Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
Hi JAB, Sound interesting, however, I'm actually a newcomer to Scale, I wish I could share the joy of mixing that. I guess maybe it is something similar to LSF RVU/UVUs? Thanks for sharing your experience anyway. Hi Carl, I just want to let you know that I have got your explanation, and I understand it now. Thanks. Not sure If I should always reply a "thank you" or "I've got it" in the mailing list, or better just do it privately. Same I'm new to mailing list too, so please let me know if I should not reply it publicly. On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:50 PM Jonathan Buzzard < jonathan.buzz...@strath.ac.uk> wrote: > On 17/04/2020 11:31, T.A. Yeep wrote: > > Hi Carl, > > > > I'm confused here, in the previous email it was said *And for ESS, it is > > licensed Per Drive with different prices for HDDs and SSDs.* > > > > But then you mentioned in below email that: > > But new customers and new OEM systems are *all licensed by Capacity. > > This also applies to IBM's own ESS*: you can keep upgrading your old (if > > hardware is supported) gen 1 ESS on Sockets, but if you replace it with > > *a new ESS, that will come with capacity licenses*. > > > > Now the question, ESS is license per Drive or by capacity? > > > > Well by drive is "capacity" based licensing unless you have some sort of > magical infinite capacity drives :-) > > Under the PVU scheme if you know what you are doing you could game the > system. For example get a handful of servers get PVU licenses for them > create a GPFS file system handing off the back using say Fibre Channel > and cheap FC attached arrays (Dell MD3000 series springs to mind) and > then hang many PB off the back. I could using this scheme create a 100PB > filesystem for under a thousand PVU of GPFS server licenses. Add in > another cluster for protocol nodes and if you are not mounting on HPC > nodes that's a winner :-) > > In a similar manner I use a pimped out ancient Dell R300 with dual core > Xeon for backing up my GPFS filesystem because it's 100PVU of TSM > licensing and I am cheap, and besides it is more than enough grunt for > the job. A new machine would be 240 PVU minimum (4*70). I plan on > replacing the PERC SAS6 card with a H710 and new internal cabling to run > RHEL8 :-) > > > JAB. > > -- > Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel: +44141-5483420 > HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt. > University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG > ___ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss > -- Best regards *T.A. Yeep*Mobile: 016-719 8506 | Tel/Fax: 03-6261 7237 | www.robusthpc.com ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
Hi Carl, Thanks for the update which is very encouraging. I’m happy to sit tight and wait for an announcement. Best, Steve Steve Hindmarsh Head of Scientific Computing The Francis Crick Institute From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org on behalf of Carl Zetie - ca...@us.ibm.com Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 1:16:38 PM To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction Rob Horton wrote: >I'm not sure what the issue is between DDN and IBM (although I've heard >various rumors) >but I really wish they would sort something out. Yes, it’s a pain. IBM and DDN are trying very hard to work something out, but it’s hard to get all the ‘I’s dotted and ‘T’s crossed with our respective legal and exec reviewers so that when we do say something it will be complete, clear, and final; and not require long, baroque threads for people to figure out where exactly they are… I wish I could say more, but I need to respect the confidentiality of the relationship and the live discussion. In the meantime, I thank you for your patience, and ask that you not believe any rumors you might hear, because whatever they are, they are wrong (or at least incomplete). In this situation, as a wise man once observed, “those who Say don’t Know; those who Know don’t Say”. Regards, Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com [signature_749317756] The Francis Crick Institute Limited is a registered charity in England and Wales no. 1140062 and a company registered in England and Wales no. 06885462, with its registered office at 1 Midland Road London NW1 1AT ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing
