Agreed.
It's probably best to show *your* view of how the licenses should be
allotted, and demonstrate that under that view, you are compliant.
Most likely, there will be no further fuss. Providing there *exists* a
distribution of licenses under which you are compliant, I can't see anybody
trying to argue that you are not. Database licenses are not actually tied
to any particular piece of hardware, and you can shuffle them around as you
choose.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Mark W. Farnham <mwf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I would start by informing them of their error with the information below.
*From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Chris Taylor
*Sent:* Thursday, April 09, 2015 9:32 AM
*To:* oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* One final Oracle LMS Audit Question (Proc metric and Named
User servers)
We have Processor and Named-User licenses in our environment.
We have 15 physical boxes.
Unfortunately we had 2 Oracle databases get stood up on our VMWare farm -
(before I got here!) so we'll put those aside for the time being.
What LMS did in the report they sent us was to arbitrarily assign the
Processor licenses to a box where we use Named-User licenses and they
applied the Named-User licenses to the proc boxes we have.
Basically we view SERVER_A and SERVER_B (RAC) as Processor Based Licensed,
and SERVER_C (32 Procs) as our Named-User server (and we have the minimums
required).
HOWEVER, in the LMS report, they used SERVER_C as our Proc Based Server
and show it as being short, and used SERVER_A + SERVER_B (RAC) as our
Named-User Servers.
Has anyone experienced that behavior from LMS before? How did you "fight"
it?
Chris
