Re: per-terabyte licensing deals...
Can you give us rough idea of the numbers (TSM sever count, number of clients, data volume, etc) you provided to IBM about your TSM environment? I just got our bill for support and I curious about your setup. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Fegert Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:35 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] per-terabyte licensing deals... Hello, On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:22:42PM -0500, Allen S. Rout wrote: Having seen some discussion of recent sighting of per-TB licensing in the wild, I trundled over to my business partner to get the skinny. Fine BP said no such thing exists to his knowledge. Could one of you fine folks who have actually seen one of these go by provide a few more details, so I can point the hounds in the right direction? well, your BP is - at least from his point of view - right. There actually isn't a pure volume based licensing, it's just a different way to calculate how much PVUs you get for the buck for each TSM product. IMHO the best course of action is: Got directly to your IBM TSM sales rep. Tell them you want a business case for switching to TSM volume based licensing. Don't take not available in your region, yet for an answer, tell them to go figure it out ASAP. If they are uncooperative - which i don't expect from my experience - escalate immediately to the next level and pull the there are other non-IBM backup products card. Your time is just too valuable to go back and forth for weeks on no end. Anyway, you'll be asked a few numbers about your environment: number of clients for each TSM product, number of TSM servers, amount of backup volume (sadly including copy pools), expected growth on all numbers over a course of 3 to 5 years, expected additional client platforms and/or additional TSM products. As soon as they have the numbers and the BC ready, you need to setup a meeting an discuss if volume licensing is an option for you. If so and you prefer to do buisness over your BC, they will receive a offer from IBM to sell the new amount of PVUs for the negotiated amount of money. Again, no volume licenses per se, so even if you decide to switch back again to PVU based licensing after some time, it's no trouble at all, since you only purchased PVUs in the first place! We switched to volume based licensing as of 1st of January. In our environment it made sense, because we have a proportionately high amount of clients compared to the relatively low backup volume. TSM license audit is now only a matter of calculating the sum of all storage pools, so no more CPU counting, no more PVU nitpicking and no sublicensing hassle! As mentioned before, the only drawback is that copy pools do count as well. If it weren't for this, i think IBM would see a lot more buisness coming its way **hint, hint**. HTH best regards, Frank
per-terabyte licensing deals...
Hey, ho. Having seen some discussion of recent sighting of per-TB licensing in the wild, I trundled over to my business partner to get the skinny. Fine BP said no such thing exists to his knowledge. Could one of you fine folks who have actually seen one of these go by provide a few more details, so I can point the hounds in the right direction? - Allen S. Rout
Re: per-terabyte licensing deals...
Hello, On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 02:22:42PM -0500, Allen S. Rout wrote: Having seen some discussion of recent sighting of per-TB licensing in the wild, I trundled over to my business partner to get the skinny. Fine BP said no such thing exists to his knowledge. Could one of you fine folks who have actually seen one of these go by provide a few more details, so I can point the hounds in the right direction? well, your BP is - at least from his point of view - right. There actually isn't a pure volume based licensing, it's just a different way to calculate how much PVUs you get for the buck for each TSM product. IMHO the best course of action is: Got directly to your IBM TSM sales rep. Tell them you want a business case for switching to TSM volume based licensing. Don't take not available in your region, yet for an answer, tell them to go figure it out ASAP. If they are uncooperative - which i don't expect from my experience - escalate immediately to the next level and pull the there are other non-IBM backup products card. Your time is just too valuable to go back and forth for weeks on no end. Anyway, you'll be asked a few numbers about your environment: number of clients for each TSM product, number of TSM servers, amount of backup volume (sadly including copy pools), expected growth on all numbers over a course of 3 to 5 years, expected additional client platforms and/or additional TSM products. As soon as they have the numbers and the BC ready, you need to setup a meeting an discuss if volume licensing is an option for you. If so and you prefer to do buisness over your BC, they will receive a offer from IBM to sell the new amount of PVUs for the negotiated amount of money. Again, no volume licenses per se, so even if you decide to switch back again to PVU based licensing after some time, it's no trouble at all, since you only purchased PVUs in the first place! We switched to volume based licensing as of 1st of January. In our environment it made sense, because we have a proportionately high amount of clients compared to the relatively low backup volume. TSM license audit is now only a matter of calculating the sum of all storage pools, so no more CPU counting, no more PVU nitpicking and no sublicensing hassle! As mentioned before, the only drawback is that copy pools do count as well. If it weren't for this, i think IBM would see a lot more buisness coming its way **hint, hint**. HTH best regards, Frank
Re: Open Letter to TSM Product Mangement. Was Per terabyte licensing
Preach it Wanda! Steve Schaub Systems Engineer, Windows BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Wanda Prather Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:41 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Open Letter to TSM Product Mangement. Was Per terabyte licensing I would like to add: Whatever you decide is fair for licensing the client - whether it be cores, or TB stored, or wombles, or hooha's, the client should REPORT BACK to the server how many wombles or hooha's it is using. The current system is most unfair to the customer, in that it requires an unreasonable amount of work to figure out what is required for compliance. If the client code can't figure it out, don't expect the human to. Solving the problem by selling the customer another product, that is also difficult to deploy on a large scale, is not the answer. W On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com wrote: This has been a good discussion. I would like to change the tone a bit in order to help IBM product management as they ponder this issue. STORServer is an OEM of IBM TSM code and TSM is an integral part of our appliance. We compete in the marketplace against just about everyone else in the backup space. The most difficulty we encounter is with respect to our licensing which is necessarily identical to IBMs. I have thought long and hard about how to decouple client licensing from our product and stay in compliance with our OEM agreement. I have not come up with an idea. I postulate the following: a TSM client derives value from the TSM environment in two ways: 1. simply by having the ability to store and restore data on the TSM server and 2. from the intrinsic features the server uses to store maintain that data. Some clients use server features relatively less while others use them relatively more. The features used in the server are relevant to the overall business requirements rather than for a single client. At STORServer, we asses this value by determining how much it costs us to support an environment. We can expect to field a certain number of support calls per customer with client side issues and certain number with server side issues. The more clients a customer has, the more calls we'll get and the more sophisticated the server side is (larger library, more disk, server to server, etc.) the more server side calls we'll get. To account for the client side calls is fairly simple since we have to pay IBM an annual support fee for the clients we've licensed from them. We uplift this slightly to cover our costs of support. On the server, we've taken the approach of basing the initial cost of our solution and ongoing support costs on the overall size (in Terabytes) of the server storage. We have four tiers: micro, up to 40TB of storage, small 40-80TB, medium 80-120TB and large over 120TB. The levels are somewhat arbitrary but reasonably reflect the STORServers in the field and correlated nicely with what our support numbers are telling us. I go into this as I think it would behoove IBM to consider a similar model. A client doesn't necessarily benefit more or less based on the number of cores it has. It does benefit, generally, from having the ability to backup and restore data. The overall environment benefits from the presence of the TSM server as it is that environment that allows for the secure maintenance