Community
Yes this is possible, but I do not recommend the setup. Let me explain why:
The type of failover license setup is called a Redundant license server system. The redundant system requires 3 license server running together and configured appropriately with a redundant license file. Two of the three servers must be running at all times for the NLM to work properly. Should two fail, the license server fails completely.
The reason this is inefficient is because whereas a single license server can run as one server, a redundant server system cannot. Because it is relatively easy to reinstall and configure another NLM quickly on another machine should your main server fail, I find that the problems associated with a redundant setup are not worth the hassle or the overhead. It's also easier to resolve issues of connectivity when clients only have to connect to one NLM vs three. There are just not enough benefits of having a redundant system that makes it worth the pitfalls.
Travis Nave
Need help in your post? Mention me with @TravisNave
My Expert Contributions to theAutodesk Forums:
FLEXnet License Admin | MSI Cleanup Utility | .NET Framework Cleanup Tool | IPv6 NLM Fix | adskflex.opt Options File | Combine .LIC Files
The type of failover license setup is called a Redundant license server system. The redundant system requires 3 license server running together and configured appropriately with a redundant license file. Two of the three servers must be running at all times for the NLM to work properly. Should two fail, the license server fails completely.
The reason this is inefficient is because whereas a single license server can run as one server, a redundant server system cannot. Because it is relatively easy to reinstall and configure another NLM quickly on another machine should your main server fail, I find that the problems associated with a redundant setup are not worth the hassle or the overhead. It's also easier to resolve issues of connectivity when clients only have to connect to one NLM vs three. There are just not enough benefits of having a redundant system that makes it worth the pitfalls.
Travis Nave
Need help in your post? Mention me with @TravisNave HOT: Named User FAQ | 2025 Download Links | Invalid Serial Number | LiteHTML.DLL error | Reset Autodesk 2020-24 Licensing
My Expert Contributions to the
FLEXnet License Admin | MSI Cleanup Utility | .NET Framework Cleanup Tool | IPv6 NLM Fix | adskflex.opt Options File | Combine .LIC Files
I agree completely with TravisNave and his assessment of redundant servers. The other issue with redundant servers is that you may not even know when one of the servers goes down. Unless you're actively monitoring the three servers, you likely won't be aware that one has failed and you're now running with only two servers – one server failure away from being completely down.
Other than a redundant server model, you can't configure multiple servers running the exact same pool of licenses. A distributed server model would at least let you spread the licenses across two servers and then, if one fails, you'll know about it right away and the other server could still be serving licenses. That could help hold you over until you bring the failed server back on line.
Tom Stoeckel
Autodesk Product Support
Tom Stoeckel
Technical Lead, AutoCAD Product Support
Autodesk, Inc.
Other than a redundant server model, you can't configure multiple servers running the exact same pool of licenses. A distributed server model would at least let you spread the licenses across two servers and then, if one fails, you'll know about it right away and the other server could still be serving licenses. That could help hold you over until you bring the failed server back on line.
Tom Stoeckel
Autodesk Product Support
Tom Stoeckel
Technical Lead, AutoCAD Product Support
Autodesk, Inc.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.
Post to forums