Yeah, I had similar experiences in the past (over a decade ago) with Lustre and was heavily heavily anti-Lustre. That said, I just finished several weeks of what I’d call grueling testing of DDN Lustre and GPFS on the same hardware and I’m reasonably convinced much of that is behind us now (things like stability, metadata performance, random I/O performance just don’t appear to be issues anymore and in some cases these operations are now faster in Lustre). Full disclosure, I work for DDN, but the source of my paycheck has relatively little bearing on my technical opinions. All I’m saying is for me to honestly believe Lustre is worth another shot after the experiences I had years ago is significant. I do think it’s key to have a vendor behind you, vs rolling your own. I have seen that make a difference. I’m happy to take any further conversation/questions offline, I’m in no way trying to turn this into a marketing campaign. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 17, 2020, at 07:02, Jonathan Buzzard > wrote: > > On 16/04/2020 04:26, Flanders, Dean wrote: >> Hello All, >> As IBM has completely switched to capacity based licensing in order to use >> SS v5 I was wondering how others are dealing with this? We do not find the >> capacity based licensing sustainable. Our long term plan is to migrate away >> from SS v5 to Lustre, and based on the Lustre roadmap we have seen it should >> have the features we need within the next ~1 year (we are fortunate to have >> good contacts). > > The problem is the features of Lustre that are missing in GPFS :-) > > For example have they removed the Lustre feature where roughly biannually the > metadata server kernel panics introducing incorrectable corruption into the > file system that will within six months cause constant crashes of the > metadata node to the point where the file system is unusable? > > In best slashdot car analogy GPFS is like driving round in a Aston Martin > DB9, where Lustre is like having a Ford Pinto. You will never be happy with > Pinto in my experience having gone from the DB9 to the Pinto and back to the > DB9. > > That said if you use Lustre as a high performance scratch file system fro HPC > and every ~6 months do a shutdown and upgrade, and at the same time reformat > your Lustre file system you will be fine. > > Our experience with Lustre was so bad we specifically excluded it as an > option for our current HPC system when it went out to tender. > > > JAB. > > -- > Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel: +44141-5483420 > HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt. > University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG > ___ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
Dean Flanders: > Thanks for the clarification. I have always heard the term "existing > customers" so originally I thought we were fine, > but this is the first time I have seen the term "existing systems". However, > it seems what I said before is mostly correct, > eventually all customers will be forced to capacity based licensing as they > life cycle hardware (even IBM customers). > In addition it seems there is a diminishing number of OEMs that can sell SS > v5, which is what happened in our case when > we wanted to go from v4 to v5 with existing hardware (in our case DDN). So I > strongly encourage organizations to be thinking > of these issues in their long term planning. Again, this isn’t quite correct, and I really want the archive of this thread to be completely correct when people review it in the future. As an existing customer of DDN, the problem GridScaler customers in particular are facing is not Sockets vs. Capacity. It is simply that DDN is not an OEM licensee for Scale V5. So DDN cannot upgrade your GridScaler to V5, *neither on Sockets nor on Capacity*. Then if you go to another supplier for V5, you are a new customer to that supplier. (Some of you out there are, I know, multi-sourcing your Scale systems, so may be an “existing customer” of several Scale suppliers). And again, it is not correct that eventually all customers will be forced to capacity licensing. Those of you on Scale Standard and Scale Advanced software, which are not tied to specific systems or hardware, can continue on those licenses. There is no plan to require those people to migrate. By contrast, OEM licenses (and ESS licenses) were always sold as part of a system and attached to that system -- one of the things that makes those licenses cheaper than software licenses that live forever and float from system to system. It is also not true that there is a “diminishing number of OEMs” selling V5. Everybody that sold V4 has added V5 to their contract, as far as I am aware -- except DDN. And we have added a number of additional OEMs in the past couple of years (some of them quite invisibly as Scale is embedded deep in their solution and they want their own brand front and center) and a couple more big names are in development that I can’t mention until they are ready to announce themselves. We also have a more diverse OEM model: as well as storage vendors that include Scale in a storage solution, we have various embedded vertical solutions, backup solutions, and cloud-based service offerings using Scale. Even Dell is selling a Scale solution now via our OEM Arcastream. Again, DDN and IBM are working together to find a path forward for GridScaler owners to get past this problem, and once again I ask for your patience as we get the details right. Regards Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com [signature_50537] ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
