May 10, 2022
12:45 PM
1 Kudo
It is really a preference. The original License costs can represent risk value in the event of an audit, whereas the maintenance costs can represent potential savings, as you say.
I tend to use the License Cost costs because in my experience most customers have trouble terminating licenses full stop, but can use the outputs of FNMS-SAP to prevent the purchase of new licenses or to inform a Transfer of Licenses from one to another, both of which more naturally suit the use of the License cost in the tool.
Please also remember that the license cost you use in FNM-SAP which informs the Current Position page will not filter through to FNMS. The Licenses and consumption will auto-create in FNMS but you must load the Purchase data yourself and map it to these licenses. At that point you have the option to add a unit price to the FNMS Purchase, or add an override unit price to the FNMS License, or use some of the other Price Fields in the Finance tab of the FNMS License to inform reporting.
You could for example focus on the License cost in the FNM-SAP Current Position and the Maintenance cost in the FNMS License position and associated reports, or vice versa.
... View more
Jul 29, 2020
10:19 AM
2 Kudos
Hi, I attach an updated .ppt which recommends the use of the Unit Quantity = 2 approach to license VMs and also provides the points rule table I provided later in the thread so that your Socket Pair license for standalone physical servers can also consume purchases with a unit quantity of 2.
Hope this helps.
Stewart
... View more
Jun 23, 2020
05:24 AM
3 Kudos
Another note on this: in the post above I mention the following when using a purchase qty of 2 to manage the 2 VM license:
The downside of this is related to any re-assignment of purchases between the Virtual space (where you cover 2 VMs per license) and the non-virtualised space (where the same licenses can be used to cover 2 sockets of a standalone server), as you will have to adjust the unit quantity of the purchase as you re-assign (you do not want a unit quantity of 2 for that purchase as it could lead to a single purchase covering to single socket servers, or errors for servers with an odd number of sockets, which would be incorrect, if a little unlikely).
Actually we can get around this by creating a points ruleset like the following for the 2 Socket license in FNMS. This way you can always apply a unit quantity of 2 to the purchase, whether it is assigned to the 2 Socket license or the 2 VM license and can -re-assign the purchases freely between the 2 licenses as needed.
So the purchase looks like:
Quantity = 1, Unit Quantity = 2, Effective quantity = 2.
For the 2 VM license we will consume 1 license per VM, which equates to each purchase covering 2 VMs.
For the 2 Socket license we will consume 2 licenses per pair of sockets (1 Proc server consumes 2 licenses, 2 proc server consumes 2 licenses, 3 proc server consumes 4 licenses, 4 proc server consumes 4 licenses, etc), which equates to each purchase covering a socket pair.
Regards,
Stewart
... View more
Jun 23, 2020
03:54 AM
4 Kudos
Also, as mentioned in another post, you can get creative with Core points and Processor points licenses in order to restrict the license to Virtual Servers only, and can even make them function like a device license.
Restriction can be acheived through the addition of a specified model in the points rule you create which will restrict the license to models such as 'VMWare Virtual Platform'.
Adding a points or core factor like 0.000001 will always result in the consumption for that device being 1 (ie just like a device license).
So for the Red Hat 2 VM license example, we could use this approach to create a device license restricted to VMs, which when coupled with a Purchase unit quantity of 2 would give you what you need. You could add a second rule restricted to specific clouds, but with no model specified, to cover cloud instances.
Regards,
Stewart
... View more
Jun 23, 2020
03:31 AM
4 Kudos
Hi William,
I encourage the raising of an enhancement request to support RHEL more directly, but in the meantime here is some information which may help you. For the 2 Virtual node licenses I see two options, both of which have pros and cons:
Option 1: Simply add a unit quantity of 2 to the Red Hat Purchases and associate with a device license. In this way each purchase will cover 2 Virtual servers. You will have to use allocation or perhaps restriction to make sure the VMs consume this license (and you can scope the license to the specified Cloud if any of your VMs are cloud based) but the calculations will be correct.
