More integration between Network Computer and License Monitor products

  • theklink
Posted: Wed, 03/10/2010 - 09:18

All,

I think there is an opportunity that is being missed in your products by not providing a more tight integration between NC and LICMON.

For example: On the Project Home, there could be a more dynamic presentaton on the Resources pane, driven by an (Ajax Driven?) LICMON widget or something. Also, when you drill down into resources, my thought is that License Monitor should have a much more dynamic role here, like supplying a more rich interface for plots and such. Hopefully it would also be advantageous in the long run, so you wouldn't have to re-invent the wheel as much on the NC side.

Bottom, line, I think there is a lot to add from an integration aspect, especially when the user wants to drill down into detail.

Just thoughts...

--Jon

‹ "Resource Compliance Manager" Enhancement Idea Resources pane on project page. ›

Your thoughts are interesting

  • btjanes
  • 05/08/09
  • Fri, 04/02/2010 - 13:58
  • Copy comment link

Your thoughts are interesting Jon.  Currently, we have all of the soft resource reporting separate for a reason.  For example, you can run a job like:

nc run -r License:qhsimvh -- sleep 10

and that will actually "use" a license in NC's scheduler's eyes.  It's not a true license checkout, but it reflects the utilization of resources in NC, nothing that the usage is different from the data that is dynamically driven by LM.  This also allows for "out of queue" reporting for license resources.

One thing that we could consider is somehow split out the License: resources and show their availability and in-use information in an automatically-refreshed LM widget of sorts (like a subset of the Current > Features page).  We may also be able to take License: resources and have the reporting links go to LM.

One difficulty that comes to mind on this is how license resources can be, and often are, renamed as they come into NC from LM.  When you use vtk_flexlm_monitor_all, they come in as they are named.  Some customers, however, don't use that procedure and instead bring in the features they want to have available in NC, then they assign them more user-friendly names like "License:modelsim".

Definitely some food for thought though.  We would like to perform an update of the NC web interface soon.  Because you have had many ideas in the past, we will definitely include you on some preliminary design discussions when we start this activity.

Brian