Rob Horton wrote: >I'm not sure what the issue is between DDN and IBM (although I've heard >various rumors) >but I really wish they would sort something out. Yes, it’s a pain. IBM and DDN are trying very hard to work something out, but it’s hard to get all the ‘I’s dotted and ‘T’s crossed with our respective legal and exec reviewers so that when we do say something it will be complete, clear, and final; and not require long, baroque threads for people to figure out where exactly they are… I wish I could say more, but I need to respect the confidentiality of the relationship and the live discussion. In the meantime, I thank you for your patience, and ask that you not believe any rumors you might hear, because whatever they are, they are wrong (or at least incomplete). In this situation, as a wise man once observed, “those who Say don’t Know; those who Know don’t Say”. Regards, Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com [signature_749317756] ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
>Now the question, ESS is license per Drive or by capacity? I apologize for the confusion. Within IBM Storage when we say “capacity” licensing we use that as an umbrella term for both Per TB/PB *or* Per Drive (HDD or SSD). This is contrasted with “processor” metrics including Socket and the even older PVU licensing. And yes, we IBMers should be more careful about our tendency to use terminology that nobody else in the world does. (Don’t get me started on terabyte versus tebibyte…). So, for the sake of completeness and for anybody reviewing the thread in the future: * Per Drive is available with ESS, Lenovo DSS, and a number of other OEM solutions*. * Per TB/Per PB is available for software defined storage, including some OEM solutions - basically anywhere where figuring out the number of physical drives is infeasible.** * You can if you wish license ESS with Per TB/PB, for example if you want to have a single pool of licensing across an environment that mixes software-defined, ESS, or public cloud; or if you want to include your ESS licenses in an ELA. This is almost always more expensive than Per Drive, but some customers are willing to pay for the privilege of the flexibility. I hope that helps. *(In some cases the customer may not even know it because the OEM solution is sold as a whole with a bottom line price, and the customer does not see a line item price for Scale. In at least one case, the vertical market solution doesn’t even expose the fact that the storage is provided by Scale.) **(Imagine trying to figure out the “real” number of drives in a high-end storage array that does RAIDing, hides some drives as spares, offers thin provisioning, etc. Or on public cloud where the “drives” are all virtual.) Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com [signature_1886717044] ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing
On 16/04/2020 04:26, Flanders, Dean wrote: Hello All, As IBM has completely switched to capacity based licensing in order to use SS v5 I was wondering how others are dealing with this? We do not find the capacity based licensing sustainable. Our long term plan is to migrate away from SS v5 to Lustre, and based on the Lustre roadmap we have seen it should have the features we need within the next ~1 year (we are fortunate to have good contacts). The problem is the features of Lustre that are missing in GPFS :-) For example have they removed the Lustre feature where roughly biannually the metadata server kernel panics introducing incorrectable corruption into the file system that will within six months cause constant crashes of the metadata node to the point where the file system is unusable? In best slashdot car analogy GPFS is like driving round in a Aston Martin DB9, where Lustre is like having a Ford Pinto. You will never be happy with Pinto in my experience having gone from the DB9 to the Pinto and back to the DB9. That said if you use Lustre as a high performance scratch file system fro HPC and every ~6 months do a shutdown and upgrade, and at the same time reformat your Lustre file system you will be fine. Our experience with Lustre was so bad we specifically excluded it as an option for our current HPC system when it went out to tender. JAB. -- Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel: +44141-5483420 HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt. University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
On 17/04/2020 11:31, T.A. Yeep wrote: Hi Carl, I'm confused here, in the previous email it was said *And for ESS, it is licensed Per Drive with different prices for HDDs and SSDs.