This is probably a question better answered by my sales rep, but it is late and I doubt she would appreciate a page right now :)
Is volcopy the same as what snap copy was being touted as? If volcopy requires a separate license, why not make it part of the basic OS instead? That is, why does it require another license key?
Just curious. Thanks.
Alex
Alex,
SnapCopy is our marketing term for the vol copy command. In the 5.1 early access release it was an extra-cost item which required a license key. We've come to our senses in 5.1.2 and removed any additional charge for vol copy <g>. It is now a no-cost feature which still however requires a license key. Please buzz your rep or her SE in the morning and ask for the key.
I'm not sure why we haven't removed the need for a license key in 5.1.2, but I'm sure we had a valid reason... which someone from California will probably be happy to share with us tomorrow...
-Val. ============================================== Val Bercovici Office: (613)724-8674 Systems Engineer Pager: (800)566-1751 Network Appliance valb@netapp.com Ottawa, Canada FAST,SIMPLE,RELIABLE ==============================================
-----Original Message----- From: alexei@cimedia.com [mailto:alexei@cimedia.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 11:50 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: snapcopy -> volcopy?
This is probably a question better answered by my sales rep, but it is late and I doubt she would appreciate a page right now :)
Is volcopy the same as what snap copy was being touted as? If volcopy requires a separate license, why not make it part of the basic OS instead? That is, why does it require another license key?
Just curious. Thanks.
Alex
I'm not sure why we haven't removed the need for a license key in 5.1.2, but I'm sure we had a valid reason...
Perhaps not. Bug 10633, "Volcopy license should go away", was filed on this on September 28.
A fix was checked into the "main branch", but (perhaps because it was relatively late in the release cycle, or too late as in "the release already went out"), it's not in the 5.1[.x] or 5.2 code lines.