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 exact ones but it does not apply to all TSM licenses. This obviously means that the capacity license model may be attractive to some and unattractive to others. Your IBM rep should be able to clarify this. Also, in our environment we use a Data Domain backend which as you may know prefers all incoming data to be uncompressed and unencrypted. Since the TSM servers have no knowledge of the DD processes it reports the raw storage numbers before compression and deduplication which negatively affected the capacity licensing pricing. We opened discussions on this issue with IBM but they refused to budge or negotiate an adjustment for the "actual" storage used. Needless to say that position was not too warmly received and we 86'ed the whole discussion. Interestingly, had we used IBM storage/deduplication on the backend they would use the actual storage, but no such provision for Data Domain. Good luck.... ~Rick -----Original Message----- From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian Smith Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 7:13 AM To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Moving to TSM Capacity based licensing from PVU - experiences 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 published metric for the conversion from PVU to per TB licensing so I would be really interested and grateful if anyone would like to share their experiences of that conversion in a private email to me. Many thanks in advance. Ian Smith Oxford University England