* But then you mentioned in below email that: But new customers and new OEM systems are *all licensed by Capacity. This also applies to IBM's own ESS*: you can keep upgrading your old (if hardware is supported) gen 1 ESS on Sockets, but if you replace it with *a new ESS, that will come with capacity licenses*. Now the question, ESS is license per Drive or by capacity? Well by drive is "capacity" based licensing unless you have some sort of magical infinite capacity drives :-) Under the PVU scheme if you know what you are doing you could game the system. For example get a handful of servers get PVU licenses for them create a GPFS file system handing off the back using say Fibre Channel and cheap FC attached arrays (Dell MD3000 series springs to mind) and then hang many PB off the back. I could using this scheme create a 100PB filesystem for under a thousand PVU of GPFS server licenses. Add in another cluster for protocol nodes and if you are not mounting on HPC nodes that's a winner :-) In a similar manner I use a pimped out ancient Dell R300 with dual core Xeon for backing up my GPFS filesystem because it's 100PVU of TSM licensing and I am cheap, and besides it is more than enough grunt for the job. A new machine would be 240 PVU minimum (4*70). I plan on replacing the PERC SAS6 card with a H710 and new internal cabling to run RHEL8 :-) JAB. -- Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel: +44141-5483420 HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt. University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
We're in the same boat. I'm not sure what the issue is between DDN and IBM (although I've heard various rumors) but I really wish they would sort something out. Rob On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 07:35 +, Steve Hindmarsh wrote: > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the ICR. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender's email > address and know the content is safe. > > We are caught in the same position (12 PB on DDN GridScaler) and > currently unable to upgrade to v5. > > If the position between IBM and DDN can’t be resolved, an extension > of meaningful support from IBM (i.e. critical patches not just a > sympathetic ear) for OEM licences would make a *huge* difference to > those of us who need to provide critical production research data > services on current equipment for another few years at least - with > appropriate paid vendor support of course. > > Best, > Steve > > Steve Hindmarsh > Head of Scientific Computing > The Francis Crick Institute -- Robert Horton | Research Data Storage Lead The Institute of Cancer Research | 237 Fulham Road | London | SW3 6JB T +44 (0)20 7153 5350 | E robert.hor...@icr.ac.uk | W www.icr.ac.uk | Twitter @ICR_London Facebook: www.facebook.com/theinstituteofcancerresearch The Institute of Cancer Research: Royal Cancer Hospital, a charitable Company Limited by Guarantee, Registered in England under Company No. 534147 with its Registered Office at 123 Old Brompton Road, London SW7 3RP. This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer and network. ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
Especially with the pandemic. No one is exactly sure what next year’s budget is going to look like. I wouldn’t expect to be buying large amounts of storage to replace so far perfectly good storage. -- || \\UTGERS, |---*O*--- ||_// the State | Ryan Novosielski - novos...@rutgers.edu<mailto:novos...@rutgers.edu> || \\ University | Sr. Technologist - 973/972.0922 (2x0922) ~*~ RBHS Campus || \\of NJ | Office of Advanced Research Computing - MSB C630, Newark `' On Apr 17, 2020, at 03:36, Steve Hindmarsh wrote: We are caught in the same position (12 PB on DDN GridScaler) and currently unable to upgrade to v5. If the position between IBM and DDN can’t be resolved, an extension of meaningful support from IBM (i.e. critical patches not just a sympathetic ear) for OEM licences would make a *huge* difference to those of us who need to provide critical production research data services on current equipment for another few years at least - with appropriate paid vendor support of course. Best, Steve Steve Hindmarsh Head of Scientific Computing The Francis Crick Institute Sent from my mobile On 17 Apr 2020, at 03:07, Michael Sedlmayer wrote: One more important distinction with the DDN installations. Most DDN systems were deployed with an OEM license of GPFS v4. That license allowed DDN to use GPFS on their hardware appliance, but and didn't ever equate to an IBM software license. To my knowledge, DDN has not been a reseller of IBM licenses. We've had a lot of issues where our DDN users wanted to upgrade to Spectrum Scale 5; DDN couldn't provide the licensed code; and the user learned that they really didn't own IBM software (just the right to use the software on their DDN system) -michael Michael Sedlmayer -Original Message- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org On Behalf Of Flanders, Dean Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:40 PM To: gpfsug main discussion list Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction Hello Carl, Thanks for the clarification. I have always heard the term "existing customers" so originally I thought we were fine, but this is the first time I have seen the term "existing systems". However, it seems what I said before is mostly correct, eventually all customers will be forced to capacity based licensing as they life cycle hardware (even IBM customers). In addition it seems there is a diminishing number of OEMs that can sell SS v5, which is what happened in our case when we wanted to go from v4 to v5 with existing hardware (in our case DDN). So I strongly encourage organizations to be thinking of these issues in their long term planning. Thanks and kind regards, Dean -Original Message- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org On Behalf Of Carl Zetie - ca...