We moved over to per TB licensing last year, and were told categorically
that the only dedupe they would take into account was TSM's dedupe.  We
also have ProtecTIER, and they would not take that into account.

Steven

On 16 July 2012 19:22, Stackwick, Stephen <Stephen.Stackwick AT icfi DOT 
com>wrote:

> Thanks, Rick. The link I provided does make it appear more rigid now. I'm
> not a salesman, but I guess everything is negotiable if the parties are
> willing to dicker and it would make sense for IBM to push it's solution.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Rick Adamson
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:05 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU -
> experiences
>
> Steve,
> Perhaps I should have stated YMMV as our negotiation with IBM took place
> when the cap model was in its infancy and from reviewing the link you
> provided it appears some aspects have changed.
>
> Basically if you use TSM compression, deduplication, and/or ProtecTier, it
> would be reflected in the licensing costs, if you choose another solution
> as we did with Data Domain it is not. In the end we asked IBM to negotiate
> a middle-ground number but were denied.
>
> I only mention this for those who use Data Domain, or other non-IBM
> solutions for dedupe and compression as it will ultimately affect the
> capacity license model cost.
>
>
> Hope that helps....
>
>
> ~Rick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Stackwick, Stephen
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 12:42 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU -
> experiences
>
> I'm a little surprised by this, as the TSM macros you run to calculate the
> storage don't know (or care) about the storage device, i.e., they just
> report the uncompressed storage amount:
>
> https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21500482&wv=1
>
> That said, if you are running TSM deduplication, that *is* reported with
> the macros, so there would be a cost saving. Was IBM talking about a
> discount for ProtecTier, maybe?
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf 
> Of
> Rick Adamson
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 8:44 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU -
> experiences
>
> Ian,
> Our company looked into it and thought it may save some $$ and at the same
> time simplify the OVERLY complex PVU license model used for TSM/IBM.
>
> I'll start by saying to make sure you understand what TSM products are
> included in the "capacity" license proposal. From memory I don't remember
> the exact ones but it does not apply to all TSM licenses. This obviously
> means that the capacity license model may be attractive to some and
> unattractive to others. Your IBM rep should be able to clarify this.
>
> Also, in our environment we use a Data Domain backend which as you may
> know prefers all incoming data to be uncompressed and unencrypted. Since
> the TSM servers have no knowledge of the DD processes it reports the raw
> storage numbers before compression and deduplication which negatively
> affected the capacity licensing pricing.
>
> We opened discussions on this issue with IBM but they refused to budge or
> negotiate an adjustment for the "actual" storage used. Needless to say that
> position was not too warmly received and we 86'ed the whole discussion.
>
> Interestingly, had we used IBM storage/deduplication on the backend they
> would use the actual storage, but no such provision for Data Domain.
>
> Good luck....
>
> ~Rick
>
>
> -----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
>