The downside of this is related to any re-assignment of purchases between the Virtual space (where you cover 2 VMs per license) and the non-virtualised space (where the same licenses can be used to cover 2 sockets of a standalone server), as you will have to adjust the unit quantity of the purchase as you re-assign (you do not want a unit quantity of 2 for that purchase as it could lead to a single purchase covering to single socket servers, or errors for servers with an odd number of sockets, which would be incorrect, if a little unlikely).
Option2 - is to use the following configuration. The downside of this is that it will not work for VMs which are not mapped to a VM Host (including any in the cloud). But, if your VMs are on-premise and you haver good coverage in terms of VM to VM Host mapping, this could be the way to go.
Anyway, I add a PDF which may be helpful.
Kind Regards,
Stewart
... View more
Apr 07, 2020
09:30 AM
4 Kudos
Hi,
Flexnet inventory will collect the core details relevant to Oracle Licensing and particularly relevant to the Oracle Partitioning Policy, which informs how to count cores in virtual environments.
An Oracle Processor or Named user Plus License type in Flexnet Manager will apply the required calculations to represent this in terms of Oracle license consumption. The way cores should be counted differs between virtualization technologies and platforms, so in order to respond in more detail it would be helpful to know the following:
Which Virtualisation technologies are in use?
Are there any particular virtualization scenarios/configurations you are using?
Regards,
Stewart
... View more
Jan 14, 2020
05:19 AM
Hi Beth,
If you could expand on your objective a little I can hopefully help out. For example:
How many base purchases and maintenance do you start with?
How many of each do you want to move to another license?
Does the target license already have the base purchases?
Etc
PS – if you need only to move maintenance volumes to a license with existing base purchases you can open the maintenance purchase, go to the Licenses tab and re-assign volumes of the purchases between multiple licenses from there.
Stewart
... View more
Jun 04, 2019
09:19 AM
5 Kudos
Hi, thanks for raising this.
This is a known issue in 2017 R2 and is resolved in later versions of FNMS where the consumption of the license is per core and not per 2-pack, so in your case would result in a the correct consumption of 32.
In the meantime the best approach is to adjust the unit quantity of the purchase/s from 2 to 1 so that the license consumption and the purchase are both represented in terms of 2-packs. If you have a SKU for your purchase you will, I think, need to override this (you can add something to the end so that it is not recognized) otherwise it will not accept the change in unit quantity.
If your purchase is already assigned to the License you will also need to update the number assigned to the license, which you can do in the Licenses tab of the purchase after you change the quantity. Alternatively you can remove and re-link the purchase to the license.
Regards,
Stewart
... View more
Jun 03, 2019
06:16 AM
4 Kudos
Hi,
When a Sharepoint License is setup in FNMS using the SKU and Product Use Rights Library (PURL) or using one of the available Use-Right templates (available for selection when creating a license without a SKU) the Use Rights and Rules will be setup so that multiple installations on the same device will consume multiple licenses. So in your case where you see multiple versions installed on the same server you would expect to see a consumption of more than 1.
If you want the multiple versions you see on the same device to consume a single license you can amend this use right accordingly by going to the Use Rights and Rules tab and changing the 'Rights of Multiple Use'. However please note below the Microsoft Product use Rights for Server + CAL licenses:
"Server Licenses (per Instance)
Customer may use one Running Instance of server software in either a Physical OSE or Virtual OSE on a Licensed Server for each License it acquires."
Where instance is defined as:
"Instance means an image of software that is created by executing the software’s setup or install procedure or by duplicating an existing Instance."
Regards,
Stewart
... View more
May 23, 2019
10:24 AM
2 Kudos
Hi again,
I can certainly see a case for consumption of processor and core based licenses rolling over into another license when the first is full. Having said that, in the use case you describe I do think using a single license is perhaps the way to go.
If you reconcile the single license you can see in the Group Assignment tab the total number consumed versus the break down of purchases owned per Enterprise group, so the number from the parent company, the number purchased directly and the number consumed in total would be easily available (assuming you have suitable Enterprise groups to map the purchases to).
