XILINX license model restricts longtime availability

Flexlm has a timeout where the server takes back a license that is not
being actively used. Despite many tech support visits we never got it
working and if the west coast left their blasted system on then us in
Europe had to irritate our IS people to type "lmutil lmremove".

These days we are running XILINX builds over night!

Colin

LittleAlex wrote:
> On May 18, 10:47 pm, Kim Enkovaara <kim.enkova...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> This can be fixed with "lmutil lmremove" command, google for the
>> command or read the lmutil help text.
> That command works only if you have administrative access on the
> license server.
> 
> The situation Glen remembers still exists.

This may then depend on flexlm settings. I have been quite succesful
in using that command to remote flexlm servers to free licenses, and
I don't have any admin access to those servers. I'm just a regular user
for those servers.

--Kim

LittleAlex <alex.louie@email.com> writes:

> On May 18, 10:47 pm, Kim Enkovaara <kim.enkova...@iki.fi> wrote:
>> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> > The one I remember occurs when the program or machine crash with
>> > a licence outstanding.  There is no release of the license, and it
>> > continues to count against the number available.  That was some years
>> > ago, so maybe it has been fixed by now.
>>
>> This can be fixed with "lmutil lmremove" command, google for the
>> command or read the lmutil help text.
>>
>> --Kim
>
> That command works only if you have administrative access on the
> license server.
>

Not in my experience: anyone can download the lmtools and use the
lmremove command.

I even wrote a wxpython front end to make the arcane syntax a bit
easier to deal with - it's in use by several non-admin-type users.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
martin.j.thompson@trw.com 
TRW Conekt - Consultancy in Engineering, Knowledge and Technology
http://www.conekt.net/electronics.html

>On May 15, 4:00=A0pm, John McCaskill <jhmccask...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Xilinx has switched to using FlexLM for licensing as of ISE 11.1. =A0I
>> have been using multiple other software packages that use FlexLM for
>> years, so I have some experience with the issues that it can cause.
>> FlexLM is more restrictive than just giving you an activation ID, and
>> I expect that they will be getting a lot of calls from customers about
>> this. =A0However, after evaluating how Xilinx has used FlexLM, I think
>> that some of your issues above have been addressed in a reasonable
>> fashion, and I think that some of their licensing terms have been made
>> more favorable for the customer.
>
>I've dealt with FlexLm in the past, and I've learned to curse its very
>existence when the license server, typically in an inaccessible
>location, goes down. This always happened on a weekend with a looming
>Monday-morning deadline.
>
>But all that aside, after all these years, Xilinx still doesn't get
>it. We use their software to develop applications FOR THEIR CHIPS.
>There is no other use for it. Locking it down and otherwise making it
>difficult to install and use is at cross purposes with Xilinx'
>objectives: selling chips.
>
>Now I understand that there is a real cost for technical support. What
>Xilinx needs to do is to uncouple tech support from the cost of the
>tools. To wit:
>
>a) If you are a hobbyist and you want to play with a starter kit or
>whatever, use the tools and use the various WWW resources for support.
>You don't get a tech-support account and Xilinx won't answer your
>phone calls.
>
>b) The professional user should be able to choose between per-incident
>and blanket yearly tech-support options. Perhaps two tiers of support
>should be available -- initial WebCase, and direct-to-smart-people
>telephone support. The point is that if we are paying directly for the
>support, we expect REAL results and not the usual web-case runarounds.
>
>c) In either case, any user (from the hobbyist to the pro) should be
>able to report bugs and get updates on their resolutions. Xilinx
>should not cut off a source of bug reports simply because the users
>aren't paying for support.
>
>As it is now, users who buy ISE/EDK etc spend a lot of money and don't
>get any real support, and this latest licensing nonsense is a kick in
>the teeth.
>
>-a
>

Amen to that. We use Xilinx at NASA and I am having so many problems using
the new software 11.1 with the floating license. I am going to downgrade to
10.1. I liked Xilinx over Altera even more because of the node-locked
licensing and the fact that they make money from their chips. Now, they are
following the same route as Altera. Sell h/w...give s/w free. Support
pay..bug fixes free.

Salman