@us.ibm.com Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:25 PM To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction From my understanding existing customers from DDN, Lenovo, etc. that have v4 with socket based licenses are not entitled v5 licenses socket licenses. Is that a correct understanding? It is not, and I apologize in advance for the length of this explanation. I want to be precise and as transparent as possible while respecting the confidentiality of our OEM partners and the contracts we have with them, and there is a lot of misinformation out there. The short version is that the same rules apply to DDN, Lenovo, and other OEM systems that apply to IBM ESS. You can update your system in place and keep your existing metric, as long as your vendor can supply you with V5 for that hardware. The update from V4 to V5 is not relevant. The long version: We apply the same standard to our OEM's systems as to our own ESS: they can upgrade their existing customers on their existing OEM systems to V5 and stay on Sockets, *provided* that the OEM has entered into an OEM license for Scale V5 and can supply it, and *provided* that the hardware is still supported by the software stack. But new customers and new OEM systems are all licensed by Capacity. This also applies to IBM's own ESS: you can keep upgrading your old (if hardware is supported) gen 1 ESS on Sockets, but if you replace it with a new ESS, that will come with capacity licenses. (Lenovo may want to chime in about their own GSS customers here, who have Socket licenses, and DSS-G customers, who have Capacity licenses). Existing systems that originally shipped with Socket licenses are "grandfathered in". And of course, if you move from a Lenovo system to an IBM system, or from an IBM system to a Lenovo system, or any other change of suppliers, that new system will come with capacity licenses, simply because it's a new system. If you're replacing an old system running with V4 with a new on
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
We are caught in the same position (12 PB on DDN GridScaler) and currently unable to upgrade to v5. If the position between IBM and DDN can’t be resolved, an extension of meaningful support from IBM (i.e. critical patches not just a sympathetic ear) for OEM licences would make a *huge* difference to those of us who need to provide critical production research data services on current equipment for another few years at least - with appropriate paid vendor support of course. Best, Steve Steve Hindmarsh Head of Scientific Computing The Francis Crick Institute Sent from my mobile On 17 Apr 2020, at 03:07, Michael Sedlmayer wrote: One more important distinction with the DDN installations. Most DDN systems were deployed with an OEM license of GPFS v4. That license allowed DDN to use GPFS on their hardware appliance, but and didn't ever equate to an IBM software license. To my knowledge, DDN has not been a reseller of IBM licenses. We've had a lot of issues where our DDN users wanted to upgrade to Spectrum Scale 5; DDN couldn't provide the licensed code; and the user learned that they really didn't own IBM software (just the right to use the software on their DDN system) -michael Michael Sedlmayer -Original Message- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org On Behalf Of Flanders, Dean Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:40 PM To: gpfsug main discussion list Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction Hello Carl, Thanks for the clarification. I have always heard the term "existing customers" so originally I thought we were fine, but this is the first time I have seen the term "existing systems". However, it seems what I said before is mostly correct, eventually all customers will be forced to capacity based licensing as they life cycle hardware (even IBM customers). In addition it seems there is a diminishing number of OEMs that can sell SS v5, which is what happened in our case when we wanted to go from v4 to v5 with existing hardware (in our case DDN). So I strongly encourage organizations to be thinking of these issues in their long term planning. Thanks and kind regards, Dean -Original Message- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org On Behalf Of Carl Zetie - ca...