[GE users] qlicserver: Managing license on a per server basis

Olesen, Mark Mark.Olesen at emcontechnologies.com
Fri Oct 31 12:43:50 GMT 2008

We now have the situation in which we must distinguish between two types
of FlexLM licences for a particular vendor. A set of leased licenses
supports the newest version of the application, while a set of purchased
licenses only works for somewhat older versions.

It seems that it is thus time for the qlicserver code to learn where its
licenses are actually being served from.
I presume that there are other people with similar issues. Before I
rewrite stuff, I would like to find a solution that works for most
people and get your opinions.

What I currently have and/or plan to have:
Instead of specifying the complex for my annoying application like this:

  <resource name="app" served="SOME_FEATURE"/>

I would introduce a remapping field to specify a renaming from
particular servers. Simply adding an id number is the easiest example:

  <resource name="app1" served="SOME_FEATURE"  mapFrom="serv1"/>
  <resource name="app2" served="SOME_FEATURE" mapFrom="serv2 serv3"/>

... and rejoin as a derived complex:

  <derived name="app">

Would people require a regular expression or glob syntax instead of
simply listing the server names in the new 'mapFrom' field?  Or would
this just be more confusing?
I do know that a "*" match is definitely NOT required, since I could
have easily just written the above example as follows:

  <resource name="app1" served="SOME_FEATURE" mapFrom="serv1"/>
  <resource name="app2" served="SOME_FEATURE"/>

Are there any usage cases this would be a problem?
Are there better names than 'mapFrom'?

Note that since the "app" resource is now derived from the other two, it
obviously cannot appear as a self-contained resource too. That means
that something like this:

  <resource name="app1" served="SOME_FEATURE"  mapFrom="serv1"/>
  <resource name="app" served="SOME_FEATURE"/>
  <derived name="app">

Would not and should not work. I think this is okay - since I don't know
what that should really mean anyhow. However, with this approach (and
with the current qlicserver implementation), I think that both "app1"
and "app2" might be need to be managed complexes for any of this too
work.  This doesn't disturb me, since I really need to get at both
"app1" and "app2", but I don't know if this is a problem for other
people. Do we need to a hide any of these components?

I look forward to hearing your opinions.

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain 
legally privileged, confidential or proprietary Information, 
or information otherwise protected by law of EMCON 
Technologies, its affiliates, or third parties. This notice 
serves as marking of its "Confidential" status as defined 
in any confidentiality agreements concerning the sender 
and recipient. If you are not the intended recipient(s), 
or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this 
message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying 
of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. 
If you have received this message in error, please 
immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail 
message from your computer.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe at gridengine.sunsource.net
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at gridengine.sunsource.net

More information about the gridengine-users mailing list