Stewart
... View more
May 23, 2019
10:06 AM
2 Kudos
Hi Sami,
One thing to check is that you do not have any existing allocations or exemptions in the Std edition license which may tagging the VM and/or VM Host to that license. In the consumption tab of the license you can add the Allocation Type column using the column chooser and filter to see if you have any allocations. If you do it is a good idea to clean these out by selecting and clicking Remove Allocations.
As Markward mentioned it is important to check that the versions covered are the same for both licenses - it could be that your standard edition license downgrades to an older version than the datacenter edition does, or that the Standard Edition license upgrades ot the latest version and the datacenter edition license does not.
You may also find the following discussion useful: https://community.flexera.com/t5/FlexNet-Manager-forum/Microsoft-Windows-Server-2016-Standard-Downgrade-to-former/m-p/96888#M517/jump-to/first-unread-message
... View more
May 23, 2019
09:48 AM
3 Kudos
Hi Markward,
Your analysis of what is happening is correct and once FNMS starts to consume one of your Oracle licenses against the ESX cluster it will continue to do so until the full cluster is licensed. The answer could be to review the way you split your entitlement.
I generally recommend that the number of licenses for the same product is rationalised as much as possible wherever the entitlement is for the same product and metric and has the same use-rights and scope. If your licenses are split by organisation it may be better to maintain separate purchases for the different organisations but assign them to the same license.
Then in terms of consumption per organisation you could develop reports to cover that requirement based on the number of licensed cores (On VMs where the software is licensed), VM Ownership, number of cores in the cluster and core licenses owned per organisation.
With your licenses split as they are, even if you did manage to make the cluster consume multiple licenses, how would you decide or control how many of each license were consumed by the cluster?
Of course there are a number of factors here, so you may have other reasons for splitting out the licenses and I note your mention of slightly different use-rights in some cases.
Stewart
... View more
May 14, 2019
10:36 AM
Because we are aiming to bring in the Sub-Capacity license consumption from ILMT the frequent scanning is not relevant in this case.
It is potentially relevant that the devices have the Flexnet Agent and also come in from the ILMT import. It is not clear to me from your response if you see any devices where the calculation is 'Internal' (which would indicate device duplication and/or the device inventory coming only from Flexnet inventory). This can be seen in the Consumption tab of the license and you will need to add a field called 'Calculated by'.
If there are no devices where the Calculated By is 'Internal' then the consumption counts should all add up. Can you confirm where you see the gap? You can extract the consumption tab of the license in question and compare the consumption count you see for each physical device to that you see in ILMT, in order to-pin point where the issue may be.
... View more
May 08, 2019
08:22 AM
2 Kudos
Hi,
You can find further information about the import of ILMT data to FNMS in the FNMS System Reference Guide/‘Using ILMT (And Importing Results)’. The link to this document is available in the first page of the FNMS Online Help. Here is a summary of possible causes.
This could be caused by duplicate or additional inventory – if a device is imported with the ILMT import and is also present from another inventory tool (such as SCCM for example, or the Flexnet agent) FNMS will identify these as the same device if possible and give the ILMT data the priority, however in the following cases this will not happen:
If FNMS has no way to match the devices (name could be slightly different, different serial number from the two tools and so on)
The device may only be reported from the other inventory source and not coming in from ILMT at all
In these cases FNMS will calculate PVU license consumption for the ‘new’ device and add this to the consumption count. You can identify such cases by going to the consumption tab of the license in FNMS and adding the field ‘Calculated By’, then look for ‘Internal’. This indicates that FNMS is calculating the consumption for that device rather than taking the consumption count from ILMT. In the latest version these devices will also always be calculated at Full-Capacity, so the impact could be significant.
If the cause is that the device is missing from ILMT then the solution is to add the device to ILMT's inventory scope. If the cause is a duplication of the device due to a lack of data integration from the two inventory sources this may need a separate thread to discuss, but the system reference guide gives some suggestions on how to handle this
Import schedules - When was ILMT data imported? It could be that ILMT has been refreshed since the last import to FNMS.
Device exemptions – Please consider if you have exempted any devices from consuming the license in FNMS as this will change the consumption count.