@us.ibm.com Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:25 PM To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction From my understanding existing customers from DDN, Lenovo, etc. that have v4 with socket based licenses are not entitled v5 licenses socket licenses. Is that a correct understanding? It is not, and I apologize in advance for the length of this explanation. I want to be precise and as transparent as possible while respecting the confidentiality of our OEM partners and the contracts we have with them, and there is a lot of misinformation out there. The short version is that the same rules apply to DDN, Lenovo, and other OEM systems that apply to IBM ESS. You can update your system in place and keep your existing metric, as long as your vendor can supply you with V5 for that hardware. The update from V4 to V5 is not relevant. The long version: We apply the same standard to our OEM's systems as to our own ESS: they can upgrade their existing customers on their existing OEM systems to V5 and stay on Sockets, *provided* that the OEM has entered into an OEM license for Scale V5 and can supply it, and *provided* that the hardware is still supported by the software stack. But new customers and new OEM systems are all licensed by Capacity. This also applies to IBM's own ESS: you can keep upgrading your old (if hardware is supported) gen 1 ESS on Sockets, but if you replace it with a new ESS, that will come with capacity licenses. (Lenovo may want to chime in about their own GSS customers here, who have Socket licenses, and DSS-G customers, who have Capacity licenses). Existing systems that originally shipped with Socket licenses are "grandfathered in". And of course, if you move from a Lenovo system to an IBM system, or from an IBM system to a Lenovo system, or any other change of suppliers, that new system will come with capacity licenses, simply because it's a new system. If you're replacing an old system running with V4 with a new one running V5 it might look like you are forced to switch to update, but that's not the case: if you replace an old "grandfathered in" system that you had already updated to V5 on Sockets, your new system would *still* come with Capacity licenses - again, because it's a new system. Now where much of the confusion occurs is this: What if your supplier does not provide an update to V5 at all, *neither as Capacity nor Socket licenses*? Then you have no choice: to get to V5, you have to move to a new supplier, and consequently you have to move to Capacity licensing. But once again, it's
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
One more important distinction with the DDN installations. Most DDN systems were deployed with an OEM license of GPFS v4. That license allowed DDN to use GPFS on their hardware appliance, but and didn't ever equate to an IBM software license. To my knowledge, DDN has not been a reseller of IBM licenses. We've had a lot of issues where our DDN users wanted to upgrade to Spectrum Scale 5; DDN couldn't provide the licensed code; and the user learned that they really didn't own IBM software (just the right to use the software on their DDN system) -michael Michael Sedlmayer -Original Message- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org On Behalf Of Flanders, Dean Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 5:40 PM To: gpfsug main discussion list Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction Hello Carl, Thanks for the clarification. I have always heard the term "existing customers" so originally I thought we were fine, but this is the first time I have seen the term "existing systems". However, it seems what I said before is mostly correct, eventually all customers will be forced to capacity based licensing as they life cycle hardware (even IBM customers). In addition it seems there is a diminishing number of OEMs that can sell SS v5, which is what happened in our case when we wanted to go from v4 to v5 with existing hardware (in our case DDN). So I strongly encourage organizations to be thinking of these issues in their long term planning. Thanks and kind regards, Dean -Original Message- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org On Behalf Of Carl Zetie - ca...@us.ibm.com Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:25 PM To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction > From my understanding existing customers from DDN, Lenovo, etc. that >have v4 with socket based licenses are not entitled v5 licenses socket >licenses. Is that a correct understanding? It is not, and I apologize in advance for the length of this explanation. I want to be precise and as transparent as possible while respecting the confidentiality of our OEM partners and the contracts we have with them, and there is a lot of misinformation out there. The short version is that the same rules apply to DDN, Lenovo, and other OEM systems that apply to IBM ESS. You can update your system in place and keep your existing metric, as long as your vendor can supply you with V5 for that hardware. The update from V4 to V5 is not relevant. The long version: We apply the same standard to our OEM's systems as to our own ESS: they can upgrade their existing customers on their existing OEM systems to V5 and stay on Sockets, *provided* that the OEM has entered into an OEM license for Scale V5 and can supply it, and *provided* that the hardware is still supported by the software stack. But new customers and new OEM systems are all licensed by Capacity. This also applies to IBM's own ESS: you can keep upgrading your old (if hardware is supported) gen 1 ESS on Sockets, but if you replace it with a new ESS, that will come with capacity licenses. (Lenovo may want to chime in about their own GSS customers here, who have Socket licenses, and DSS-G customers, who have Capacity licenses). Existing systems that originally