>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:23:38 -0600, Roger Deschner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> But as we've grown into our present performance crunch, one thing
> has become clear - being a TSM server is a 24-hour workload. So you
> can't borrow cycles from your clients, except by forcing them to do
> the clie
Lantto
>Glasshouse Technologies, Inc.
>Cell: 952-738-1933
>
>
>
>
>From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of Robin Sharpe
>Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 2:19 PM
>To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
>Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM Server Hosting - dedicated vs. shared
>
>
>
>Orvill
Robin Sharpe wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> It's time for us to split our TSM into several new instances because
> our database is now just too large -- 509GB -- and still growing. My
wow... you do know that 560 GB is the limit (iirc?).
> initial plan is to create five TSMs - four plus a library
Robin Sharpe wrote:
> I thought each
> TSM server instance on a separate physical server needed a license (per
> processor). Is this not true? Is it a new policy?
yes, you do need to buy tsm licenses for each server, they are the same
as any other server(-type client) cpu in your environment.
-
Orville,
Thanks for your thoughts. We do use Control-M for all of our scheduling in
the Unix environment, and are moving towards Windows deployment too.
I am surprised, though, about your comment on licensing. I thought each
TSM server instance on a separate physical server needed a license (per
Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 2:19 PM
To: ADSM-L@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: [ADSM-L] TSM Server Hosting - dedicated vs. shared
Orville,
Thanks for your thoughts. We do use Control-M for all of our scheduling in
the Unix environment, and are moving towards Windows deployment too.
I am surprised, though, about
