Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Unallocated against MQ license | Consumption shown 0

Hello Dear Community,

I have a situation wherein the license 'allocation type' is marked as 'Unallocated'. The device that is presently consuming the said license is having a value 0 against the calculated and consumption columns.


I wanted to understand the process in Flexera behind the controlling of the 'allocation type' attribute which being marked as unallocated - Is it safe to say that this flag is responsible for the consumption to be 0 and not based on what the core values are presented with for the server? 




(4) Replies
By Level 17 Champion
Level 17 Champion

Hi Clokay,

No, it is not safe to say that the "Unallocated" status is responsible for an element to not consume any entitlements.

There are cases where an allocation will lead to consumption (see "Allocations consume license entilements" under "Use rights & rules), but the opposite is not true.

Please see the online for details:

Best regards,


@mfranz  Thank you for the information. Can you please tell me how is the flag determined - between allocated and unallocated. Is this a Flexera functionality to chose the flag based on installations and products use rights.


It kind of depends on the license type.

  1. For most license types, FNMS will assign computers or users to licenses, based on applications. Those installations are then "Unallocated", meaning they are free to be assigned to another license in the next license reconciliation. This is generally a useful approach, because you can easily have multiple different license containers, which can still apply to the same application.

  2. Then there are licenses where FNMS does not assign installations on it's own, like "Named User" or "Node Locked". For these, consuming elements must be allocated manually (or via business import). We usually use these license types to depict static assignments, like users from AD groups or cloud applications.

  3. Also you can mix 1 and 2 and allocate elements to licenses mentioned in 1. Typical use case would be where mostly installations are used to track consumption, but some items cannot be inventoried for technical or security reasons. These could then be allocated manually, e.g. to a device type license.

To make matters more confusing, exemptions are technically allocations. But that's a  story for another day 🙂

Best regards,


In the case of IBM PVU based license for the MQ products that I work with, unallocated means that FNMS has detected evidence (usually from the data in the IBM Installation Manager) that the product is installed.

Are you licensing via sub-capacity? If so, have you done the appropriate paperwork for IBM to allow you to use FNMS in place of IMLT?

If you are in a virtual environment, the consumption will roll up to the physical host and all of the VM's will show a 0 consumption. First determine what the hosts full capacity PVU value. Does the hosts consumption match the manually calculated full capacity value? If so, is that expected? Is the use rights configured for full capacity or sub-capacity?

For sub-capacity, you need to add all of the non-exempted cores for all of the vm's on a machine, calculate the number of PVU's they should consume on the host and compare to the hosts consumption value. Since MQ is available under multiple license types, you may have to force a system to a specific license by allocating it to the correct license. If you are forced to exempt a server from a specific license, keep a records with all the details and create a unique name for each of the exemptions to give auditors so they understand what you have done and why.