Concurrent versus Named Licences
Concurrent versus Named Licences
Wondering how many people are annoyed about Named User Licences, is it worth changing ?
Paolo
Paolo
- George Regateiro
- MVP
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:35 pm
- OLAP Product: TM1
- Version: 10.1.1
- Excel Version: 2007 SP3
- Location: Tampa FL USA
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
Annoyed Yes, it is a better deal for them. The only benefit is that you can have an unlimited amount of production servers, so it makes branching to differnt geographical areas easier. For us it is very difficult because we have a very sporadic user base because of our applications so the concurrent was great.
From talking with the Cognos Rep it is not going to be a choice, but rather a by upgrading to version X.X you are now named licenses. I have a feeling it is going to be a hard transition for alot of people.
From talking with the Cognos Rep it is not going to be a choice, but rather a by upgrading to version X.X you are now named licenses. I have a feeling it is going to be a hard transition for alot of people.
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
unlimited production servers? you mean can connect to unlimited production servers. if more users come online, even for 5 seconds, they will need another named licence. From my understanding. and please correct me if I am wrong, but unlimited production servers is, if you have an enterprise licence. and that is a monster amount of money, is it not?
Paolo
Paolo
- Eric
- MVP
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:21 pm
- OLAP Product: TM1
- Version: 9.4
- Excel Version: 2003
- Location: Chicago, IL USA
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
After talking to my rep earlier in the year, I was able to find out you do not have to migrate your current concurrent users licenses, but you cannot buy new ones. It might take a lot of huffing and puffing, but they cannot make you migrate even if you upgrade your entire system.
Regards,
Eric
Blog: http://tm1-tipz.blogspot.com
Articles: http://www.google.com/reader/shared/use ... /label/TM1
Production: 32 bit 9.0 SP2, Windows 2000 Advanced Server. Web: 32 bit 9.0 SP2, Windows 2000 Server. Excel 2003
Eric
Blog: http://tm1-tipz.blogspot.com
Articles: http://www.google.com/reader/shared/use ... /label/TM1
Production: 32 bit 9.0 SP2, Windows 2000 Advanced Server. Web: 32 bit 9.0 SP2, Windows 2000 Server. Excel 2003
- George Regateiro
- MVP
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 3:35 pm
- OLAP Product: TM1
- Version: 10.1.1
- Excel Version: 2007 SP3
- Location: Tampa FL USA
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
Eric wrote:After talking to my rep earlier in the year, I was able to find out you do not have to migrate your current concurrent users licenses, but you cannot buy new ones. It might take a lot of huffing and puffing, but they cannot make you migrate even if you upgrade your entire system.
That is interesting because it is different then we have been told by Cognos. Guess we are all at the mercy of what IBM/Cognos wants to do.
The entire unlimited production servers is great for those that need a distributed environment because of geography. The entire discussion is very much based on how your organization uses TM1.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 9:09 am
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
I've heard rumours about the charge for extra servers going away - only rumours though. My concern with that is how very poor the server to server communication is - and don't mention replication, it's very much 'all or nothing' (and has not always been that stable). What we need is the ability to pass data and structures back and forward easily.
We've tried out using ODBO between TM1 servers. Some of it works, there are nasty issues with transferring dimensions (you get 'fully qualified' elements with all their ancestors prepended) and we didn't find it scaled at all well. This was in 2005. Applix blamed MDX - I myself think their ODBO client needed some (lots of) optimising. Hopefully with Cognos involved things might get better in this area - I can't forget Dave Corbett saying at Vegas that 'TM1 would become more OLAP compliant' (!) which I think can only mean more MS-like. Pretty please - default members? Named hierarchies?
We've tried out using ODBO between TM1 servers. Some of it works, there are nasty issues with transferring dimensions (you get 'fully qualified' elements with all their ancestors prepended) and we didn't find it scaled at all well. This was in 2005. Applix blamed MDX - I myself think their ODBO client needed some (lots of) optimising. Hopefully with Cognos involved things might get better in this area - I can't forget Dave Corbett saying at Vegas that 'TM1 would become more OLAP compliant' (!) which I think can only mean more MS-like. Pretty please - default members? Named hierarchies?
- Steve Vincent
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 8:33 am
- OLAP Product: TM1
- Version: 10.2.2 FP1
- Excel Version: 2010
- Location: UK
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
it does give the opportunity to archive data much easier, so you could have one service running for each year of data with no extra charge for them. we are now on a named user license and its not that bad, gives us the flexiblity we need to grow our TM1 apps further throughout the business.
If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
Production: Planning Analytics 64 bit 2.0.5, Windows 2016 Server. Excel 2016, IE11 for t'internet
Production: Planning Analytics 64 bit 2.0.5, Windows 2016 Server. Excel 2016, IE11 for t'internet
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:53 pm
- OLAP Product: TM1
- Version: 10.2.2, 8.4.5, 2.5 (in 1987)
- Excel Version: 2013
- Location: Troy, MI
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
How many named users do you get for each concurrent user?
- Mike Cowie
- Site Admin
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 7:07 pm
- OLAP Product: IBM TM1/PA, SSAS, and more
- Version: Anything thru 11.x
- Excel Version: 2003 - Office 365
- Location: Alabama, USA
- Contact:
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
Hi Bob,Bob Stuecheli wrote:How many named users do you get for each concurrent user?
I don't know the formula, but my guess is that it could be variable and negotiable depending on the situation. I also believe that they charge a fee to do the conversion, but you may be able to simply add new named users alongside your concurrent pool of users.
I know I sound vague on this, but it seems like every time something like this has come up the options have changed. Bear in mind that as of Jan 1, 2009 I believe the management of all things licensing will be more in IBM's hands which could change the options again or prove less flexible (hard to know until it happens).
Regards,
Mike
Mike Cowie
QueBIT Consulting, LLC
Are you lost without Print Reports in Planning Analytics for Excel (PAfE)? Get it back today, for free, with Print Reports for IBM Planning Analytics for Excel!
QueBIT Consulting, LLC
Are you lost without Print Reports in Planning Analytics for Excel (PAfE)? Get it back today, for free, with Print Reports for IBM Planning Analytics for Excel!
- Steve Vincent
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 8:33 am
- OLAP Product: TM1
- Version: 10.2.2 FP1
- Excel Version: 2010
- Location: UK
Re: Concurrent versus Named Licences
Its negotiableBob Stuecheli wrote:How many named users do you get for each concurrent user?
If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
Production: Planning Analytics 64 bit 2.0.5, Windows 2016 Server. Excel 2016, IE11 for t'internet
Production: Planning Analytics 64 bit 2.0.5, Windows 2016 Server. Excel 2016, IE11 for t'internet