... View more
May 07, 2019
10:08 AM
5 Kudos
Hi Craig,
In many cases this means a combination of license consumption priority settings and allocation of the VMs or Physical machines to the appropriate license. Based on the assumption that most new installations are likely to be to virtual servers and physical environments are likely to be less dynamic I’d take the following approach:
In each application go to the licenses tab and change the license consumption priority so that devices will always try to consume the Virtual license first (Move the Virtual License to the top). You will need to do this for each version of the application.
In License Compliance/Apply Allocations and Exemptions, define a list of the installations of the product in question, add a filter for Device Type = Computer
Allocate all of these to the Physical License (Select all, click allocate, ‘Allocate to an existing license’, choose the Physical License)
Save the view as a Management View (Button is In the top right hand corner of the view) so that each week/month you can just go back to it without re-applying the filters
The result is that all installations will try to consume the Virtual License except for the allocated Computers which will consume the Physical license. The only issue you may have is if the virtual license runs out and spills into the physical one. You should be able to avoid this by making the Virtual License ‘Subject to True up’ in the Compliance tab of the License. You can refresh the allocations as often as you like by going to the saved view and doing the third step above.
However, it is also possible to restrict licenses to consume only certain groups of devices, such as virtual servers, but this depends on your Virtual Servers being easily identifiable by their model (For example where Model = VMware Virtual Platform or Virtual machine):
This approach uses a Core or Processor Points License Type (Depending on the metric you want to model) and a locally created points ruleset. By defining a points rule which applies only where the Model = X we can apply certain logic to devices with a particular Model in FNMS and we can also restrict licenses to only be consumed by those groups of devices. In your example we would:
Create both licenses and use the prioritisation as above so that FNMS always tries to use the Virtual license first
But, create the Virtual license as a core points or Processor points license. If we get creative with the points rulesets we can make this license behave as a device/instance, core or processor license.
The result is that all installations will try to consume the Virtual license but only those with a model of Virtual Machine or VMware Virtual Platform will be able to (In this example). All other installations then consume the Physical license. Again, you may need to tag the Virtual License as Subject to True-up to avoid spillover into the Physical license.
Check the Model of your VMs in question to see if this is a feasible approach for you and, if it is, feel free to get back with some more information about the products and licenses you have and I am happy to help with the points ruleset.
Stewart
... View more
Latest posts by spierce
Subject | Views | Posted |
---|---|---|
200 | May 10, 2022 12:45 PM | |
5732 | Jul 29, 2020 10:19 AM | |
5820 | Jun 23, 2020 05:24 AM | |
7588 | Jun 23, 2020 03:54 AM | |
7649 | Jun 23, 2020 03:31 AM | |
577 | Apr 07, 2020 09:30 AM | |
1431 | Jan 14, 2020 05:19 AM | |
1593 | Jun 04, 2019 09:19 AM | |
1197 | Jun 03, 2019 06:16 AM | |
2553 | May 23, 2019 10:24 AM |
Activity Feed
- Got a Kudo for Re: Using SAP maintenance base or annual support prices. May 10, 2022 05:27 PM
- Posted Re: Using SAP maintenance base or annual support prices on Flexera One Forum. May 10, 2022 12:45 PM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jul 30, 2020 07:12 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jul 30, 2020 01:48 AM
- Posted Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic on FlexNet Manager Forum. Jul 29, 2020 10:19 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jul 17, 2020 04:01 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jul 14, 2020 05:10 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 25, 2020 02:32 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 25, 2020 02:31 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 25, 2020 02:26 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 23, 2020 08:07 PM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 23, 2020 08:06 PM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 23, 2020 07:46 PM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 23, 2020 08:32 AM
- Posted Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic on FlexNet Manager Forum. Jun 23, 2020 05:24 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 23, 2020 04:47 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic. Jun 23, 2020 04:41 AM
- Posted Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic on FlexNet Manager Forum. Jun 23, 2020 03:54 AM
- Posted Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) License Consumption configuration - 2VMs/lic on FlexNet Manager Forum. Jun 23, 2020 03:31 AM
- Got a Kudo for Re: Can FlexNet Manager identify valid number of core which is occupied partially by Oracle Database?. Apr 17, 2020 02:51 AM