Re: Posting From r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl on Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:50:31
+0200
> Well. I thought the rules are slightly different: it is enough to
> run some product ONCE during reporting period (month) to pay for
> that. More precisely: if you run ABC product on LPAR1 (only) and
> LPAR1 high
Kelman, Tom wrote:
That's all well and good. However, I just did a "D PROD,STATE" on my
systems and several products - CPCS, the imaging software, CICS, DB2,
and MQ - are not in this list, but they are all producing SMF Type89
records. The ones for CICS, DB2, and MQ are run though SCRT every mo
>Let's face it: some vendors are very fair and accomodating while others
have practices that can only be characterized as predatory. I've dealt
with both kinds.
So have I.
As a Capacity Analyst, I have been more involved in costing, than I've ever
wanted to be.
I knew this was going to happen a
Kelman, Tom wrote:
What is said here might be true for those products that are doing
sub-capacity pricing based on MSUs. They just need to
register/deregister their product to write the MULC data. However, as I
said in a previous post, I know that the IBM CPCS and imaging software
cause SMF89 r
on List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:39 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Sub Capacity Reporting for non IBM Vendors
>
> Kelman, Tom wrote:
> > What is said here might be true for those products that are doing
Let me understand this correctly. You accept all IBM boilerplate
agreements with zero negotiation???
-
If so, I want whatever it is that he's smoking! :-)
--
Let's face it: some vendors are very fair and accomodating while others
have practices that can only be characterized as predatory. I've dealt
with both kinds.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
In a message dated 9/14/2009 1:51:24 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl writes:
company. However *every* ISV's license agreement I met needed
negotiation. Not only for the price, but first of all terms and
conditions. Sometimes it was small change, but sometimes no
Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Sub Capacity Reporting for non IBM Vendors
>
> Scott Barry wrote:
> > CA Comm
-Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Peter Relson
> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 8:00 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Sub Capacity Reporting for non IBM Vendors
>
> >A vendor could
Ted MacNEIL pisze:
I don't have to look for "gotchas".
I negotiate prices, but usually not Ts&Cs.
Boy! Are you naive!
T&C are negotiable!
I'm not naive. I know that Ts&Cs are negotiable, as everything in business.
It is strange: when I complained about IBM on the list, I was scolded.
Now I
>I don't have to look for "gotchas".
>I negotiate prices, but usually not Ts&Cs.
Boy! Are you naive!
T&C are negotiable!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:24:20 +0200 "R.S."
wrote:
:>Binyamin Dissen pisze:
:>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:50:02 +0200 "R.S."
:>> wrote:
:>> :>I recant.
:>> :>I shouldn't say that IBM is the only honest company. That should be "the
:>> :>only honest company *I know* ". This statement does not precl
Binyamin Dissen pisze:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:50:02 +0200 "R.S."
wrote:
:>I recant.
:>I shouldn't say that IBM is the only honest company. That should be "the
:>only honest company *I know* ". This statement does not preclude other
:>companies.
:>Obviously I didn't mean PSI, because I had n
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:50:02 +0200 "R.S."
wrote:
:>I recant.
:>I shouldn't say that IBM is the only honest company. That should be "the
:>only honest company *I know* ". This statement does not preclude other
:>companies.
:>Obviously I didn't mean PSI, because I had nothing to do with this
:>
Edward Jaffe pisze:
R.S. wrote:
It is also worth to mention that IBM is the only company which is not
try to "catch" the customer. I read several horror stories on this
forum, on ISVcosts list, from own experience - almost any other
company presents license agreements that HAVE to be negotiate
>> Your statements are unfair, inaccurate, subjective opinion presented as
>> fact, and ought to be recanted...
>Totally agree!!!
I'm a customer AND I totally agree, as well!
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Edward Jaffe
> Sent: Monday, 14 September 2009 7:06 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: Sub Capacity Reporting for non IBM Vendors
>
> R.S. wrote:
> It is also worth to mention that IBM is the only company which is not
> try to "catch" the customer.
BS! Which planet are you from?
>I read several horror stories on this
> forum, on ISVcosts list, from own experience - almost any other
> company presents license agreements that HAVE to be n
R.S. wrote:
It is also worth to mention that IBM is the only company which is not
try to "catch" the customer. I read several horror stories on this
forum, on ISVcosts list, from own experience - almost any other
company presents license agreements that HAVE to be negotiated. Only
IBM's licens
Edward Jaffe pisze:
[...]
Such tactics do not work with IBM. Reagan's "Trust but Verify" applies.
They have an elaborate (almost Rube Goldberg-like) system in place to
monitor and report usage.