of critical corporate data. It also provides services to recover after a disaster and finally, it provides a support organization to help a customer when it all goes wrong. The value of the solution is thus spread. A licensing scheme that spreads this value is appropriate. A client has a license no matter how big or small it is. Essentially a connection fee. The more clients you have the more you pay. The server is sized according to how much data is processed and stored. The more data that arrives each day and the more data that is stored necessarily results in a larger server environment and thus more value. It is very easy to count how much or how many of each. It is also easy to sell increments of licensing to accommodate growth. I would not be inclined to sell a per GB/month type scheme as this is too difficult for customers to budget. There must be a fixed component to licensing with a periodic true up period to make the scheme fair to IBM. Today, the licensing scheme is not fair to either party. Value as perceived by the customer is not tied to the number of cores in the processor and IBM cannot accurately determine if a customer is in compliance. This is not acceptable by either party. As I write this, I recall an earlier version of the licensing model: clients were free and we paid for the server stuff. It was priced by function. For instance, we paid for DRM and its support. That model wasn't correct
Re: Per terabyte licensing
You are right, we eventually got an agreement for a sub-processor license for Oracle, but IBM didn't volunteer that. We insisted, and eventually won the concession after much negotiating. And I am sure part of the reason we got the concession is because of the size customer we are; a smaller customer has no leverage for expecting special pricing. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Mark Blunden m...@au1.ibm.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 7:04 pm To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU IBM does have a sub-capacity license process. You need to talk to your sales rep to find out the details. Basically, if you are only using 2 cpus for Oracle out of 128 total cpus available, then you only have to pay for 2 DB licenses. Obvioulsy other LPARs are probably servicing other data requirements which will need backing up, but you don't have to pay for the lot if you don't use the lot. regards, Mark Kelly Lipp l...@storserver. COM To Sent by: ADSM: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Dist Stor cc Manager ads...@vm.marist Subject .EDU Re: Per terabyte licensing 29/09/2009 09:48 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ads...@vm.marist .EDU And remember, too, that the PVU thing contemplated something like a DB2 license. Perhaps you had two or three systems that would run DB2. It did not contemplate something like TSM where EVERY system in the environment would have the software running. Keeping track of a couple of systems and their various processor/core/PVU stuff is relatively simple. Keeping track of that same thing across several hundred (never mind your case!) is very difficult. The one size fits all mentality of Tivoli software clearly missed the mark with TSM. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:47 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Kelly, You are right, IBM must build their license model to ensure the profit they expect. We can't blame them for doing this as a business. They can't give their product away for free. But the PVU based licensing model is a huge problem for an environment like ours that has over 2000 clients of all different shapes and kinds. Lots of separate servers, but also VMWare partitions, and AIX LPARs, and NDMP clients, etc. Keeping up with the PVU rules is a huge effort, especially the way IBM did it. In Windows, the OS might tell you that you have 2 processors. But is that a single-core dual processor, or two separate processors. The OS can't tell, but IBM insists there is a difference, because it counts PVUs differently in this case. That is too nit-picky if you ask me, and places too difficult a burden on the customer. There are freeware utilities that will correctly count processors IBM's way, but to run them on 2000 servers is a pain, too. We ended up writing our own scripts to call a freeware tool IBM recommended, then parse the resulting answer to get the details into a summarized format. As if that wasn't enough, the freeware tool crashed about 20 of our servers before we realized it. Boy, was that hard to explain to management! It is also very objectionable to us that they don't have sub-processor licensing for large servers like pSeries 595s. We have a 128 processor p595, with a 2-processor LPAR carved out of it running Oracle. Even if we aren't running Oracle on any of the other LPARs, we have to pay for a 128 processor Oracle license. That is insane, and bad for everybody, including IBM. We also have to pay for 128 processors of regular TSM client licenses, even if we have only allocated half the processors in the p595. These are unfair licensing practices, and just make IBM look greedy. To simplify the license counting problem, we are looking at IBM License Metric Tool, but it is a big software product to install and deploy on 2000 servers, too, just to count TSM licenses. ILMT 7.1 was deeply flawed, and 7.2 just came out, so we are going to take a look at that. From my perspective, a total-TB-under-management model would be very easy on the customer, as long as it was reasonably fair. It would be easy to run 'q occ' on all our TSM servers and pull together the result. You could find out your whole TSM license footprint in 10 minutes. The first time we had to it counting PVUs, it took us two months. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Date: Mon, September 28
Re: Per terabyte licensing
Kelly, You are right. IBM's pricing model also has in mind IBM customers that have dozens of Tivoli titles, Websphere, etc., which all use the PVU model. I think that IBM should build the license counting into the product, whether they want to use PVUs or whatever as the metric. There is no reason why the the TSM client code could not be enhanced to gather whatever metric is in use and feed it back to the server. This could be true of Websphere clients and most of the others. Build the code to count the licenses quietly in the background, and provide a simple report you can call from the product to find out what you are using. Compliance would be easy. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 6:48 pm To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU And remember, too, that the PVU thing contemplated something like a DB2 license. Perhaps you had two or three systems that would run DB2. It did not contemplate something like TSM where EVERY system in the environment would have the software running. Keeping track of a couple of systems and their various processor/core/PVU stuff is relatively simple. Keeping track of that same thing across several hundred (never mind your case!) is very difficult. The one size fits all mentality of Tivoli software clearly missed the mark with TSM. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:47 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Kelly, You are right, IBM must build their license model to ensure the profit they expect. We can't blame them for doing this as a business. They can't give their product away for free. But the PVU based licensing model is a huge problem for an environment like ours that has over 2000 clients of all different shapes and kinds. Lots of separate servers, but also VMWare partitions, and AIX LPARs, and NDMP clients, etc. Keeping up with the PVU rules is a huge effort, especially the way IBM did it. In Windows, the OS might tell you that you have 2 processors. But is that a single-core dual processor, or two separate processors. The OS can't tell, but IBM insists there is a difference, because it counts PVUs differently in this case. That is too nit-picky if you ask me, and places too difficult a burden on the customer. There are freeware utilities that will correctly count processors IBM's way, but to run them on 2000 servers is a pain, too. We ended up writing our own scripts to call a freeware tool IBM recommended, then parse the resulting answer to get the details into a summarized format. As if that wasn't enough, the freeware tool crashed about 20 of our servers before we realized it. Boy, was that hard to explain to management! It is also very objectionable to us that they don't have sub-processor licensing for large servers like pSeries 595s. We have a 128 processor p595, with a 2-processor LPAR carved out of it running Oracle. Even if we aren't running Oracle on any of the other LPARs, we have to pay for a 128 processor Oracle license. That is insane, and bad for everybody, including IBM. We also have to pay for 128 processors of regular TSM client licenses, even if we have only allocated half the processors in the p595. These are unfair licensing practices, and just make IBM look greedy. To simplify the license counting problem, we are looking at IBM License Metric Tool, but it is a big software product to install and deploy on 2000 servers, too, just to count TSM licenses. ILMT 7.1 was deeply flawed, and 7.2 just came out, so we are going to take a look at that. From my perspective, a total-TB-under-management model would be very easy on the customer, as long as it was reasonably fair. It would be easy to run 'q occ' on all our TSM servers and pull together the result. You could find out your whole TSM license footprint in 10 minutes. The first time we had to it counting PVUs, it took us two months. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 3:05 pm To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU And the key to that would be to add the phrase in some cases... No matter what IBM does there will be happy people and unhappy people. While a core based model doesn't make sense to many of us, a per TB model may turn out to make even less sense. To argue on their side, they must find a model
