Yes I do but I can not share the names with people outside of my company, sorry. I'll tell you it's a mid sized company with two Protectiers in two locations that replicate, the customer has the entry level TB license model and IBM used the protectier interface to determin the dedup savings for the license if I am not mistaken. It could very well be what Nick wrote but I would tell your IBM rep that you have read about several cases and request them to ask again.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Steven Langdale <steven.langd...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hello Stefan > > Have you got cases of this? I ask because I have been specifically told by > our rep that any dedupe saving for capacity licensing is TSM dedupe only, > regarless of the backend storage. > > > > On 26 July 2013 09:16, Stefan Folkerts <stefan.folke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > No, this is correct, IBM does give Protectier (for example) customers an > > advantage with deduplication and factor in the dedup for billing. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Colwell, William F. > > <bcolw...@draper.com>wrote: > > > > > Hi Norman, > > > > > > that is incorrect. IBM doesn't care what the hardware is when > measuring > > > used capacity > > > in the Suite for Unified Recovery licensing model. > > > > > > A description of the measurement process and the sql to do it is at > > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21500482 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bill Colwell > > > Draper Lab > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf > Of > > > Gee, Norman > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 11:29 AM > > > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > > > Subject: Re: Deduplication/replication options > > > > > > 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 > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > > >
