16 09:11:00
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU - experiences
From: Zoltan Forray <zforray AT VCU DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:52:08 -0400
We recently converted to a special hybrid license that is a combination of
PVU and STG based.  We are ~600TB primary  occupancy (constantly growing)
but have a lot of high-powered multi-processor systems (in research
computing) so it worked out cheaper (per my guy who does licensing) to go
to the STG/SUR licensing for the smaller/non-research systems backups.  The
additional software packages bundled into SUR (no more separate licensing
for TDP products) is an added bonus.

Our hybrid agreement required us to create a separate TSM server for the
PVU licensed nodes,  which is ~15% of total occupancy)

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Ian Smith <ian.smith AT oucs.ox.ac DOT uk> 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We are in the midst of discussions on moving to capacity-based licensing
> from the standard PVU-based method for our site. We have a large number of
> clients ( licensed via TSM-EE, TDP agents, and on client-device basis ) and
> around 1PB of primary pool data. As I understand it, there is no published
> metric for the conversion from PVU to per TB licensing so I would be really
> interested and grateful if anyone would like to share their experiences of
> that conversion in a private email to me.
>
> Many thanks in advance.
> Ian Smith
> Oxford University
> England
>



--
*Zoltan Forray*
TSM Software & Hardware Administrator
Virginia Commonwealth University
UCC/Office of Technology Services
zforray AT vcu DOT edu - 804-828-4807
Don't be a phishing victim - VCU and other reputable organizations will
never use email to request that you reply with your password, social
security number or confidential personal information. For more details
visit http://infosecurity.vcu.edu/phishing.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>