The table you included was about Editions, not License types. -- Stephen
> On Nov 10, 2016, at 7:07 AM, Andrew Beattie <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think you will find that AFM in any flavor is a function of the Server > license, not a client license. > > i've always found this to be a pretty good guide, although you now need to > add Transparent Cloud Tiering into the bottom column > > <Image.14787785499920.png> > > > > Andrew Beattie > Software Defined Storage - IT Specialist > Phone: 614-2133-7927 > E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > ----- Original message ----- > From: Luke Raimbach <[email protected]> > Sent by: [email protected] > To: gpfsug main discussion list <[email protected]> > Cc: > Subject: [gpfsug-discuss] AFM Licensing > Date: Thu, Nov 10, 2016 8:22 PM > > HI All, > > I have a tantalisingly interesting question about licensing... > > When installing a couple of AFM gateway nodes into a cluster for data > migration, where the AFM filesets will only ever be local-updates, those > nodes should just require a client license, right? No GPFS data will leave > through those nodes, so I can't see any valid argument for them being server > licensed. > > Anyone want to disagree? > > Cheers, > Luke. > _______________________________________________ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss > <http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss> > > > _______________________________________________ > gpfsug-discuss mailing list > gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org > http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
