Concurrent users

I am looking for a good explanation for concurrent users. I know you can get a value from the sysmaster or with onstat -u, but I am trying to explain the meaning. No one logs directly into the database. All data manipulation id done via user applications. Any help with the explanation will be appreciated. Larry

Not sure if your question is legal/commercial or technical...? On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 PM, LARRY SORENSEN <lsorensen25@msn.com> wrote: > I am looking for a good explanation for concurrent users. I know you can > get a > value from the sysmaster or with onstat -u, but I am trying to explain the > meaning. > > No one logs directly into the database. All data manipulation id done via > user > applications. Any help with the explanation will be appreciated. > > Larry > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently... --089e010d961644ad17052b9797b7

I guess partly both. Do you have a description for both? Larry > To: ids@iiug.org > From: domusonline@gmail.com > Subject: Re: Concurrent users [36559] > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:22:54 -0500 > > Not sure if your question is legal/commercial or technical...? > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 PM, LARRY SORENSEN <lsorensen25@msn.com> wrote: > > > I am looking for a good explanation for concurrent users. I know you can > > get a > > value from the sysmaster or with onstat -u, but I am trying to explain the > > meaning. > > > > No one logs directly into the database. All data manipulation id done via > > user > > applications. Any help with the explanation will be appreciated. > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > -- > Fernando Nunes > Portugal > > http://informix-technology.blogspot.com > My email works... but I don't check it frequently... > > --089e010d961644ad17052b9797b7 > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. >

Tricky subject as it may have commercial and legal implications. First, I'm not sure if there was ever a "concurrent user" metric. There was a "Concurrent session" and a "Floating User Single Session Single Install" The description for "whatever", from a license perspective is inside the license You can read any IBM software product license in this site: http://www.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf Make sure you choose your version. The definition may have changed But take note of the following: 1- It was always tricky to define a concurrent user when the useer has no direct connection. If memory serves me correctly I think old versions license contained a clause that prevented the usage of such a metric on such an environments 2- The floating user single session metric was removed and replaced by the authorized user: http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname =iSource&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS913-138 IBM granted 2 AUS licenses per each FUSI license. This was very good for some customers and probably very bad for others. Any customer feeling this is not a viable suggestions was suggested to contact their sales representative. Considering all this you version and edition is also important because it will dictate the metrics available for you. With all these in mind I'd say there isn't much technical stuff to discuss, at least without more details. A authorized user is a named person. No technical issue there. For PVU metrics there's a lot of technical things to discuss related to virtualization but not sure if that's important to you. Regarding sysmaster views... sysmaster:syslicenceinfo ... not hidden, but as most sysmaster views I think there's not much documentation about it. Regards and feel free to share more questions. Note however that possibly my advice would be to contact your sales representative. If you have any doubt about interpreting the license document you should really contact IBM officially. I have a very personal opinion about the way some of them are written.... And my opinion is about generic software license text... not just IBM, not just Informix. Some customers have some concerns in asking their supplier about license terms because they feel that may reveal information that could be used "against" them. But assuming everybody is in good will and honest about this, it works both ways... Regards. On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 7:58 PM, LARRY SORENSEN <lsorensen25@msn.com> wrote: > I guess partly both. Do you have a description for both? > > Larry > > > To: ids@iiug.org > > From: domusonline@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: Concurrent users [36559] > > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:22:54 -0500 > > > > Not sure if your question is legal/commercial or technical...? > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:58 PM, LARRY SORENSEN <lsorensen25@msn.com> > wrote: > > > > > I am looking for a good explanation for concurrent users. I know you > can > > > get a > > > value from the sysmaster or with onstat -u, but I am trying to explain > the > > > meaning. > > > > > > No one logs directly into the database. All data manipulation id done > via > > > user > > > applications. Any help with the explanation will be appreciated. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Fernando Nunes > > Portugal > > > > http://informix-technology.blogspot.com > > My email works... but I don't check it frequently... > > > > --089e010d961644ad17052b9797b7 > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently... --047d7bdc1bf67b8ac6052b9accc4

Can you explain why you're asking? I'm guessing it's for licensing, in which case it's a minefield. I assume this relates to IDS. IBM used to have a concurrent session licensing model for IDS. This was counted on the server. It was Good News for customers who had many users breaking out one session at different times (to use a real-world example we had a customer with a 24x7 operation in 3 x 8-hour shifts; although there were 600 people in total accessing Informix only 200 at any one time meant their licensing was capped at 200). A few years ago IBM quietly replaced the concurrent session with a single user licence, and substituted the former with the latter on a 2-for-1 basis. This is highly disadvantageous for some customers and I'm surprised there's not been more squealing from those disadvantaged.

