[gpfsug-discuss] AFM Licensing

[Stephen Ulmer]

The table you included was about Editions, not License types.

-- 
Stephen



> On Nov 10, 2016, at 7:07 AM, Andrew Beattie <abeattie at au1.ibm.com> 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: abeattie at au1.ibm.com <mailto:abeattie at au1.ibm.com>
>  
>  
> ----- Original message -----
> From: Luke Raimbach <luke.raimbach at googlemail.com>
> Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-bounces at spectrumscale.org
> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20161110/d6c12992/attachment-0002.htm>