Yes and no. IBM is one of very few companies which do not use execution
keys. I don't know any IBM
Scott Barry wrote:
CA Common Services (CAIRIM) is writing SMF 89 data today, contributing to
SMF 89 and MULC (SMF type 30) analysis and reporting for many of its
software products. This effort came about in the past year's time-frame,
having been revealed (remember - CA does not announce futures
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:59:36 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
>>A vendor could write SMF Type 89 records that record something other
>>than MSUs. IBM actually does this with their Check Processing Control
>>System (CPCS) and imaging software. Those products write Type 89
>>records that record the num
R.S. wrote:
It is possible to convince vendor that some LPAR never exceeds xxx
MIPS/MSU and no checking is done. Despite of CPU upgrades.
And of course it is possible to convince vendor that their product is
being used only on that LPAR.
It is sometimes possible to convince vendor that we use th
>A vendor could write SMF Type 89 records that record something other
>than MSUs. IBM actually does this with their Check Processing Control
>System (CPCS) and imaging software. Those products write Type 89
>records that record the number of items processed.
It seems really unlikely that anyone
Ted MacNEIL pisze:
[...]
We ran into something similar when we convinced an ISV to go to usage base,
rather than the entire footprint.
The alternative for the vendor was the discontinuation of the licence.
Oh, this is quite another issue. BTDT.
It is possible to convince vendor that some LPAR
>More precisely: if you run ABC product on LPAR1 (only) and LPAR1 highest usage
>is nnn MSU then you pay for product ABC as it would consume nnn MSU on that
>LPAR.
>And it doesn't matter that you ran the product only once, 3 days before the
>peak occured.
We ran into something similar when we c
R.S. wrote:
Well. I thought the rules are slightly different: it is enough to run
some product ONCE during reporting period (month) to pay for that.
More precisely: if you run ABC product on LPAR1 (only) and LPAR1
highest usage is nnn MSU then you pay for product ABC as it would
consume nnn MS
Edward Jaffe pisze:
[...]
[I know you mean SMF 70.] The above is only partially true. SCRT has a
hard-coded list of supported products inside. (Browse the module under
ISPF to find their names.) These are the only products for which SCRT
reporting is possible. If you don't believe me, try writi
A vendor could write SMF Type 89 records that record something other
than MSUs. IBM actually does this with their Check Processing Control
System (CPCS) and imaging software. Those products write Type 89
records that record the number of items processed. I have to run those
Type 89 records throu
R.S. wrote:
Edward Jaffe pisze:
[...]
IBM SCRT does not support ISV products. Period.
Why?
SCRT is based on two records:
a) CPU utilization (SMF72 afaik)
b) products launched (SMF89)
[I know you mean SMF 70.] The above is only partially true. SCRT has a
hard-coded list of supported products
: Friday, September 11, 2009 SYSN 10:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: Sub Capacity Reporting for non IBM Vendors
R.S. wrote:
> Edward Jaffe pisze:
> [...]
>> IBM SCRT does not support ISV products. Period.
>
> Why?
> SCRT is based on two records:
> a) CPU utilization (SM
Kelman, Tom wrote:
A vendor could write SMF Type 89 records that record something other
than MSUs. IBM actually does this with their Check Processing Control
System (CPCS) and imaging software. Those products write Type 89
records that record the number of items processed. I have to run those
Martin Packer pisze:
I thought it was Type 70 rather than Type 72. (70 is CPU, 72 is Workload.)
Being in IBM Software Group I suppose I ought to pay more attention to
software pricing. :-)
Yes, it is SMF70. I haven't checked before writing. However it is
irrelevant for the main topic.
--
R
I thought it was Type 70 rather than Type 72. (70 is CPU, 72 is Workload.)
Being in IBM Software Group I suppose I ought to pay more attention to
software pricing. :-)
Martin
Martin Packer
Performance Consultant
IBM United Kingdom Ltd
+44-20-8832-5167
+44-7802-245-584
email: martin_pac...@uk.i
Edward Jaffe pisze:
[...]
IBM SCRT does not support ISV products. Period.
Why?
SCRT is based on two records:
a) CPU utilization (SMF72 afaik)
b) products launched (SMF89)
Record 72 reporting does not require any change - so ISV would know what
the 4HRA was on each LPAR.
There is still no rep
Ken Porowski wrote:
For a non-IBM vendor that does sub-capacity licensing how do you get the
data to them?
Send them the SCRT .csv file?
Send them a number and hope they trust you?
Do they actually alter the charges on a monthly basis?
If using SCRT data is it product specific (e.g. for a DB2
nframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Ken Porowski
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:16 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Sub Capacity Reporting for non IBM Vendors
>
> For a non-IBM vendor that does sub-capacity licensing how do you
For a non-IBM vendor that does sub-capacity licensing how do you get the
data to them?
Send them the SCRT .csv file?
Send them a number and hope they trust you?
Do they actually alter the charges on a monthly basis?
If using SCRT data is it product specific (e.g. for a DB2 tool you use
SCRT dat
39 matches
Mail list logo
