Conference utrtsc::pw_tools

    
    When a client with a pw license transponder (the TSR) loaded, but
    either (1) has NO licenses in memory or (2) has licenses, but none that
    grants the client access to a V5 LANMAN server, tries to connect to a
    v5 server that has server-based licenses loaded, will it grant a client
    a server-based license and let it connect?  
    
    Why does the code distinguish between a client with the TSR loaded
    (NOLICE_TSR) vs. one with no tsr loaded (NOLICE_NOTSR)?
    
    thanks,
    
    Paul

    More license registrar questions:
    
    I've seen it log CLIENT_LICENSE_INVALID with a "Reason = cli returned
    no licenses".  When would this message be logged instead of the "Reason
    = No Licenses Available"?
    
    With the PWRK$LRNOCACHECHECK system logical defined as 1, I don't see
    any message logged indicating it pinged the client when the client
    makes anything other than the very first initial connection after
    server startup (however, it does log a new summary of the server-based
    licenses in use whenever the client connects.).  For example,  I define
    the logical and start PATHWORKS.  I connect from my client and I see
    the CLIENT_LICENSE_VALID; Reason = Valid License Returned.  But if I
    disconnect (all connections) from the server and re-establish a new
    session with it, the message isn't logged this time (but the
    server-based license count summary is logged).
    
    Paul

    .11> When a client with a pw license transponder (the TSR) loaded, but
    .11> either (1) has NO licenses in memory or (2) has licenses, but none that
    .11> grants the client access to a V5 LANMAN server, tries to connect to a
    .11> v5 server that has server-based licenses loaded, will it grant a client
    .11> a server-based license and let it connect?  
    
    I want to say yes, but I can't say for sure for V5.
    
    In V6 I know the LicReg will grant a V6 server-based license (if one is
    available) if a client presents something like a PWLMCCDOSnn.mm license
    (which isn't sufficient for accessing a V6 file server).  I don't
    believe we changed that license validation code btwn V5 and V6, so I
    believe V5 should also assign a server-based license for the situation
    described (but I can't say definitively).
    
    .11> Why does the code distinguish between a client with the TSR loaded
    .11> (NOLICE_TSR) vs. one with no tsr loaded (NOLICE_NOTSR)?
    
    This is supposed to help allow the file server to distinguish if a
    client is supposed to be down graded and let in without a license.
    In V6 this distinction will no longer be made.
    
    .12> I've seen it log CLIENT_LICENSE_INVALID with a "Reason = cli returned
    .12> no licenses".  When would this message be logged instead of the "Reason
    .12> = No Licenses Available"?
    
    Are you seeing this message with a debug LicReg? The code which
    generates this message is wrapped with "if debug" conditionals in the
    code, so it should only come out if you're using a debug license
    registrar.  ("cli" in this message stands for "client")
    
    .12> With the PWRK$LRNOCACHECHECK system logical defined as 1, I don't see
    .12> any message logged indicating it pinged the client when the client
    .12> makes anything other than the very first initial connection after
    .12> server startup (however, it does log a new summary of the server-based
    .12> licenses in use whenever the client connects.).  
    
    This sounds odd.  With CacheChecking enabled (the default) it bypasses
    the code which does the license validation.  With CacheChecking
    disabled it should go through the same motions when establishing an
    initial connection with the file server (no matter when the last time
    this was done).
    
    I hate to ask "are you sure", but are you sure you defined the logical
    as a system logical before you started PATHWORKS?
    
    .12> For example,  I define
    .12> the logical and start PATHWORKS.  I connect from my client and I see
    .12> the CLIENT_LICENSE_VALID; Reason = Valid License Returned.  But if I
    .12> disconnect (all connections) from the server and re-establish a new
    .12> session with it, the message isn't logged this time (but the
    .12> server-based license count summary is logged).
    
    Yes, this sounds like the LicReg is using its cache.    
    
    \steve

    Hi Steve,
    
    >.11> When a client with a pw license transponder (the TSR) loaded, but
    >.11> either (1) has NO licenses in memory or (2) has licenses, but none that
    >.11> grants the client access to a V5 LANMAN server, tries to connect to a
    >.11> v5 server that has server-based licenses loaded, will it grant a client
    >.11> a server-based license and let it connect?  
    >
    >I want to say yes, but I can't say for sure for V5.
    
    I tried this and it does give the client a server-based license.  Which
    it should (IMO).
    
    >.11> Why does the code distinguish between a client with the TSR loaded
    >.11> (NOLICE_TSR) vs. one with no tsr loaded (NOLICE_NOTSR)?
    >
    >This is supposed to help allow the file server to distinguish if a
    >client is supposed to be down graded and let in without a license.
    >In V6 this distinction will no longer be made.
    
    Gotcha.  If they've got the TSR loaded but no client-based license
    which grants access to server AND no server-based license is available,
    we deny access (we assume its not a v4 client since it's running the
    license TSR); if no TSR and no server-based, we downgrade and let 'em
    connect.  
    
    >.12> I've seen it log CLIENT_LICENSE_INVALID with a "Reason = cli returned
    >.12> no licenses".  When would this message be logged instead of the "Reason
    >.12> = No Licenses Available"?
    >
    >Are you seeing this message with a debug LicReg? The code which
    >generates this message is wrapped with "if debug" conditionals in the
    >code, so it should only come out if you're using a debug license
    >registrar.  ("cli" in this message stands for "client")
    
    No, I've not been able to generate the "cli returned no licenses"
    myself, just saw it once while doing some research.  So normally (even
    with pwrk$lrlogverbose set) we won't see this error?
    
    >.12> With the PWRK$LRNOCACHECHECK system logical defined as 1, I don't see
    >.12> any message logged indicating it pinged the client when the client
    >.12> makes anything other than the very first initial connection after
    >.12> server startup (however, it does log a new summary of the server-based
    >.12> licenses in use whenever the client connects.).  
    >
    >This sounds odd.  With CacheChecking enabled (the default) it bypasses
    >the code which does the license validation.  With CacheChecking
    >disabled it should go through the same motions when establishing an
    >initial connection with the file server (no matter when the last time
    >this was done).
    >
    >I hate to ask "are you sure", but are you sure you defined the logical
    >as a system logical before you started PATHWORKS?
    >
    
    With pwrk$lrlogverbose set, I can tell whether I'm validated via a ping
    or via cache - I get a different "Reason = " message in the log.
    
    With a ping operation, the reason logged is Valid License Returned,
    but when I'm validated by the cache, the reason changes to Recognized
    License.  I don't see either message when the cachecheck is disabled
    (but I'll try again as perhaps my session wasn't really terminating
    between attempts).
    
    Paul