Data Protector Capacity Licensing

Data Protector Capacity Licensing

Data Protector CBL is measured by Front End Terabytes but also counts the data under retention. Usually most of customers now have D2D for Short term retention and D2T for Long term retention. 

CBL includes all protected data into calculation and cannot distinguish between the current and original license type that was used for backup. Systems that are not included in backup (not exist anymore) can be copied to separate media which can be then exported from Cell Manager system.

Customers usually do not want to export the data under long term retention as their compliance needs the data to be restored within the SLA defined. 

Would there be any possibility to review the Data Protector Capacity based licensing as our competiton does not calculate data under retention. 

Below is the link for  Commvault Front End Calculation:

Link for Netbackup Capacity Licensing.


chris noutch Respected Contributor.
Respected Contributor.

Hi Sandeep, this is a very hot topic now and we have many customers complaining about how we look at everything under protection as you say.  This also causes problems for customers that keep backup data for long periods but then migrate their data to new servers (for example if they go P2V) then in this instance they have 2 servers with the same backup data under protection in DP.

Thakur Sandeep Respected Contributor.
Respected Contributor.

Hi Chris,

I understand that this is a Hot topic, however we only have an option to compensate for this licensing feature with either an ELA or discounting. Most of the time it either attracts investment.

I would recommend to have this point raised with our PM teams for them to get a holistic view about this as this is one of the show stoppers for deals.


Sandeep Thakur

Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner


Same concern here from a few of our customers. Having a long data retention (managed in the IDB) is just not practical for customers with a lot of change in their infrastructure for one good reason. Each migration where a server is renamed, where drive letters or mount points are changed create new objects in the IDB. In addition to the old objects the new objects are also included for CBL. The only difference is that the old objects are no longer backed up.  They stay in the IDB until the protection ages out at some point which could be weeks, month, years or never.

From my point of view the current approach is okay with one exception. Today all data with an active protection is considered rather than looking at a reasonable time frame such as the last 12 month. This would cure most of the problems and can be implemented with a simple SQL statement. Just make sure it is reflected in the docs and licensing terms.

I don't have a problem when the same data is counted twice if it has been backed up with several methods. Different methods offer different restore options in the end. The user must decide what is required to meet their SLAs.

Sebastian Koehler

Micro Focus Contributor
Micro Focus Contributor
Status changed to: Waiting for Votes
Micro Focus Contributor
Micro Focus Contributor
Status changed to: Accepted

We are facing a major issue in the calculation of Licenses.

A- Old data on archived tapes is being calculated although it is not actively being protected as the original post describes. If the data is years old, the licenses required are simply to maintain an entry in the database.

B- If you simply change the object label for an existing object, the usage data of the object is doubled unless protection on the object with the old label is recycled.

C- If a host is renamed or data is migrated to a new host, the same data is calculated twice unless all objects with the old hostname are recycled.

D-If another copy of the same virtual machine is restored for a temporary amount of time and is picked up in one of the backups; the data usage by that machine is doubled until all backup versions referencing it is recycled.

E- If for some technical reason, the object identifier of a virtual machine (UUID) is changed; the data usage by that machine is doubled unless all versions of the old object name are recycled.

F- If the virtual center host is changed, the total usage of the VE environment is doubled.

Over time, all of the above has increased our license requirements  by 130%.  This also affected the number of licenses required by Backup Navigator.

Recycling data because of licenses calculation limitations will affect SLAs.

Technicalities like these seriously affect investments decisions in data protector.  Other products do currently have the upper hand.

We suggest limiting the calculation to a recent time period or having the ability to highlight objects as historic archives so that they are not included in the calculation.


OmniBack Man Regular Contributor.
Regular Contributor.

 Totally agree, the calculation should only look at the last 6 weeks worth or so of backups not eons ago for tapes that are sitting in a dusty firesafe.


Micro Focus Contributor
Micro Focus Contributor
Status changed to: Delivered

The latest release of Data Protector 2018.11 (DP 10.20) does not count backups that are greater than 90 days towards the capacity calculations. 

Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert
Status changed to: Archived
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.