shipped with Socket licenses are "grandfathered in". And of course, if you move from a Lenovo system to an IBM system, or from an IBM system to a Lenovo system, or any other change of suppliers, that new system will come with capacity licenses, simply because it's a new system. If you're replacing an old system running with V4 with a new one running V5 it might look like you are forced to switch to update, but that's not the case: if you replace an old "grandfathered in" system that you had already updated to V5 on Sockets, your new system would *still* come with Capacity licenses - again, because it's a new system. Now where much of the confusion occurs is this: What if your supplier does not provide an update to V5 at all, *neither as Capacity nor Socket licenses*? Then you have no choice: to get to V5, you have to move to a new supplier, and consequently you have to move to Capacity licensing. But once again, it's not that moving from V4 to V5 requires a change of metric; it's moving to a new system from a new supplier. I hope that helps to make things clearer. Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss _
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
Hello Carl, Thanks for the clarification. I have always heard the term "existing customers" so originally I thought we were fine, but this is the first time I have seen the term "existing systems". However, it seems what I said before is mostly correct, eventually all customers will be forced to capacity based licensing as they life cycle hardware (even IBM customers). In addition it seems there is a diminishing number of OEMs that can sell SS v5, which is what happened in our case when we wanted to go from v4 to v5 with existing hardware (in our case DDN). So I strongly encourage organizations to be thinking of these issues in their long term planning. Thanks and kind regards, Dean -Original Message- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org On Behalf Of Carl Zetie - ca...@us.ibm.com Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:25 PM To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction > From my understanding existing customers from DDN, Lenovo, etc. that >have v4 with socket based licenses are not entitled v5 licenses socket >licenses. Is that a correct understanding? It is not, and I apologize in advance for the length of this explanation. I want to be precise and as transparent as possible while respecting the confidentiality of our OEM partners and the contracts we have with them, and there is a lot of misinformation out there. The short version is that the same rules apply to DDN, Lenovo, and other OEM systems that apply to IBM ESS. You can update your system in place and keep your existing metric, as long as your vendor can supply you with V5 for that hardware. The update from V4 to V5 is not relevant. The long version: We apply the same standard to our OEM's systems as to our own ESS: they can upgrade their existing customers on their existing OEM systems to V5 and stay on Sockets, *provided* that the OEM has entered into an OEM license for Scale V5 and can supply it, and *provided* that the hardware is still supported by the software stack. But new customers and new OEM systems are all licensed by Capacity. This also applies to IBM's own ESS: you can keep upgrading your old (if hardware is supported) gen 1 ESS on Sockets, but if you replace it with a new ESS, that will come with capacity licenses. (Lenovo may want to chime in about their own GSS customers here, who have Socket licenses, and DSS-G customers, who have Capacity licenses). Existing systems that originally shipped with Socket licenses are "grandfathered in". And of course, if you move from a Lenovo system to an IBM system, or from an IBM system to a Lenovo system, or any other change of suppliers, that new system will come with capacity licenses, simply because it's a new system. If you're replacing an old system running with V4 with a new one running V5 it might look like you are forced to switch to update, but that's not the case: if you replace an old "grandfathered in" system that you had already updated to V5 on Sockets, your new system would *still* come with Capacity licenses - again, because it's a new system. Now where much of the confusion occurs is this: What if your supplier does not provide an update to V5 at all, *neither as Capacity nor Socket licenses*? Then you have no choice: to get to V5, you have to move to a new supplier, and consequently you have to move to Capacity licensing. But once again, it's not that moving from V4 to V5 requires a change of metric; it's moving to a new system from a new supplier. I hope that helps to make things clearer. Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
