I've had a couple of customers look at capacity-based licensing, ditto what the 
other folks said.  IBM will make a different offer to each customer, which 
supposedly takes into account the conversion of your existing licenses.

I have one customer who only keeps their backups 2 weeks (really, really 
short), but they back up over 250 systems, lots of TDP for SQL agent, total of 
only about 80 TB in primary storage.  They definitely would come out better 
switching to capacity-based.

I have another customer who backs up less than 100 clients, but keeps 
everything 6 months, they are over 300 TB primary storage.  Better off sticking 
with PVU-based.

However, some customers may also come out better with capacity-based licensing, 
because it includes all the TDP's and TSM for VE; some might use it as a quick 
and dirty way to pick up more products with no additional cost.

So you just have to look at your own circumstances and figure out where the 
growth is; if you are already at 1 PB, my guess is you will NOT come out better 
going to the capacity-based license, but can't say for sure.

W

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Ian Smith
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 7:13 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU - 
experiences

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