This why IBM is pushing their VTL solution.  IBM will only charge for the net 
amount using an all IBM solution.  At least that is what I was told.

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Loon, EJ van - SPLXM
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:59 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Deduplication/replication options

Hi Sergio!
Another thing to take into consideration: if you have switched from PVU
licensing to sub-capacity licensing in the past: TSM sub-capacity
licensing is based on the amount of data stored in your primary pool. If
this data is stored on a de-duplicating storage device you will be
charged for the gross amount of data. If you are using TSM
de-duplication you will have to pay for the de-duplicated amount. This
will probably save you a lot of money...
Kind regards,
Eric van Loon
AF/KLM Storage Engineering

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Sergio O. Fuentes
Sent: dinsdag 23 juli 2013 19:20
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Deduplication/replication options

Hello all,

We're currently faced with a decision go with a dedupe storage array or
with TSM dedupe for our backup storage targets.  There are some very
critical pros and cons going with one or the other.  For example, TSM
dedupe will reduce overall network throughput both for backups and
replication (source-side dedupe would be used).  A dedupe storage array
won't do that for backup, but it would be possible if we replicated to
an identical array (but TSM replication would be bandwidth intensive).
TSM dedupe might not scale as well and may neccessitate more TSM servers
to distribute the load.  Overall, though, I think the cost of additional
servers is way less than what a native dedupe array would cost so I
don't think that's a big hit.

Replication is key. We have two datacenters where I would love it if TSM
replication could be used in order to quickly (still manually, though)
activate the replication server for production if necessary.  Having a
dedupe storage array kind of removes that option, unless we want to
replicate the whole rehydrated backup data via TSM.

I'm going on and on here, but has anybody had to make a decision to go
one way or the other? Would it make sense to do a hybrid deployment
(combination of TSM Dedupe and Array dedupe)?  Any thoughts or tales of
woes and forewarnings are appreciated.

Thanks!
Sergio
********************************************************
For information, services and offers, please visit our web site: 
http://www.klm.com. This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and 
privileged material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the 
addressee, you are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be 
disclosed, copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this 
e-mail or attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have 
received this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return 
e-mail, and delete this message. 

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its subsidiaries and/or its 
employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or incomplete transmission of 
this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible for any delay in receipt. 
Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (also known as KLM Royal Dutch 
Airlines) is registered in Amstelveen, The Netherlands, with registered number 
33014286
********************************************************