Thank you for the response. I am not totally sure what inspired the question from the application group. That is kind of why I left the question vague. I wanted to get as many viewpoints as possible. Larry > To: ids@iiug.org > From: neil.truby@ardenta.com > Subject: Re: Concurrent users [36572] > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:05:12 -0500 > > Can you explain why you're asking? I'm guessing it's for licensing, in which > case it's a minefield. > > I assume this relates to IDS. > > IBM used to have a concurrent session licensing model for IDS. This was > counted on the server. It was Good News for customers who had many users > breaking out one session at different times (to use a real-world example we > had a customer with a 24x7 operation in 3 x 8-hour shifts; although there were > 600 people in total accessing Informix only 200 at any one time meant their > licensing was capped at 200). > > A few years ago IBM quietly replaced the concurrent session with a single user > licence, and substituted the former with the latter on a 2-for-1 basis. This > is highly disadvantageous for some customers and I'm surprised there's not > been more squealing from those disadvantaged. > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. >

I like to play "devil's advocate"... so...: Yes, it's true this change could harm some use cases. But it also helped others (small offices that were on the limit of their concurrent licenses or god forbid, already overused them), all of a suddenly got the double (assume situations where each user opens an application session). Other situations were possible already moved to PVUs or other metrics like socket license... Finally, if the customer felt like being negatively affected by this they could/should complain. I know at least a case that was solved in customer favor. And to end, not that it's worth too much as an argument, but Informix was possibly the only database with such a "strange" model. Note this model came from the time when an application user would have an application session. With application servers, web services etc, the metric was misleading (and favored the customers) Naturally all this are my own thoughts and my employer has nothing to do with this... Regards. On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:05 PM, NEIL TRUBY <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you're asking? I'm guessing it's for licensing, in > which > case it's a minefield. > > I assume this relates to IDS. > > IBM used to have a concurrent session licensing model for IDS. This was > counted on the server. It was Good News for customers who had many users > breaking out one session at different times (to use a real-world example we > had a customer with a 24x7 operation in 3 x 8-hour shifts; although there > were > 600 people in total accessing Informix only 200 at any one time meant their > licensing was capped at 200). > > A few years ago IBM quietly replaced the concurrent session with a single > user > licence, and substituted the former with the latter on a 2-for-1 basis. > This > is highly disadvantageous for some customers and I'm surprised there's not > been more squealing from those disadvantaged. > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently... --089e0116051c2e3605052beb941b

Point taken, I think I was careful to say that SOME users were disadvantaged. I love your touching faith that: 1. Most Informix users would have an IBM sales rep 2. They would know who it was 3. The rep would have heard of Informix 4. The humble local rep could possibly do the slightest thing about IBM global licencing policy!

Yes... I just wanted to mention some others. As for my faith... lol Most customers affected by this are probably relatively large. For the small it was possibly good news. I do understand your points, but if a company is a customer, there is someone at IBM to handle it. As for the rep having heard about Informix, my view is very limited... But I'd say yes.... as he probably already "drink some milk" :) Regarding the last point.... if there's a will there's a way... remember where I live... can't get much smaller and irrelevant than this (specially in thee days of crisis) :) Anyway, I understand perfectly what you're saying. That's why I tarted by saying I would be playing devil's advocate. "your" side is easier from an argumentation point of view :) Regards. On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:49 AM, NEIL TRUBY <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: > Point taken, I think I was careful to say that SOME users were > disadvantaged. > > I love your touching faith that: > 1. Most Informix users would have an IBM sales rep > 2. They would know who it was > 3. The rep would have heard of Informix > 4. The humble local rep could possibly do the slightest thing about IBM > global > licencing policy! > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently... --089e0116051c71079e052bf7a30d