Archives of the TeradataForum

Message Posted: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 @ 19:37:57 GMT

	<Prev	Next>		<<First	<Prev	Next>	Last>>

Dear Teradata Forum Users,

I am looking for knowledge about how Teradata administrators think about compression and how you attribute storage/cpu savings when deciding on a vendor's solution [note, we've got a new compression solution, but I'm not soliciting here for it at all, nor will I do so if anyone responds-- the quest here is to understand if and how you would attribute the cost savings to pay for the compression, itself].

My question about your mindset:

If a compression tool could save you the equivelent of 30%, say which equates to 3 nodes (of a 10-node system), thus delaying purchase of 3 new nodes that you had scheduled over the next two years, would it be better to make the case that the cost of the tool should be:

A) a % of this known savings as the fee;

B) a low fixed fee, without even getting into the cost savings. A no-brainer regarding savings/price or

C) a price based on the delayed purchase of the 3 nodes (time value of money) as you'd be making the purchases later on anyway.

A reply of A, B or C and why would be very helpful. I'm really looking to understand the drivers of what you would based your decision on -- heck, maybe price is not even the top factor. Thank you.

	<Prev	Next>		<<First	<Prev	Next>	Last>>