IBM sub-capacity licences: ensuring compliance is more complex

It is no longer possible to manually update the software catalogue on the ILMT (IBM License Metric Tool). A complete update is now required: IT teams must invest time and resources if they want to remain compliant with IBM's sub-capacity licences.

IBM recently announced that starting with the latest  update of the License Metric Tool (the 9.2.20.0), it will no longer be possible to manually update the software catalogue and PVU (Processor Value Unit) tables.

One of the requirements for maintaining sub-capacity licence compliance is to have the IBM licence measurement tool installed in the virtual environment, updating quarterly the software catalogue and PVU tables. The IT team used to perform this task manually, instead having the complete update to the latest version once every 12-18 months. Now, however, a complete update is required every three months.

Doing so requires far more effort: a change request has to be opened for the production system, the database has to be backed up, the system administrator has to be involved to perform and verify the success of the update. If we consider that the installed version may not be the most recent, incremental updates may be needed before getting to the latest version.

Considering the  frequency of the required complete updates  (4 in a year), it may be necessary to create an ad hoc project, with the drafting of a runbook (a 'how to' for the required IT procedures) and to train new operational resources.

But can we do without it? 

Why is it crucial to maintain compliance of sub-capacity licences?

IBM products are deployed on numerous operating systems, platforms and virtualisation technologies. The vast majority of IBM software, especially the more expensive ones such as Tivoli or WebSphere, can be licensed either in full-capacity or sub-capacity. mode.

The amount of licences required is calculated based on the PVU metric (Processor Value Unit), a value that approximates the computing power available for software, both at the level of physical hardware (full capacity) and at the level of virtual machines (sub capacity). In a data centre, in sub-capacity mode, only some (and not all) of the physical processors in an environment can be fired for a given product. In practice, only the processors assigned to the virtual machine on which the product is installed are counted.

This leads to spending five times less than the same product licensed at full capacity; therefore, it is absolutely essential to ensure that all products meet IBM's sub-capacity requirements.

Among these requirements, there is the verification of compliance of the application for the licence, the virtualisation technology on which it is installed and the suitability of the processors in the physical environment, which require additional effort - between inventories, verifications, updates - compared to full-capacity licences.

The designated tool for measuring the compliance of sub-capacity licences is the License Metric Tool but now things have changed: manual updating of the software catalogue and PVUs is no longer sufficient.

How to take action

There is, moreover, another aspect to consider: manual loading of the software catalogue does not ensure complete visibility of all IBM PVU-based applications distributed throughout the IT structure.

The License Metric Tool, in fact, has limitations related to its agents, and licence managers are not always aware of where IBM's PVU-based products are installed and the capacity level of the physical environments, especially if the machine park is very large.

This may lead to a  twofold problem: 

• of compliance: if during an audit IBM finds that the sub-capacity requirements have not been fully met, it may impose penalties and require alignment costs to full-capacity licences equal to five times the value of the sub-capacity licences
• of optimisation: there is a risk of not exploiting the full potential of the granularity of sub-capacity licences.

Without  complete visibility of the environment  (deployment of PVU-based software) and the associated  PVU consumption  associated, organisations may not be able to:

• ensure that the total value of PVUs (and thus the cost of the licence) never exceeds the total capacity;
• optimise deployments efficiently.

Considering that adding a  new virtual machine  to an environment with a full licence can be done  without additional costs , one could move a virtual machine from an environment operating below its maximum capacity to an environment already covered by a full licence, thus freeing up licences.

At WEGG, we deal withIT Asset Management, in particular software licence management. With regard to IBM, we provide our expertise to:

• provide with the support of advanced SAM tools a complete picture of the IT environment to identify where PVU-based products reside and the level of capacity that is being exploited
• ensure that applications comply with requirements
• identify optimisation opportunities related to sub-capacity licences (but not only!) and realise significant licence savings by ensuring the full exploitation of capacity potential

In particular, given the onerous nature of upgrading the metric tool, we also offer managed services to upgrade the License Metric Tool to the latest version, without having to make time-consuming and low-value investments in terms of time and resources.