Open Letter to TSM Product Mangement. Was Per terabyte licensing
This has been a good discussion. I would like to change the tone a bit in order to help IBM product management as they ponder this issue. STORServer is an OEM of IBM TSM code and TSM is an integral part of our appliance. We compete in the marketplace against just about everyone else in the backup space. The most difficulty we encounter is with respect to our licensing which is necessarily identical to IBMs. I have thought long and hard about how to decouple client licensing from our product and stay in compliance with our OEM agreement. I have not come up with an idea. I postulate the following: a TSM client derives value from the TSM environment in two ways: 1. simply by having the ability to store and restore data on the TSM server and 2. from the intrinsic features the server uses to store maintain that data. Some clients use server features relatively less while others use them relatively more. The features used in the server are relevant to the overall business requirements rather than for a single client. At STORServer, we asses this value by determining how much it costs us to support an environment. We can expect to field a certain number of support calls per customer with client side issues and certain number with server side issues. The more clients a customer has, the more calls we’ll get and the more sophisticated the server side is (larger library, more disk, server to server, etc.) the more server side calls we'll get. To account for the client side calls is fairly simple since we have to pay IBM an annual support fee for the clients we've licensed from them. We uplift this slightly to cover our costs of support. On the server, we've taken the approach of basing the initial cost of our solution and ongoing support costs on the overall size (in Terabytes) of the server storage. We have four tiers: micro, up to 40TB of storage, small 40-80TB, medium 80-120TB and large over 120TB. The levels are somewhat arbitrary but reasonably reflect the STORServers in the field and correlated nicely with what our support numbers are telling us. I go into this as I think it would behoove IBM to consider a similar model. A client doesn't necessarily benefit more or less based on the number of cores it has. It does benefit, generally, from having the ability to backup and restore data. The overall environment benefits from the presence of the TSM server as it is that environment that allows for the secure maintenance of critical corporate data. It also provides services to recover after a disaster and finally, it provides a support organization to help a customer when it all goes wrong. The value of the solution is thus spread. A licensing scheme that spreads this value is appropriate. A client has a license no matter how big or small it is. Essentially a connection fee. The more clients you have the more you pay. The server is sized according to how much data is processed and stored. The more data that arrives each day and the more data that is stored necessarily results in a larger server environment and thus more value. It is very easy to count how much or how many of each. It is also easy to sell increments of licensing to accommodate growth. I would not be inclined to sell a per GB/month type scheme as this is too difficult for customers to budget. There must be a fixed component to licensing with a periodic true up period to make the scheme fair to IBM. Today, the licensing scheme is not fair to either party. Value as perceived by the customer is not tied to the number of cores in the processor and IBM cannot accurately determine if a customer is in compliance. This is not acceptable by either party. As I write this, I recall an earlier version of the licensing model: clients were free and we paid for the server stuff. It was priced by function. For instance, we paid for DRM and its support. That model wasn't correct as it rewarded the sites with large numbers of clients. One of you said it correctly: it's time to get this right once and for all. We need a fair licensing model that ensures TSM continues to be a viable product in the marketplace. That means one that rewards IBM for the hard work it does to provide the code and its support and one that provides real value to its customers. Subtract out the IBM bureaucracy and this is simple, right? Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:52 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Kelly, You are right. IBM's pricing model also has in mind IBM customers that have dozens of Tivoli titles, Websphere, etc., which all use the PVU model. I think that IBM should build the license
Re: Per terabyte licensing
We have sub-capacity licenses for TSM for some of our servers. We had to agree to install some kind of IBM licensing system. We haven't done it yet - but it's coming. It will require installing an agent on every server that has tsm clients. Rick John D. Schneider john.schnei...@c To OMPUTERCOACHINGCO ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU MMUNITY.COM cc Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Subject Manager Re: Per terabyte licensing ads...@vm.marist .EDU 09/29/2009 10:44 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ads...@vm.marist .EDU You are right, we eventually got an agreement for a sub-processor license for Oracle, but IBM didn't volunteer that. We insisted, and eventually won the concession after much negotiating. And I am sure part of the reason we got the concession is because of the size customer we are; a smaller customer has no leverage for expecting special pricing. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Mark Blunden m...@au1.ibm.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 7:04 pm To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU IBM does have a sub-capacity license process. You need to talk to your sales rep to find out the details. Basically, if you are only using 2 cpus for Oracle out of 128 total cpus available, then you only have to pay for 2 DB licenses. Obvioulsy other LPARs are probably servicing other data requirements which will need backing up, but you don't have to pay for the lot if you don't use the lot. regards, Mark Kelly Lipp l...@storserver. COM To Sent by: ADSM: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Dist Stor cc Manager ads...@vm.marist Subject .EDU Re: Per terabyte licensing 29/09/2009 09:48 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ads...@vm.marist .EDU And remember, too, that the PVU thing contemplated something like a DB2 license. Perhaps you had two or three systems that would run DB2. It did not contemplate something like TSM where EVERY system in the environment would have the software running. Keeping track of a couple of systems and their various processor/core/PVU stuff is relatively simple. Keeping track of that same thing across several hundred (never mind your case!) is very difficult. The one size fits all mentality of Tivoli software clearly missed the mark with TSM. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:47 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Kelly, You are right, IBM must build their license model to ensure the profit they expect. We can't blame them for doing this as a business. They can't give their product away for free. But the PVU based licensing model is a huge problem for an environment like ours that has over 2000 clients of all different shapes and kinds. Lots of separate servers, but also VMWare partitions, and AIX LPARs, and NDMP clients, etc. Keeping up with the PVU rules is a huge effort, especially the way IBM did it. In Windows, the OS might tell you that you have 2 processors. But is that a single-core dual processor, or two separate processors. The OS can't tell, but IBM insists
Re: Per terabyte licensing