> From my understanding existing customers from DDN, Lenovo, etc. that have v4 > with socket based licenses >are not entitled v5 licenses socket licenses. Is that a correct understanding? It is not, and I apologize in advance for the length of this explanation. I want to be precise and as transparent as possible while respecting the confidentiality of our OEM partners and the contracts we have with them, and there is a lot of misinformation out there. The short version is that the same rules apply to DDN, Lenovo, and other OEM systems that apply to IBM ESS. You can update your system in place and keep your existing metric, as long as your vendor can supply you with V5 for that hardware. The update from V4 to V5 is not relevant. The long version: We apply the same standard to our OEM's systems as to our own ESS: they can upgrade their existing customers on their existing OEM systems to V5 and stay on Sockets, *provided* that the OEM has entered into an OEM license for Scale V5 and can supply it, and *provided* that the hardware is still supported by the software stack. But new customers and new OEM systems are all licensed by Capacity. This also applies to IBM's own ESS: you can keep upgrading your old (if hardware is supported) gen 1 ESS on Sockets, but if you replace it with a new ESS, that will come with capacity licenses. (Lenovo may want to chime in about their own GSS customers here, who have Socket licenses, and DSS-G customers, who have Capacity licenses). Existing systems that originally shipped with Socket licenses are "grandfathered in". And of course, if you move from a Lenovo system to an IBM system, or from an IBM system to a Lenovo system, or any other change of suppliers, that new system will come with capacity licenses, simply because it's a new system. If you're replacing an old system running with V4 with a new one running V5 it might look like you are forced to switch to update, but that's not the case: if you replace an old "grandfathered in" system that you had already updated to V5 on Sockets, your new system would *still* come with Capacity licenses - again, because it's a new system. Now where much of the confusion occurs is this: What if your supplier does not provide an update to V5 at all, *neither as Capacity nor Socket licenses*? Then you have no choice: to get to V5, you have to move to a new supplier, and consequently you have to move to Capacity licensing. But once again, it's not that moving from V4 to V5 requires a change of metric; it's moving to a new system from a new supplier. I hope that helps to make things clearer. Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
Hello Carl, Yes, for existing IBM direct customers that may have been the case for v4 to v5. However, from my understanding if a customer bought GPFS/SS via DDN, Lenovo, etc. with embedded systems licenses, this is not the case. From my understanding existing customers from DDN, Lenovo, etc. that have v4 with socket based licenses are not entitled v5 licenses socket licenses. Is that a correct understanding? Thanks and kind regards, Dean -Original Message- From: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org On Behalf Of Carl Zetie - ca...@us.ibm.com Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 2:44 PM To: gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction Folks, I need to correct a common misunderstanding that is perpetuated here: > As IBM has completely switched to capacity based licensing in order to > use SS v5 For new customers, Scale is priced Per TB (we also have Per PB licenses now for convenience). This transition was completed in January 2019. And for ESS, it is licensed Per Drive with different prices for HDDs and SSDs. Existing customers with Standard sockets can remain on and continue to buy more Standard sockets. There is no plan to end that entitlement. The same applies to customers with Advanced sockets who want to continue with Advanced. In both cases you can upgrade from V4.2 to V5.0 without changing your license metric. This licensing change is not connected to the migration from V4 to V5. However, I do see a lot of confusion around this point, including from my IBM colleagues, possibly because both transitions occurred around roughly the same time period. Regards, Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Spectrum Scale licensing - important correction
Folks, I need to correct a common misunderstanding that is perpetuated here: > As IBM has completely switched to capacity based licensing in order to use SS > v5 For new customers, Scale is priced Per TB (we also have Per PB licenses now for convenience). This transition was completed in January 2019. And for ESS, it is licensed Per Drive with different prices for HDDs and SSDs. Existing customers with Standard sockets can remain on and continue to buy more Standard sockets. There is no plan to end that entitlement. The same applies to customers with Advanced sockets who want to continue with Advanced. In both cases you can upgrade from V4.2 to V5.0 without changing your license metric. This licensing change is not connected to the migration from V4 to V5. However, I do see a lot of confusion around this point, including from my IBM colleagues, possibly because both transitions occurred around roughly the same time period. Regards, Carl Zetie Program Director Offering Management Spectrum Scale (919) 473 3318 ][ Research Triangle Park ca...@us.ibm.com ___ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
