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@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Loon, EJ van - SPLXM Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:59 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.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@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Sergio O. Fuentes Sent: dinsdag 23 juli 2013 19:20 To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.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 ********************************************************