Once you go that route you'll also need to keep copies of the reports that agent will kick out for 2 years. The agent is also only for Windows and AIX clients as of today. Joseph A Abbott MCSE 2003/2000, MCSA2003 Tivoli Storage Manager Architect jabb...@partners.org Cell-617-633-8471 Desk-617-724-4929 Page-# (617) 362-6341 6173391...@usamobility.net Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Rhodes Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing We have sub-capacity licenses for TSM for some of our servers. We had to agree to install some kind of IBM licensing system. We haven't done it yet - but it's coming. It will require installing an agent on every server that has tsm clients. Rick John D. Schneider john.schnei...@c To OMPUTERCOACHINGCO ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU MMUNITY.COM cc Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Subject Manager Re: Per terabyte licensing ads...@vm.marist .EDU 09/29/2009 10:44 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ads...@vm.marist .EDU You are right, we eventually got an agreement for a sub-processor license for Oracle, but IBM didn't volunteer that. We insisted, and eventually won the concession after much negotiating. And I am sure part of the reason we got the concession is because of the size customer we are; a smaller customer has no leverage for expecting special pricing. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Mark Blunden m...@au1.ibm.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 7:04 pm To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU IBM does have a sub-capacity license process. You need to talk to your sales rep to find out the details. Basically, if you are only using 2 cpus for Oracle out of 128 total cpus available, then you only have to pay for 2 DB licenses. Obvioulsy other LPARs are probably servicing other data requirements which will need backing up, but you don't have to pay for the lot if you don't use the lot. regards, Mark Kelly Lipp l...@storserver. COM To Sent by: ADSM: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Dist Stor cc Manager ads...@vm.marist Subject .EDU Re: Per terabyte licensing 29/09/2009 09:48 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ads...@vm.marist .EDU And remember, too, that the PVU thing contemplated something like a DB2 license. Perhaps you had two or three systems that would run DB2. It did not contemplate something like TSM where EVERY system in the environment would have the software running. Keeping track of a couple of systems and their various processor/core/PVU stuff is relatively simple. Keeping track of that same thing across several hundred (never mind your case!) is very difficult. The one size fits all mentality of Tivoli software clearly missed the mark with TSM. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:47 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte
Re: Open Letter to TSM Product Mangement. Was Per terabyte licensing
value to its customers. Subtract out the IBM bureaucracy and this is simple, right? Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:52 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Kelly, You are right. IBM's pricing model also has in mind IBM customers that have dozens of Tivoli titles, Websphere, etc., which all use the PVU model. I think that IBM should build the license counting into the product, whether they want to use PVUs or whatever as the metric. There is no reason why the the TSM client code could not be enhanced to gather whatever metric is in use and feed it back to the server. This could be true of Websphere clients and most of the others. Build the code to count the licenses quietly in the background, and provide a simple report you can call from the product to find out what you are using. Compliance would be easy. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 6:48 pm To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU And remember, too, that the PVU thing contemplated something like a DB2 license. Perhaps you had two or three systems that would run DB2. It did not contemplate something like TSM where EVERY system in the environment would have the software running. Keeping track of a couple of systems and their various processor/core/PVU stuff is relatively simple. Keeping track of that same thing across several hundred (never mind your case!) is very difficult. The one size fits all mentality of Tivoli software clearly missed the mark with TSM. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:47 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Kelly, You are right, IBM must build their license model to ensure the profit they expect. We can't blame them for doing this as a business. They can't give their product away for free. But the PVU based licensing model is a huge problem for an environment like ours that has over 2000 clients of all different shapes and kinds. Lots of separate servers, but also VMWare partitions, and AIX LPARs, and NDMP clients, etc. Keeping up with the PVU rules is a huge effort, especially the way IBM did it. In Windows, the OS might tell you that you have 2 processors. But is that a single-core dual processor, or two separate processors. The OS can't tell, but IBM insists there is a difference, because it counts PVUs differently in this case. That is too nit-picky if you ask me, and places too difficult a burden on the customer. There are freeware utilities that will correctly count processors IBM's way, but to run them on 2000 servers is a pain, too. We ended up writing our own scripts to call a freeware tool IBM recommended, then parse the resulting answer to get the details into a summarized format. As if that wasn't enough, the freeware tool crashed about 20 of our servers before we realized it. Boy, was that hard to explain to management! It is also very objectionable to us that they don't have sub-processor licensing for large servers like pSeries 595s. We have a 128 processor p595, with a 2-processor LPAR carved out of it running Oracle. Even if we aren't running Oracle on any of the other LPARs, we have to pay for a 128 processor Oracle license. That is insane, and bad for everybody, including IBM. We also have to pay for 128 processors of regular TSM client licenses, even if we have only allocated half the processors in the p595. These are unfair licensing practices, and just make IBM look greedy. To simplify the license counting problem, we are looking at IBM License Metric Tool, but it is a big software product to install and deploy on 2000 servers, too, just to count TSM licenses. ILMT 7.1 was deeply flawed, and 7.2 just came out, so we are going to take a look at that. From my perspective, a total-TB-under-management model would be very easy on the customer, as long as it was reasonably fair. It would be easy to run 'q occ' on all our TSM servers and pull together the result. You could find out your whole TSM license footprint in 10 minutes. The first time we had to it counting PVUs, it took us two months. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314
Re: Per terabyte licensing
We are actually looking into the cost difference. From what I understand, IBM is offering both. However, per terabyte licensing eliminates sub-capacity licensing. And it is your entire site. Not just where it works out best. We are in the midst of passport renewals and found an increase due to core type upgrades. Previously we had older xeons using 50 PVUs per core. And the new machines replacing the older ones are either same cores but at xeon 5540 cores which are now 70 PVUs or double the cores. They brought up per TB licensing. Since then sales has sent me two E-mails inquiring total number of hosts, total TSM sites and total library capacity at each. I was hesitant to say the least. It's been about a week and I haven't heard back yet. When I hear more I'll drop a line. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Per terabyte licensing We're in that boat too. We have a GPFS cluster we expect to grow into the petabyte range, so unless IBM sets the per-byte cost *really* low we'll get hammered with that licensing scheme. Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: Or more costly. We have test VM servers with quad-core processors running 15-VM guests. If I started counting by T-Bytes backed-up, it would cost a lot more than 4-CPU's! From: David Longo david.lo...@health-first.org To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 09/25/2009 03:22 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Haven't heard that. My first thought is that it would make licensing a LOT easier to figure out! David Longo Thomas Denier thomas.den...@jeffersonhospital.org 9/25/2009 3:09 PM Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this? # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. # -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Systems Administrator, Genome Sciences Department -- University of Washington, School of Medicine
Re: Per terabyte licensing
