TSM licenses (and pricing) has been based on the environment for some years. Check with your IBM Business Partner to get the details. Orville L. 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: [email protected] 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 your comment on licensing. 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? Robin Sharpe Berlex Labs |---------+-------------------------------> | | Orville Lantto | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | SHOUSE.COM> | | | Sent by: "ADSM: Dist| | | Stor Manager" | | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | U> | | | | | | | | | 03/13/2006 01:40 PM | | | Please respond to | | | "ADSM: Dist Stor | | | Manager" | | | | |---------+-------------------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |To: [email protected] | |cc: | |Subject: | | Re: | >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| The approach is valid and can reap significant backup/restore time benefits for the clients. Two points: 1) No new licensing cost are involved. TSM is licensed by the environment, not the number of TSM servers. 2) Consider the complexity of resources scheduling between many servers. Most sites have a limited number of tape drives and contention can be a bear to schedule out with so many independent servers and their separate schedulers. An external admin scheduling utility may be needed. Orville L. Lantto Glasshouse Technologies, Inc. ________________________________ From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager on behalf of Robin Sharpe Sent: Mon 3/13/2006 11:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [ADSM-L] 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 initial plan is to create five TSMs - four plus a library manager - on the existing server (an 8-way, 12GB HP rp7410 with 15 PCI slots). This is cost effective since no additional hardware or license is needed - just lots of SAN disk for the databases, which we have available. But, I've been thinking.... what do you think about the following: A more "creative" approach is to place the "new" TSM servers on existing large clients. This has several advantages: - eliminates need to acquire new servers, saving physical room, power and cooling requirements, additional maintenance. - client benefits by sending its backup to local disk using shared memory protocol. Eliminates potential network bottleneck. - Client sends data to tapes using library sharing; no need for storage agent. - Use of local disk eliminates the need for SANergy - heavy clients "pay" for their usage by providing backup services for smaller clients. There are also some concerns (not necessarily disadvantages): - May require CPU, memory, and/or I/O upgrades (still cheaper than buying a server) - TSM operation may impact client's primary app. Can be controlled by PRM on HP-UX. - Incurs licensing cost. Thanks for any insights.... Robin Sharpe Berlex Labs
