- Flexera Community
- FlexNet Manager
- FlexNet Manager Forum
- Re: Same product primary in one license, but supplementary in another
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Printer Friendly Page
Same product primary in one license, but supplementary in another
This thread has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
To continue the discussion, please start a new thread.
Hi, this is not a direct answer on how FNMS does it, but may help you getting on the way:
- Change the ComplianceReader.config log level to DEBUG
- Run the compliance reader with some additional parameters
ComplianceReader.exe -it writers -e licensereconciliation -v -overrideparams PublisherFilter=IBM
What you should get in your logging folder (C:\ProgramData\Flexera Software\Compliance\Logging\ComplianceReader\) is a debug log containing datails about how FNMS applies licenses. SoftwareTitles, Computers and Users are referenced using IDs, so you may want to have some IDs of examples ready for analysis.
This is a very interesting question and the answer is a bit complicated. First of all, for bundling to take priority we need to find installs of multiple products on the same computer. FlexNet Manager is not able to determine relationships of bundled applications across multiple computers. Once multiple products are detected on the one computer, the bundle will take priority.
The complicated part is once supplementary products are involved. Because IBM's rules are that supplementary products can only consume a bundle license when associated with a primary product install, FlexNet Manager takes the pessimistic approach and only automatically consumes supplementary product installs when they are on the same computer as a primary product install. This is an intentional decision to ensure we don't assume bundles where no relationship exists.
Flowing on from this is the fact that if a computer only has supplementary products installed on it, it is an operator decision that it is legitimately part of a bundle license (and associated with a primary product install on another computer). This is currently achieved by allocating the computer with supplementary products installed to the bundle license. Without the allocation it will not consume the license and the installs will end up on other licenses.
For the scenario you describe all of the consumption should definitely go to L1 as it can cover all of the products. The only exception to this is if there are more products on L2 and it can cover those better then that will adjust the order.
A product being primary or supplementary does not affect license priority, what matters is the number of products installed on the computer and how many products of a given license that fills. We try and optimally fill bundle licenses to not waste entitlements to other products. Hopefully the above answers your questions and explains this topic a bit more.
- L1 with P1, S2, S3, S4, S5
- L2 with P2, S3, S4
Just to clarify, in your example, S2 and P2 is the same product, isn't it?
It seems to correspond with the behaviour I'm experiencing, but what about Product 1 then? It looks like it would be covered by L1, after products 2 and 3 were covered by L2. It can't be left without a license, if it's licensable product.
So, instead of having all 3 products covered by a single license, we end up with 2 licenses being consumed. Does not sound like a good optimization, especially if S2 and S3 are set not to consume L1.
Using allocations is a possible workaround, but is not a perfect solution as well. A recent example: a server was reinstalled, it retained previous name, but got a new serial number. A new record was created in Flexera with all previous allocations remaining linked to an old record. License consumption increased and allocations had to be reset manually.