Duane, I asked our TSM rep this question, and he asked Ron Broucek, the North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader. His response was: just a rumor at this time as we occasionally evaluate pricing strategies to make sure we're delivering the right value in the marketplace. Ron Broucek North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader So if he says it is just a rumor, then how do you know IBM is offering both? Do you have this from a reliable source within IBM? Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Ochs, Duane duane.o...@qg.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 9:07 am To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU We are actually looking into the cost difference. From what I understand, IBM is offering both. However, per terabyte licensing eliminates sub-capacity licensing. And it is your entire site. Not just where it works out best. We are in the midst of passport renewals and found an increase due to core type upgrades. Previously we had older xeons using 50 PVUs per core. And the new machines replacing the older ones are either same cores but at xeon 5540 cores which are now 70 PVUs or double the cores. They brought up per TB licensing. Since then sales has sent me two E-mails inquiring total number of hosts, total TSM sites and total library capacity at each. I was hesitant to say the least. It's been about a week and I haven't heard back yet. When I hear more I'll drop a line. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Per terabyte licensing We're in that boat too. We have a GPFS cluster we expect to grow into the petabyte range, so unless IBM sets the per-byte cost *really* low we'll get hammered with that licensing scheme. Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: Or more costly. We have test VM servers with quad-core processors running 15-VM guests. If I started counting by T-Bytes backed-up, it would cost a lot more than 4-CPU's! From: David Longo david.lo...@health-first.org To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 09/25/2009 03:22 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Haven't heard that. My first thought is that it would make licensing a LOT easier to figure out! David Longo Thomas Denier thomas.den...@jeffersonhospital.org 9/25/2009 3:09 PM Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this? # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. # -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Systems Administrator, Genome Sciences Department -- University of Washington, School of Medicine
Re: Per terabyte licensing
My Tivoli S/W rep here in the UK is happy to sell by PVU or per TB. It sounds like it's not quite made it over the water yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com John D. Schneider john.schnei...@computercoachingcommunity.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 15:38 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Duane, I asked our TSM rep this question, and he asked Ron Broucek, the North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader. His response was: just a rumor at this time as we occasionally evaluate pricing strategies to make sure we're delivering the right value in the marketplace. Ron Broucek North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader So if he says it is just a rumor, then how do you know IBM is offering both? Do you have this from a reliable source within IBM? Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Ochs, Duane duane.o...@qg.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 9:07 am To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU We are actually looking into the cost difference. From what I understand, IBM is offering both. However, per terabyte licensing eliminates sub-capacity licensing. And it is your entire site. Not just where it works out best. We are in the midst of passport renewals and found an increase due to core type upgrades. Previously we had older xeons using 50 PVUs per core. And the new machines replacing the older ones are either same cores but at xeon 5540 cores which are now 70 PVUs or double the cores. They brought up per TB licensing. Since then sales has sent me two E-mails inquiring total number of hosts, total TSM sites and total library capacity at each. I was hesitant to say the least. It's been about a week and I haven't heard back yet. When I hear more I'll drop a line. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Per terabyte licensing We're in that boat too. We have a GPFS cluster we expect to grow into the petabyte range, so unless IBM sets the per-byte cost *really* low we'll get hammered with that licensing scheme. Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: Or more costly. We have test VM servers with quad-core processors running 15-VM guests. If I started counting by T-Bytes backed-up, it would cost a lot more than 4-CPU's! From: David Longo david.lo...@health-first.org To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 09/25/2009 03:22 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Haven't heard that. My first thought is that it would make licensing a LOT easier to figure out! David Longo Thomas Denier thomas.den...@jeffersonhospital.org 9/25/2009 3:09 PM Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this? # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. # -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Systems Administrator, Genome Sciences Department -- University of Washington, School of Medicine
Re: Per terabyte licensing
Really. How much does a TB of storage cost? Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing My Tivoli S/W rep here in the UK is happy to sell by PVU or per TB. It sounds like it's not quite made it over the water yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com John D. Schneider john.schnei...@computercoachingcommunity.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 15:38 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Duane, I asked our TSM rep this question, and he asked Ron Broucek, the North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader. His response was: just a rumor at this time as we occasionally evaluate pricing strategies to make sure we're delivering the right value in the marketplace. Ron Broucek North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader So if he says it is just a rumor, then how do you know IBM is offering both? Do you have this from a reliable source within IBM? Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Ochs, Duane duane.o...@qg.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 9:07 am To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU We are actually looking into the cost difference. From what I understand, IBM is offering both. However, per terabyte licensing eliminates sub-capacity licensing. And it is your entire site. Not just where it works out best. We are in the midst of passport renewals and found an increase due to core type upgrades. Previously we had older xeons using 50 PVUs per core. And the new machines replacing the older ones are either same cores but at xeon 5540 cores which are now 70 PVUs or double the cores. They brought up per TB licensing. Since then sales has sent me two E-mails inquiring total number of hosts, total TSM sites and total library capacity at each. I was hesitant to say the least. It's been about a week and I haven't heard back yet. When I hear more I'll drop a line. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Per terabyte licensing We're in that boat too. We have a GPFS cluster we expect to grow into the petabyte range, so unless IBM sets the per-byte cost *really* low we'll get hammered with that licensing scheme. Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: Or more costly. We have test VM servers with quad-core processors running 15-VM guests. If I started counting by T-Bytes backed-up, it would cost a lot more than 4-CPU's! From: David Longo david.lo...@health-first.org To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 09/25/2009 03:22 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Haven't heard that. My first thought is that it would make licensing a LOT easier to figure out! David Longo Thomas Denier thomas.den...@jeffersonhospital.org 9/25/2009 3:09 PM Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this? # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. # -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Systems
Re: Per terabyte licensing
He was a bit cagey about the actual cost, but said we should expect approx 20% reduction in overall cost. Not pursued it as yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 19:00 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Really. How much does a TB of storage cost? Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing My Tivoli S/W rep here in the UK is happy to sell by PVU or per TB. It sounds like it's not quite made it over the water yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com John D. Schneider john.schnei...@computercoachingcommunity.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 15:38 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Duane, I asked our TSM rep this question, and he asked Ron Broucek, the North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader. His response was: just a rumor at this time as we occasionally evaluate pricing strategies to make sure we're delivering the right value in the marketplace. Ron Broucek North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader So if he says it is just a rumor, then how do you know IBM is offering both? Do you have this from a reliable source within IBM? Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Ochs, Duane duane.o...@qg.