About bnikol

bnikol · ‎Apr 20, 2021

Thanks Chris! For reason 3, we are still using "old" tool - ADDM, hence I do not think this is causing troubles. If we say that owners can prove that no installation evidence is visible on the computer (1), how would we make sure that fresh inventory is gathered (2) and not old one showed? What would be the best practice in solving the evidence that should not be there?

bnikol · ‎Apr 20, 2021

Hi everyone, After deinstalling applications, in the evidence tab, we still see a number of installed instances. The owners of the application argue that it has been decommissioned properly. Why do we still see the evidence? Thanks!

bnikol · ‎Sep 07, 2020

Hi @Nico_Erasmus I am not sure what you want to point out, but to make the question straight, let me lay out some info: we bought our CAL licenses (which are USER CAL license type) and SQL and Windows Server licenses; we connected SQL and WS application to our CAL licenses, as well as to SQL/WS; Consumption in the CAL license field is showing all users accessing those SQL and WS applications. How can we show precise count for CAL, since all those users accessing CALs are already counted in SQL/WS license count? Thank you for your help!

bnikol · ‎Sep 04, 2020

Dear @kclausen , The solution you proposed works for us, however, it takes a lot of manual work. Is there any other way of doing the same exercise, in a more automatic way, now when we do know which devices are belonging to a cluster? Thank you very much. Bogdan

bnikol · ‎Sep 02, 2020

Hi @kent-au, Thank you for your message. The solution proposed is not suitable in case of CAL user licenses. CAL counts users rather than devices that are managed by users, hence exemption of a device using a device role would not give us a wanted result. I opened a case and consultants are eager to help us. I will inform you about the outcome once we come to a wanted solution. Best regards, Bogdan

bnikol · ‎Jul 28, 2020

Thank you very much! That looks like the solution we are after. We will run this idea, and will post our final outcome.

bnikol · ‎Jul 28, 2020

We have instances of SQL Server data with software assurance running in a virtualized environment. Some of those VMs are passive instances meaning they do not require licenses, as mentioned in SQL licensing guide. However, those VMs are still showing consumption in our license consumption tab. What do you recommend as an optimal solution for this problem? Would the exemption of the consumption for those passive VMs be the best process we would undergo? Thanks!

bnikol · ‎Jul 08, 2020

We bought Microsoft CAL licenses for Microsoft Server Core, Microsoft Server Processor, and Microsoft Server/Management Core licenses. Yet, users of applications such as Microsoft SQL server consuming those are also consuming our CAL licenses, through consumption count based on the access. FlexNet Manager Suite Online Help suggests exempting an installation of a Microsoft server application from consuming CALs. In this way, user/device accessing the application would be exempted from the count of CALs. Does anyone know how to exempt installation of an application (in our case SQL server) from consuming CALs? Many thanks!

bnikol · ‎May 12, 2020

Dear Community, Since certain licenses are defined as a custom metric, they require regular license consumption adjustment. So far we have done it manually, however, we recently discovered a possibility to do it through one-off inventory input. Which inventory template do you suggest in order to adjust our license consumption? Which fields are mandatory in a template? Thank you very much for your support.

bnikol · ‎May 04, 2020

Hello everybody, My team struggles how to define purchases that are extended support for an already existing license. We were thinking to input those as software subscription and add extra entitlements for a license manually, however, we are not sure whether license count would be done correctly. Any suggestions on how to differentiate extended support purchase out of others? Many thanks

bnikol · ‎Mar 20, 2020

Hi KcLausen, Thank you very much for the recommendation. You were completely right about assumption, and with the process required to achieve the consolidation of licenses. I would just add that, after a license is deleted, some of the purchases previously connected to it might turn into deferred status. Afterwards, it is easy to pull them back to unprocessed status. Again, thanks for the help. Have a great day! Bogdan

bnikol · ‎Mar 19, 2020

Hi everyone, Today in our team, we discussed that we would like more tidy data shown on the license page. Until now, we created a new license for each purchase date, although the licenses at matter were equal. Hence we have lots of licenses displayed, giving the same usage right, where the only difference is a purchase date. Now, we want to fit all those licenses with the same rights and different purchase date, into one line. Does anyone know what is the best course of action at this point? Is there any automation that might help? Thank you very much. Bogdan Nikolic

Online Status	Offline
Date Last Visited	‎Jun 11, 2021 07:55 AM

Re: Installer Evidence shown after deinstallation

Installer Evidence shown after deinstallation

Re: How to set Exemptions for Microsoft CALs

Re: SQL active/passive cluster

Re: How to set Exemptions for Microsoft CALs

Re: SQL active/passive cluster

SQL active/passive cluster

How to set Exemptions for Microsoft CALs

Application consumption using one-off inventory templates

Extended support

Re: Connecting several licenses into one

Connecting several licenses into one

Re: Installer Evidence shown after deinstallation

Installer Evidence shown after deinstallation

Re: How to set Exemptions for Microsoft CALs

Re: SQL active/passive cluster

Re: How to set Exemptions for Microsoft CALs

Re: SQL active/passive cluster

SQL active/passive cluster

How to set Exemptions for Microsoft CALs

Application consumption using one-off inventory templates

Extended support