RE: [U2] UV 10.1.3 Socket process licences
I can understand why they've done it in general but I don't think they've considered all the implications for people who aren't trying to bypass the need for more licenses. For example; we use pools of UniObjects connections talking via MQ to our webservers. As we run Enterprise (device) licenses we can run hundreds of these. With the advent of the MQ interface in UV it would make more sense to drive this directly with UV phantoms, however each one of those takes an individual license so we would need 10 times more licenses than current! Fortunately we can re-design parts of our architecture to get round this but not everyone is lucky enough to have that option. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stuart Boydell Sent: 24 September 2004 07:58 To: U2-Users Subject: [U2] UV 10.1.3 Socket process licences We just did an upgrade on our development platform to UV version 10.1.3 from version 10.0.10. This release introduces iProcesses, interactive phantom processes that consume a licence if they invoke one a list of various processes. We're finding this nasty as we have phantoms communicating with other phantoms on the same box via sockets. This otherwise efficent method of forking interprocess comms consumes 2 licences. If we were to use another method (like pipes) it wouldn't AFAIK. Also 2 UV boxes communicating via sockets will also use up 2 user licences. If we were to use UV/Net there would only be one licence consumed. I am thinking IBM should modify the licencing so U2 to U2 consumes 1 licence only and interprocess phantoms don't consume any. Just wondering what others are thinking about this new fangled licencing method. -- Regards, Stuart Boydell ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ** --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and for the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to others this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by replying to this email or by telephone +44 (0)20 7896 0011 and then delete the email and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusions (etc.) that do not relate to the official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. IG Markets Limited and IG Index Plc are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority and, in Australia, by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UV 10.1.3 Socket process licences
Stuart, In reality, the only nasty bit is that if you don't have many UV licenses free, then that is going to be a problem. Hence, the only solution is to purchase more licenses. It's understandable why IBM introduced this feature - to protect their U2 license revenue base. Which should be viewed as a good thing for all. The more licenses they sell, the more revenue they have to potentially re-invest back into the U2 product line. Yes, there will always be those who may not like it, but there are alternatives for them. I suppose this feature is an anti-freeloaders patch (of sorts, not to say anyone was do such a thing!) ;-). However, it probably just means those so inclined will just use their own socket implmenentations or APIs. Which may defeat the purpose of the restrictions, at the end of the day. Perhaps another workaround for you, is have 'batch-like' processing, hence queuing your phantom processes or limiting how many you can have at any given time. Not an ideal situation, but it's a matter of how much cost justification you can do purchase more licenses, etc. Regards, David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Stuart Boydell Sent: Friday, 24 September 2004 4:58 PM To: U2-Users Subject: [U2] UV 10.1.3 Socket process licences We just did an upgrade on our development platform to UV version 10.1.3 from version 10.0.10. This release introduces iProcesses, interactive phantom processes that consume a licence if they invoke one a list of various processes. We're finding this nasty as we have phantoms communicating with other phantoms on the same box via sockets. This otherwise efficent method of forking interprocess comms consumes 2 licences. If we were to use another method (like pipes) it wouldn't AFAIK. Also 2 UV boxes communicating via sockets will also use up 2 user licences. If we were to use UV/Net there would only be one licence consumed. I am thinking IBM should modify the licencing so U2 to U2 consumes 1 licence only and interprocess phantoms don't consume any. Just wondering what others are thinking about this new fangled licencing method. -- Regards, Stuart Boydell --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] UV 10.1.3 Socket process licences
Although this seem unfair, the licensing agreement has always previously prevented you from doing this. This is only forcing you to comply with the license agreement. To get around this is still a breach of the license. We are lucky that we have concurrent license, with Oracle, SQL Server, etc you have to purchase named users. If you have a telephone list that only 10 people would access at a time, but you have a hundred individual users, then you have to purchase a hundred licenses. If you access it from the desktop and also a mobile devise then that counts as 2 licenses, ie you would need 200 license. Otherwise you have to buy a server license which is priced according to the size of the box. With U2 you only have to buy 10 licenses. To be fair, although we like to avoid paying for licenses, if we all succeeded, we would not have U2 products in the future as it would not be profitable. The only area that avoids this is redback which allows you to run multiple processes to a U2 user. Regards David Jordan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stuart Boydell Sent: Friday, 24 September 2004 4:58 PM To: U2-Users Subject: [U2] UV 10.1.3 Socket process licences We just did an upgrade on our development platform to UV version 10.1.3 from version 10.0.10. This release introduces iProcesses, interactive phantom processes that consume a licence if they invoke one a list of various processes. We're finding this nasty as we have phantoms communicating with other phantoms on the same box via sockets. This otherwise efficent method of forking interprocess comms consumes 2 licences. If we were to use another method (like pipes) it wouldn't AFAIK. Also 2 UV boxes communicating via sockets will also use up 2 user licences. If we were to use UV/Net there would only be one licence consumed. I am thinking IBM should modify the licencing so U2 to U2 consumes 1 licence only and interprocess phantoms don't consume any. Just wondering what others are thinking about this new fangled licencing method. -- Regards, Stuart Boydell ** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (61 3 9269 7555) immediately who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. ** --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
