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


Does Flexera get automatically updated for operating systems that are no longer eligible for IBM sub-capacity licensing?  This is defined in the following table.

When looking at our IBM PVU License Consumption report, it for example shows, for example, "SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP4 11.4" as "Inventory device - Eligible for sub-capacity" = "Yes" which is incorrect.  This server needs to be assessed at full capacity.  We also see Windows 2008 R2 which is simlarly misreported as sub-capacity eligible.

Is there somewhere in the tool where this can be viewed and verified?

Running FlexNet Manager Suite 2022 R1



(12) Replies

Hi Andy,
Thanks for asking this qurestion. IBM products running on sub-capacity eligible operating systems and/or virtualization technologies marked as ineligible when supported operating system version marked as EOL by the vendor. This is mainly driven by when operating system version is anounced as EOL by a vednor, it becomes challanging to provide further support or update due to lack of update support for the EOL operating system versions. 

From sub-capacity license calculation point of view, sub-capacity rules still applies and license position is calculated accurately as we can track the assigned computing resources required to comply and provide accurate sub-capacity license position. Flexera ITAM/FNMS does support and consume data collected by earlier versions of Flexera inventory agent unless specified. 

Flexera recommends customers to upgrade EOL operating systems running IBM applications to latest operating system versions as that will enable Flexera and IBM to provide better support and updates and discuss with IBM appropriate timelines to move to supported version/s of an operating system.

Hope this will help.


That is not my understanding.

The table (in the pdf link above), provided and updated regularly by IBM, states the eligible virtualisation technologies and the eligible operating systems that IBM consider are eligible for sub-capacity licensing.

If the IBM software is not running on an operating system listed in this table, then it is not eligible for sub-capacity licensing and must be calculated at full-capacity.

As such, if Flexera is not utilising and reflecting this table, then the PVU count for unlisted (old) operating systems is being understated.



Customers who obtain eligible sub-capacity products for use in an eligible virtualization environment must obtain entitlements sufficient to cover all activated processor cores* made available to or managed by the Program, as defined according to the Virtualization Capacity License Counting Rules and

Hi Andy,
Thanks again, as I recommneded earlier, IBM will grant exception and accept sub-capacity report for the approved period as long as Flexera ITAM can identify the virtualized operating system and collect data to calculate the sub-capacity license position.

Flexera recommends customers to upgrade EOL operating systems running IBM applications to latest operating system versions as that will enable Flexera and IBM to provide better support and updates and discuss with IBM appropriate timelines to move to supported version/s of an operating system.

We have a contractual obligation to only measure sub-capacity for approved operating systems and versions. Anything that isn't eligible must be measured at full capacity.

Flexera is therefore measuring usage for IBM incorrectly and will cause your clients to under report their IBM usage.

Your recommendations offer a remedy, but less experienced practitioners won't know they have a problem in the first place if they rely on your tool.

Flexera could fix this, but in the meantime it needs to be acknowledged that the tool is potentially under-reporting usage and incorrectly reporting eligible versions

IBM provide a list of what those are and Flexera doesn't use that list and incorrectly identifies that some operating systems are eligible when they are not.

Hi Andy, Did you ever get a proper response to this? I have the same question. If an OS for example is no longer eligible for sub-cap licensing, then Flexera should identify this as such, and flag it as full-capacity licensing like you say, as this is essentially the rules.

No response.

Maybe I should discuss this directly with IBM and they can raise the weakness in the Flexera tool directly - this might jeopardise Flexera's IBM accreditation until they take some action


I'd expect to see some sort of alert for this, perhaps in the SAM Operations Hub to give users advanced noticed if there is IBM software installed and licensed sub-cap where the OS is due to be withdrawn from the list of eligible OS's in the next 12 months or so. That would be super useful and would help customers to plan accordingly.

Totally agree - I don't understand why Flexera don't recognise the problem

To expand on @AamerSharif's earlier comments, in my experience working with IBM audits and input heard from IBM directly, a different approach is normally taken to what I think you may be assuming.

In particular, I have seen that applying sub-capacity licensing to older operating systems is commonly accepted in practice as long as there is some plan in place to upgrade those operating systems to a supported version (or otherwise remove the IBM software from those platforms). In an audit situation, the focus is likely to be on the plan to get off the older unsupported operating systems, more than whether license consumption has been determined on a full- or sub-capacity basis.

I would suggest you will likely find that IBM team members you are working with will confirm that the way Flexera One ITAM/FNMS calculates IBM PVU license consumption on a sub-capacity basis here matches their expectation. But if you encounter different expectations from IBM then reach out to your Flexera account team, as they may be able to help with some relevant connections.

(Did my reply solve the question? Click "ACCEPT AS SOLUTION" to help others find answers faster. Liked something? Click "KUDO". Anything expressed here is my own view and not necessarily that of my employer, Flexera.)

Hi Chris, I don't agree. Full capacity is the standard licensing model. To be eligible for sub capacity, you have to meet all of the sub-capacity licensing requirements. The sub-capacity licensing terms form part of the IBM agreement, such as the IPAA. If Flexera is telling users that the OS is eligible for sub-capacity licensing when in fact it no longer is, which is a breach of the IBM terms, then Flexera is fundamentally telling users incorrect information and it cannot be relied upon. Appreciate what you may have seen happen in the past, but that can't be assumed as the norm and that IBM will accept it in any audit situation. Without Flexera doing this, it makes it a manual task.

Thanks, but I disagree.
1. I work in compliance. My job is to make sure that my company is complying with its obligations. Flexera is falsely reporting that servers are sub-capacity eligible when they are not.
2. Your response assumes a plan - a plan usually is derived in response to an issue. Flexera is not flagging an issue. Less experienced SAM professionals may be less aware of the rules and may assume that Flexera is right.
3. If you have a poor relationship with your vendor, they will exploit errors and weaknesses to their advantage in audit situations. The difference in value between full and sub capacity can be huge - I really don't want to be negotiating this in an audit settlement meeting.
4. The information for this is published, so no interpretation required by Flexera - please don't make your clients have to work it out themselves

Will discuss at my next meeting with the account team

If you agree with my point, please support this idea