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 9:07 am To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU We are actually looking into the cost difference. From what I understand, IBM is offering both. However, per terabyte licensing eliminates sub-capacity licensing. And it is your entire site. Not just where it works out best. We are in the midst of passport renewals and found an increase due to core type upgrades. Previously we had older xeons using 50 PVUs per core. And the new machines replacing the older ones are either same cores but at xeon 5540 cores which are now 70 PVUs or double the cores. They brought up per TB licensing. Since then sales has sent me two E-mails inquiring total number of hosts, total TSM sites and total library capacity at each. I was hesitant to say the least. It's been about a week and I haven't heard back yet. When I hear more I'll drop a line. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Per terabyte licensing We're in that boat too. We have a GPFS cluster we expect to grow into the petabyte range, so unless IBM sets the per-byte cost *really* low we'll get hammered with that licensing scheme. Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: Or more costly. We have test VM servers with quad-core processors running 15-VM guests. If I started counting by T-Bytes backed-up, it would cost a lot more than 4-CPU's! From: David Longo david.lo...@health-first.org To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 09/25/2009 03:22 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Haven't heard that. My first thought is that it would make licensing a LOT easier to figure out! David Longo Thomas Denier thomas.den...@jeffersonhospital.org 9/25/2009 3:09 PM Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this? # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy
Re: Per terabyte licensing
And the key to that would be to add the phrase in some cases... No matter what IBM does there will be happy people and unhappy people. While a core based model doesn't make sense to many of us, a per TB model may turn out to make even less sense. To argue on their side, they must find a model that is compatible with the industry and that does not diminish their own cash flow. We need for IBM to continue to enhance the product. They do that by keeping us as customers and by attracting new customers. That balance is a lot harder than one may think. I was fairly vocal about this at a previous Oxford. While we're the loudest of the constituent parties, we also matter the least from a cash flow perspective: new customers actually spend more money (they've already gotten ours). The dance is tricky and sometimes comes down to a they won't really leave (where would they go?) so let's worry about them but not too much. As I own my own business I can understand the complexity they face. It's really hard, though, not to simply say it's their problem. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:38 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing He was a bit cagey about the actual cost, but said we should expect approx 20% reduction in overall cost. Not pursued it as yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 19:00 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Really. How much does a TB of storage cost? Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing My Tivoli S/W rep here in the UK is happy to sell by PVU or per TB. It sounds like it's not quite made it over the water yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com John D. Schneider john.schnei...@computercoachingcommunity.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 15:38 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Duane, I asked our TSM rep this question, and he asked Ron Broucek, the North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader. His response was: just a rumor at this time as we occasionally evaluate pricing strategies to make sure we're delivering the right value in the marketplace. Ron Broucek North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader So if he says it is just a rumor, then how do you know IBM is offering both? Do you have this from a reliable source within IBM? Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Ochs, Duane duane.o...@qg.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 9:07 am To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU We are actually looking into the cost difference. From what I understand, IBM is offering both. However, per terabyte licensing eliminates sub-capacity licensing. And it is your entire site. Not just where it works out best. We are in the midst of passport renewals and found an increase due to core type upgrades. Previously we had older xeons using 50 PVUs per core. And the new machines replacing the older ones are either same cores but at xeon 5540 cores which are now 70 PVUs or double the cores. They brought up per TB licensing. Since then sales has sent me two E-mails inquiring total number of hosts, total TSM sites and total library capacity at each. I was hesitant to say the least. It's been about a week and I haven't heard back yet. When I hear more I'll drop a line. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Skylar Thompson Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:02 AM
Re: Per terabyte licensing
I agree fully. However, my primary concern has always been the method used for charging. For instance a client with 4 cores or 8 cores more than likely doesn't bring very much to the improvement of a TSM client that has a 1Gbit connection to the TSM server. At one time I thought it made more sense to charge per TB of retention, of data sent, or of some tiered system. But I have also designed our implementation to make the most of that licensing scheme. Per TB would be a pretty straight forward licensing method. But I'm sure we'd all complain about the amount of static data we were paying for :) I should be receiving a per TB quote for my full installation this week. Should be interesting. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Kelly Lipp Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 3:05 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: Per terabyte licensing And the key to that would be to add the phrase in some cases... No matter what IBM does there will be happy people and unhappy people. While a core based model doesn't make sense to many of us, a per TB model may turn out to make even less sense. To argue on their side, they must find a model that is compatible with the industry and that does not diminish their own cash flow. We need for IBM to continue to enhance the product. They do that by keeping us as customers and by attracting new customers. That balance is a lot harder than one may think. I was fairly vocal about this at a previous Oxford. While we're the loudest of the constituent parties, we also matter the least from a cash flow perspective: new customers actually spend more money (they've already gotten ours). The dance is tricky and sometimes comes down to a they won't really leave (where would they go?) so let's worry about them but not too much. As I own my own business I can understand the complexity they face. It's really hard, though, not to simply say it's their problem. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:38 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing He was a bit cagey about the actual cost, but said we should expect approx 20% reduction in overall cost. Not pursued it as yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 19:00 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Really. How much does a TB of storage cost? Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing My Tivoli S/W rep here in the UK is happy to sell by PVU or per TB. It sounds like it's not quite made it over the water yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com John D. Schneider john.schnei...@computercoachingcommunity.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 15:38 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Duane, I asked our TSM rep this question, and he asked Ron Broucek, the North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader. His response was: just a rumor at this time as we occasionally evaluate pricing strategies to make sure we're delivering the right value in the marketplace. Ron Broucek North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader So if he says it is just a rumor, then how do you know IBM is offering both? Do you have this from a reliable source within IBM? Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Ochs, Duane duane.o...@qg.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 9:07 am To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU We are actually looking
Re: Per terabyte licensing
