Steve...............

No, the CISCO blade memory can be just so large to be effective.  VMware memory 
usage sizes the server/blade.  I asked your question many months ago and was 
told by the consultant that this concept would not work to have an good 
performing CISCO blade in the VMware environment.  So, the core count went up!!

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Schaub, Steve
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:05 AM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM Client & TSM TDP for Database Pricing

If this is all VMWare, and the UCS blades have twice as many processors, 
shouldn't you only need half as many of them?  Core count would be the same?
-steve

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of 
Lamb, Charles P.
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:32 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM Client & TSM TDP for Database Pricing

Hi.................

We are switching from IBM servers (x3650-Mx) to CISCO Blades (UCS B200-M3) in 
our VMware environment.  We are receiving pricing from our IBM VAR for the 
CISCO blades that very high.   CISCO blades have twice as many cores than the 
IBM servers.  Boss is very upset about the issue.

Does anyone have alternative to TSM clients and TSM TDP for Database which 
would interface with TSM servers and be less costly??

Your thoughts??
-----------------------------------------------------
Please see the following link for the BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee E-mail 
disclaimer:  http://www.bcbst.com/email_disclaimer.shtm