When we first started renegotiating our last deal, about a year ago, the
discount for ProtecTier was talked about a lot, but I don't know if it was part
of the final package.
We went with capacity-based licensing for two reasons:
1) no one liked dealing with PVUs, and the TSM server team could
We moved over to per TB licensing last year, and were told categorically
that the only dedupe they would take into account was TSM's dedupe. We
also have ProtecTIER, and they would not take that into account.
Steven
On 16 July 2012 19:22, Stackwick, Stephen wrote:
> Thanks, Rick. The link I pro
Thanks, Rick. The link I provided does make it appear more rigid now. I'm not a
salesman, but I guess everything is negotiable if the parties are willing to
dicker and it would make sense for IBM to push it's solution.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-
Steve,
Perhaps I should have stated YMMV as our negotiation with IBM took place
when the cap model was in its infancy and from reviewing the link you
provided it appears some aspects have changed.
Basically if you use TSM compression, deduplication, and/or ProtecTier,
it would be reflected in the
I've had a couple of customers look at capacity-based licensing, ditto what the
other folks said. IBM will make a different offer to each customer, which
supposedly takes into account the conversion of your existing licenses.
I have one customer who only keeps their backups 2 weeks (really, rea
I'm a little surprised by this, as the TSM macros you run to calculate the
storage don't know (or care) about the storage device, i.e., they just report
the uncompressed storage amount:
https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21500482&wv=1
That said, if you are running TSM deduplicat
This has been our experience too. We've been running TSM for six years,
and in that time, the number of systems has gone up 4x, the number of
CPUs has gone up about 10x, and the amount of primary backup/archive
data has gone up 50x. We're sticking with the core-based PVU licensing
as long as we ca
We recently converted to a special hybrid license that is a combination of
PVU and STG based. We are ~600TB primary occupancy (constantly growing)
but have a lot of high-powered multi-processor systems (in research
computing) so it worked out cheaper (per my guy who does licensing) to go
to the S
Ian,
Our company looked into it and thought it may save some $$ and at the
same time simplify the OVERLY complex PVU license model used for
TSM/IBM.
I'll start by saying to make sure you understand what TSM products are
included in the "capacity" license proposal. From memory I don't
remember the
Hi Ian,
As I understood IBM will make an different offer for each customer so that
there is a (short term) profit. However on the long term you will pay more to
IBM imho since data will grow faster than the number of cores in your servers.
After all hardware replacement is done once every 4 yea
Hi,
We are in the midst of discussions on moving to capacity-based licensing from
the standard PVU-based method for our site. We have a large number of clients (
licensed via TSM-EE, TDP agents, and on client-device basis ) and around 1PB of
primary pool data. As I understand it, there is no pu
11 matches
Mail list logo