My big concern with per-TB pricing is the risk of IBM not proactively dropping their price rate each year. Think back several years as to how much storage you had. Then think forward a few years and predict how much you will have going forward. Now figure out how much your license fees will go up if IBM doesn't proactively drop their per-TB rates. The same is true of per-core licensing, of course, but I don't think it's as dramatic. As Kelly said, any scheme they change to will result in happy and unhappy customers. I've gotten to the point where I almost don't care what scheme they use, so long as they don't keep changing it; and I wish they would provide better tools to help us figure out what we need in the way of licensing. For us, the change is a big pain. If they change the scheme, I only ask that this be the _last_ time they change it. I'm tired of figuring out how the latest _new_ scheme works. ..Paul At 04:05 PM 9/28/2009, Kelly Lipp wrote: And the key to that would be to add the phrase in some cases... No matter what IBM does there will be happy people and unhappy people. While a core based model doesn't make sense to many of us, a per TB model may turn out to make even less sense. To argue on their side, they must find a model that is compatible with the industry and that does not diminish their own cash flow. We need for IBM to continue to enhance the product. They do that by keeping us as customers and by attracting new customers. That balance is a lot harder than one may think. I was fairly vocal about this at a previous Oxford. While we're the loudest of the constituent parties, we also matter the least from a cash flow perspective: new customers actually spend more money (they've already gotten ours). The dance is tricky and sometimes comes down to a they won't really leave (where would they go?) so let's worry about them but not too much. As I own my own business I can understand the complexity they face. It's really hard, though, not to simply say it's their problem. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:38 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing He was a bit cagey about the actual cost, but said we should expect approx 20% reduction in overall cost. Not pursued it as yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 19:00 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Really. How much does a TB of storage cost? Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 11:02 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing My Tivoli S/W rep here in the UK is happy to sell by PVU or per TB. It sounds like it's not quite made it over the water yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com John D. Schneider john.schnei...@computercoachingcommunity.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 15:38 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Duane, I asked our TSM rep this question, and he asked Ron Broucek, the North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader. His response was: just a rumor at this time as we occasionally evaluate pricing strategies to make sure we're delivering the right value in the marketplace. Ron Broucek North America Tivoli Storage Software Sales Leader So if he says it is just a rumor, then how do you know IBM is offering both? Do you have this from a reliable source within IBM? Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Ochs, Duane duane.o...@qg.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 9:07 am
Re: Per terabyte licensing
Kelly, You are right, IBM must build their license model to ensure the profit they expect. We can't blame them for doing this as a business. They can't give their product away for free. But the PVU based licensing model is a huge problem for an environment like ours that has over 2000 clients of all different shapes and kinds. Lots of separate servers, but also VMWare partitions, and AIX LPARs, and NDMP clients, etc. Keeping up with the PVU rules is a huge effort, especially the way IBM did it. In Windows, the OS might tell you that you have 2 processors. But is that a single-core dual processor, or two separate processors. The OS can't tell, but IBM insists there is a difference, because it counts PVUs differently in this case. That is too nit-picky if you ask me, and places too difficult a burden on the customer. There are freeware utilities that will correctly count processors IBM's way, but to run them on 2000 servers is a pain, too. We ended up writing our own scripts to call a freeware tool IBM recommended, then parse the resulting answer to get the details into a summarized format. As if that wasn't enough, the freeware tool crashed about 20 of our servers before we realized it. Boy, was that hard to explain to management! It is also very objectionable to us that they don't have sub-processor licensing for large servers like pSeries 595s. We have a 128 processor p595, with a 2-processor LPAR carved out of it running Oracle. Even if we aren't running Oracle on any of the other LPARs, we have to pay for a 128 processor Oracle license. That is insane, and bad for everybody, including IBM. We also have to pay for 128 processors of regular TSM client licenses, even if we have only allocated half the processors in the p595. These are unfair licensing practices, and just make IBM look greedy. To simplify the license counting problem, we are looking at IBM License Metric Tool, but it is a big software product to install and deploy on 2000 servers, too, just to count TSM licenses. ILMT 7.1 was deeply flawed, and 7.2 just came out, so we are going to take a look at that. From my perspective, a total-TB-under-management model would be very easy on the customer, as long as it was reasonably fair. It would be easy to run 'q occ' on all our TSM servers and pull together the result. You could find out your whole TSM license footprint in 10 minutes. The first time we had to it counting PVUs, it took us two months. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 3:05 pm To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU And the key to that would be to add the phrase in some cases... No matter what IBM does there will be happy people and unhappy people. While a core based model doesn't make sense to many of us, a per TB model may turn out to make even less sense. To argue on their side, they must find a model that is compatible with the industry and that does not diminish their own cash flow. We need for IBM to continue to enhance the product. They do that by keeping us as customers and by attracting new customers. That balance is a lot harder than one may think. I was fairly vocal about this at a previous Oxford. While we're the loudest of the constituent parties, we also matter the least from a cash flow perspective: new customers actually spend more money (they've already gotten ours). The dance is tricky and sometimes comes down to a they won't really leave (where would they go?) so let's worry about them but not too much. As I own my own business I can understand the complexity they face. It's really hard, though, not to simply say it's their problem. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Langdale Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 12:38 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing He was a bit cagey about the actual cost, but said we should expect approx 20% reduction in overall cost. Not pursued it as yet. Steven Langdale Global Information Services EAME SAN/Storage Planning and Implementation ( Phone : +44 (0)1733 584175 ( Mob: +44 (0)7876 216782 ü Conference: +44 (0)208 609 7400 Code: 331817 + Email: steven.langd...@cat.com Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU 28/09/2009 19:00 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU To ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU cc Subject Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Caterpillar: Confidential Green Retain Until: 28/10/2009 Really. How much does a TB of storage cost? Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer
Re: Per terabyte licensing
And remember, too, that the PVU thing contemplated something like a DB2 license. Perhaps you had two or three systems that would run DB2. It did not contemplate something like TSM where EVERY system in the environment would have the software running. Keeping track of a couple of systems and their various processor/core/PVU stuff is relatively simple. Keeping track of that same thing across several hundred (never mind your case!) is very difficult. The one size fits all mentality of Tivoli software clearly missed the mark with TSM. