By any chance do you back up a lot of desktops? I've seen more than 1 case where the IBM rep actually pulled the wrong numbers for a quote when there were a bunch of desktops involved. (The licensing is confusing for everyone, not just customers...)
Your IBM rep should be able to SHOW you the breakdown for the quote, i.e. how many "value units" they are charging you for TSM basic clients, Oracle clients, Mail clients, etc. It's a pain to do your own verification of the quote, but it protects you in cases like this to be able to compare this years charges vs. last years. There is a table on the web that shows the "value units" you need for each type of processor/core/machine. BTW, a little known fact: you can also go to a different business partner and get a 2nd opinion quote, if the 1st one doesn't cooperate. IBM may not like it, but you aren't obligated to play with who they tell you to. Overall IBM is better off keeping you as a customer. Also remember, if by chance you are moving anything to VMWARE, you only have to pay for the processors in the physical host, no matter how many clients you run. Same if you are running multiple AIX LPARs on 1 physical box. If you are running something like Oracle TDP on an LPAR in an 8-way box, and the Oracle LPAR is restricted to using only 2 processors, I believe you only have to license the 2, not the 8, for the Oracle TDP. The only way I can think of you should have gotten a 4X maintenance quote for TSM, is if you essentially got it free on some special deal in the first place, or you've upgraded a lot of your machines to higher-power boxes. Another option, go back to your IBM rep and TELL them this won't do and you're going to walk; see what alternatives they can come up with- maybe they could at least phase it in over a few years. I'm pointing this stuff out because a) I've seen it happen when it was just a MISTAKE, and b) both YOU and IBM are going to be better off keeping you as a customer. Unless you have a really tiny environment, even an increase in your maintenance (not 4X, but some increase) is going to most likely be cheaper for you than the initial cost of one of the other backup products (and none of the others are as good!) On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Conway, Timothy <timothy.con...@jbssa.com>wrote: > AS far as I know, there was no audit. The "audit tool" is about as > worthless as it could be without being actually harmful. You'd think > all the clients could return CPU type, count, and IDs and have a > complete answer right there in the TSM server. Over the past couple > years, we've greatly shrunk our number of physical servers, so we know > it's fewer CPUs than we originally bought for. > > I wish I had more of a role in this than "This is what we must have > done. Make it happen". > > -----Original Message----- > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ads...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of > Bell, Charles (Chip) > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:00 PM > To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU > Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Alternatives to TSM > > I thought the audit was so last year... Is it making a comeback? :) >
