Folks, David Easter's message was correct.
The system stores floating user information in a temp table and coordinates things across servers. Now, there have been several postings of logs (the one here and a couple of others that seem to show something slightly different) but in none of those cases was there a look at the allocated number of licenses or looking at what users have what type of license. The system keys current operation out of what is in memory as much as possible and doesn't delay your interaction to always check the coordination table -- unless it is at a point of possibly denying access and then it will check first. The idea is that if all seems OK, just let things go but if there seems to be a limit, then take the time to do a check real time. So, you will find that each system you talk to does the "Grant Write" line. That is that system saying it is at a point where you will be granted a write token. AND YOU ARE. It just happens that it grants the SAME token on the second system as it did on the first. So, you are holding a token to say you are active on each, but it is the same one. The count in the log message may be off slightly because the system doesn't do all the synchronous coordination just to get that number right. It is usually correct and is always close, but it may be off by a couple when there is close activity. BUT, it will not give the same user multiple licenses. AND, it will not block access to a user when there is available licensing. In fact, the slight delay can occasionally allow an overage of a person or two since we wanted to give efficient access and to err on the side of allowing rather than blocking. Now, there is one more scenario that some users have used to indicate that there are multiple tokens -- but there are not. That is a flaw that if the same user gets connected to several systems and then logs out, there are times when the logout does not occur across all systems correctly. Generally, a user is talking with one system and there is no issue, but if there are to multiple, occasionally, all copies don't get cleaned. The user in that case will KEEP a token until the timeout but does not have 2 tokens. If that user logged in again, they would get the SAME token they already have not a new one. So again, 1 token. The issue that causes this problem is fixed in the 7.6.4 release. It is a situation that is infrequent and is a corner case, but it can occur but can NOT give a user 2 licenses. I hope this helps with any confusion in this area. Doug Mueller ________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 2:49 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Server Group node ** It might depend on the version of ARServer. Things around licenses in server groups changed in the not too recent past; long enough ago that my assumptions may no longer be correct. This may only apply to servers that pre-date the license form and relied on the license file. >From a simple test I was able to allocate 2 floating licenses across 2 remedy >servers for the same user where the Remedy servers are in the same server >group: >From Server 1 aruser.log file: > /* Fri Jan 14 2011 16:40:51.1490 */ FLOAT GRANT WRITE testfloater (2 > of 16500 write) > /* Fri Jan 14 2011 16:41:28.9884 */ LOGIN testfloater >From Server 2 aruser.log file: > /* Fri Jan 14 2011 16:41:44.0675 */ FLOAT GRANT WRITE testfloater (1 > of 16500 write) > /* Fri Jan 14 2011 16:43:28.3593 */ LOGIN testfloater On logout aruser.log shows the following: >From Server 1: > /* Fri Jan 14 2011 16:46:42.1756 */ FLOAT RELEASE testfloater (1 > used of 16500 write) >From server 2: > /* Fri Jan 14 2011 16:46:42.2598 */ FLOAT RELEASE testfloater (0 > used of 16500 write) The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Easter, David <david_eas...@bmc.com<mailto:david_eas...@bmc.com>> wrote: ** > "For example, if users have a floating license, they can potentially > allocated a floating license on each server that their request is sent to." Just to clarify, one user takes one floating token within a server group - even if there are individual requests from the same user to each server in a server group. So no matter how many different servers in a server group that user accesses, they'll get one token. There is logic in the system that stores logged in users in a table that the various servers can coordinate from. Thus, I do not believe that scenario can actually happen. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the scenario... -David J. Easter Manager of Product Management, Remedy Platform BMC Software, Inc. The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 11:04 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: Server Group node ** Only 2 groups of people that I can think of that won't care about the floating license multiple allocations: - people that don't use floating licenses - people that don't use (or pay for) floating licenses Chances are that applies to a very small subset of users, if any. The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Danny Kellett <dkell...@javasystemsolutions.com<mailto:dkell...@javasystemsolutions.com>> wrote: ** I guess its not true load balancing then. Just load sharing. If you have a session infinity set at the LB on in front of the ARServers then there is no difference that having each midtier bypassing the LB and going straight to the ARServer instance. E.g. mt1 to AR1, mt2 to AR2 etc I don't think anyone would want to implement something that could take more than one floating license at one time though Axton right? From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of LJ LongWing Sent: 14 January 2011 17:52 To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: Server Group node ** >From Page 8 of 84092-Using A Hardware Load Balancer with AR System.pdf The load balancer acts like a NAT device that routes any TCP or UDP traffic. Since the AR System server uses an ONC-RPC implementation that is layered on top of TCP/IP, AR System server traffic can be load balanced. Because of the nature of the client/server interaction within AR System, the "sticky" option is required. This reduces the balancing that can occur, but still allows for the spreading of the workload from multiple clients. I'm just using the docs :) From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 10:11 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> Subject: Re: Server Group node ** Authentication information is included in each packet to the arserver, so it can run without session persistence. However, there are trade-offs. For example, if users have a floating license, they can potentially allocated a floating license on each server that their request is sent to. This statement does not apply to the mid-tier layer though. The J2EE container in use has session information stored that is required to handle requests from a user. If the user is re-directed to a mid-tier server where this session information is not available, the user will fail authentication and will be redirected to the login interface. The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