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:47 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Kelly, You are right, IBM must build their license model to ensure the profit they expect. We can't blame them for doing this as a business. They can't give their product away for free. But the PVU based licensing model is a huge problem for an environment like ours that has over 2000 clients of all different shapes and kinds. Lots of separate servers, but also VMWare partitions, and AIX LPARs, and NDMP clients, etc. Keeping up with the PVU rules is a huge effort, especially the way IBM did it. In Windows, the OS might tell you that you have 2 processors. But is that a single-core dual processor, or two separate processors. The OS can't tell, but IBM insists there is a difference, because it counts PVUs differently in this case. That is too nit-picky if you ask me, and places too difficult a burden on the customer. There are freeware utilities that will correctly count processors IBM's way, but to run them on 2000 servers is a pain, too. We ended up writing our own scripts to call a freeware tool IBM recommended, then parse the resulting answer to get the details into a summarized format. As if that wasn't enough, the freeware tool crashed about 20 of our servers before we realized it. Boy, was that hard to explain to management! It is also very objectionable to us that they don't have sub-processor licensing for large servers like pSeries 595s. We have a 128 processor p595, with a 2-processor LPAR carved out of it running Oracle. Even if we aren't running Oracle on any of the other LPARs, we have to pay for a 128 processor Oracle license. That is insane, and bad for everybody, including IBM. We also have to pay for 128 processors of regular TSM client licenses, even if we have only allocated half the processors in the p595. These are unfair licensing practices, and just make IBM look greedy. To simplify the license counting problem, we are looking at IBM License Metric Tool, but it is a big software product to install and deploy on 2000 servers, too, just to count TSM licenses. ILMT 7.1 was deeply flawed, and 7.2 just came out, so we are going to take a look at that. From my perspective, a total-TB-under-management model would be very easy on the customer, as long as it was reasonably fair. It would be easy to run 'q occ' on all our TSM servers and pull together the result. You could find out your whole TSM license footprint in 10 minutes. The first time we had to it counting PVUs, it took us two months. Best Regards, John D. Schneider The Computer Coaching Community, LLC Office: (314) 635-5424 / Toll Free: (866) 796-9226 Cell: (314) 750-8721 Original Message Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing From: Kelly Lipp l...@storserver.com Date: Mon, September 28, 2009 3:05 pm To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU And the key to that would be to add the phrase in some cases... No matter what IBM does there will be happy people and unhappy people. While a core based model doesn't make sense to many of us, a per TB model may turn out to make even less sense. To argue on their side, they must find a model that is compatible with the industry and that does not diminish their own cash flow. We need for IBM to continue to enhance the product. They do that by keeping us as customers and by attracting new customers. That balance is a lot harder than one may think. I was fairly vocal about this at a previous Oxford. While we're the loudest of the constituent parties, we also matter the least from a cash flow perspective: new customers actually spend more money (they've already gotten ours). The dance is tricky and sometimes comes down to a they won't really leave (where would they go?) so let's worry about them but not too much. As I own my own business I can understand the complexity they face. It's really hard, though, not to simply say it's their problem. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor
Re: Per terabyte licensing
IBM does have a sub-capacity license process. You need to talk to your sales rep to find out the details. Basically, if you are only using 2 cpus for Oracle out of 128 total cpus available, then you only have to pay for 2 DB licenses. Obvioulsy other LPARs are probably servicing other data requirements which will need backing up, but you don't have to pay for the lot if you don't use the lot. regards, Mark Kelly Lipp l...@storserver. COM To Sent by: ADSM: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Dist Stor cc Manager ads...@vm.marist Subject .EDU Re: Per terabyte licensing 29/09/2009 09:48 AM Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ads...@vm.marist .EDU And remember, too, that the PVU thing contemplated something like a DB2 license. Perhaps you had two or three systems that would run DB2. It did not contemplate something like TSM where EVERY system in the environment would have the software running. Keeping track of a couple of systems and their various processor/core/PVU stuff is relatively simple. Keeping track of that same thing across several hundred (never mind your case!) is very difficult. The one size fits all mentality of Tivoli software clearly missed the mark with TSM. Kelly Lipp Chief Technical Officer www.storserver.com 719-266-8777 x7105 STORServer solves your data backup challenges. Once and for all. -Original Message- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of John D. Schneider Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:47 PM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Kelly, You are right, IBM must build their license model to ensure the profit they expect. We can't blame them for doing this as a business. They can't give their product away for free. But the PVU based licensing model is a huge problem for an environment like ours that has over 2000 clients of all different shapes and kinds. Lots of separate servers, but also VMWare partitions, and AIX LPARs, and NDMP clients, etc. Keeping up with the PVU rules is a huge effort, especially the way IBM did it. In Windows, the OS might tell you that you have 2 processors. But is that a single-core dual processor, or two separate processors. The OS can't tell, but IBM insists there is a difference, because it counts PVUs differently in this case. That is too nit-picky if you ask me, and places too difficult a burden on the customer. There are freeware utilities that will correctly count processors IBM's way, but to run them on 2000 servers is a pain, too. We ended up writing our own scripts to call a freeware tool IBM recommended, then parse the resulting answer to get the details into a summarized format. As if that wasn't enough, the freeware tool crashed about 20 of our servers before we realized it. Boy, was that hard to explain to management! It is also very objectionable to us that they don't have sub-processor licensing for large servers like pSeries 595s. We have a 128 processor p595, with a 2-processor LPAR carved out of it running Oracle. Even if we aren't running Oracle on any of the other LPARs, we have to pay for a 128 processor Oracle license. That is insane, and bad for everybody, including IBM. We also have to pay for 128 processors of regular TSM client licenses, even if we have only allocated half the processors in the p595. These are unfair licensing practices, and just make IBM look greedy. To simplify the license counting problem, we are looking at IBM License Metric Tool, but it is a big software product to install and deploy on 2000 servers, too, just to count TSM licenses. ILMT 7.1 was deeply flawed, and 7.2
Re: Per terabyte licensing
We're in that boat too. We have a GPFS cluster we expect to grow into the petabyte range, so unless IBM sets the per-byte cost *really* low we'll get hammered with that licensing scheme. Zoltan Forray/AC/VCU wrote: Or more costly. We have test VM servers with quad-core processors running 15-VM guests. If I started counting by T-Bytes backed-up, it would cost a lot more than 4-CPU's! From: David Longo david.lo...@health-first.org To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 09/25/2009 03:22 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Haven't heard that. My first thought is that it would make licensing a LOT easier to figure out! David Longo Thomas Denier thomas.den...@jeffersonhospital.org 9/25/2009 3:09 PM Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this? # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. # -- -- Skylar Thompson (skyl...@u.washington.edu) -- Systems Administrator, Genome Sciences Department -- University of Washington, School of Medicine
Per terabyte licensing
Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this?
Re: Per terabyte licensing
Haven't heard that. My first thought is that it would make licensing a LOT easier to figure out! David Longo Thomas Denier thomas.den...@jeffersonhospital.org 9/25/2009 3:09 PM Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this? # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. #
Re: Per terabyte licensing
Or more costly. We have test VM servers with quad-core processors running 15-VM guests. If I started counting by T-Bytes backed-up, it would cost a lot more than 4-CPU's! From: David Longo david.lo...@health-first.org To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Date: 09/25/2009 03:22 PM Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Per terabyte licensing Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Haven't heard that. My first thought is that it would make licensing a LOT easier to figure out! David Longo Thomas Denier thomas.den...@jeffersonhospital.org 9/25/2009 3:09 PM Within the last few months there was a series of messages on counting processor cores. A couple of the messages stated that TSM is moving to licensing based on terabytes of stored data rather than processor cores. Where can I find more information on this? # This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain private, proprietary, or legally privileged information. No privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it, and notify the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Health First reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views or opinions expressed in this message are solely those of the individual sender, except (1) where the message states such views or opinions are on behalf of a particular entity; and (2) the sender is authorized by the entity to give such views or opinions. #
