Assigning software per machine RRS feed

  • Question

  • I guess Im a little confused on how to assign access to software.  Ive read some posts from people claiming that per user licenses are more common than per machine licenses.  I manage more than 1000 apps across more than 3000 PCs and to my knowledge only a handfull are specifically named user licenses.  The vast majority of our non-networked licenses are per machine not per user.  From my experience, per machine licenses out number per user licenses 10 to 1.  Why doesnt App-V have the ability to assign software per machine given that it appears to be so common?  How am I supposed to assign software via App-V if it will only let me assign it to users and most licenses are per machine? 
    Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:22 PM


All replies

  • Hello,

    Read the planning guide;

    There are three models, you do not state which you have chosen, and two of them allow per machine deployment.

    Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:03 PM
  • We must not be reading the same document... 

    I can infer that the Standalone Model would assign software to machines simply because you would have to do it manually on each machine which certianlly would not be desired.

    I think the Streaming Model would require SCCM in order to assign software to machines instead of users but Im not sure about that one.

    I dont see any way to do it with the Full Infrastructure Model which is what we planned to use.  That is to say the fullest infrastructure appears to have the least ability to do it.

    It would appear that the only way to do it in an automated manner would be through the use of another app like SCCM which brings me back to why cant I do it in App-v?  It would seem to be very common to need to assign apps in this manner so it doesnt make any sense why I can assign it to users but not machines. 

    Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:18 PM
  • Hello,

    1. MSI deployment can be automated, for example by using SCCM / AD Software Distribution or any other third-party vendor tool for automation
    2. SCCM can deploy per machine, regardless if using the scenarion download and execute or streaming
    3. Full infrastructure is, due to the protocol, per user and thus not to be used in a scenario where per machine deployment is used - which is clearly stated within the whitepaper

    Since you claim that Standalone-model can not be automated, I would suggest reading the whitepaper again for suggestions.

    I would read the whitepaper and apply the requirements from your business to the different distributions models. There are technical limitations and possibilites with all of them, and which one suites you the most can only be determined by your own pre-set requirements.

    Again, app-v in itself offers a few ways to distribute the software and if per machine deployment is a requirement there are two ways todo it - and of course there are interfaces to manipulate the client documented aswell.

    Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:55 PM
  • I think what Im saying is those models are not adequate, yes I read the doc multiple times.  Its nice to be able to take advantage of your existing infrastructure like having SCCM but I should be able to do something as simple as assigning software from within the App-v console to both machines or users without being required to use SCCM, AD or some third party app.  IM sure they have some reason for not doing it, but as a programmer, it would be a breeze to do a check to see if a machine was in the authorized group or not.

    Yes, I could automate just about anything with enough 3rd party apps, I shouldnt have to do so. 

    Thursday, October 1, 2009 8:41 PM
  • Hello,

    Well, considering the fact that app-v will at its current state not be able to deliver 100% of your applications, you will always have to have a distribution mechanism for applications not sequenced.

    If you are not using a streaming model and will have to be dependt on the two other models, this will always be your case and therefore;

    The choice for the full infrastructure model will have to suffice your company needs and the machine deployment is obviously then not needed or not considered a major impact.
    The choice for the standalone model can utilize whatever "classic" solution you will have for application deployment since its utilizing Windows Installer engine.

    So, no I actually do understand MS standpoint on this - and considering that softricity themselves didn't really provide the standalone model at all it apparently hasn't been such a major requirement and when it is, the standalone model is probably suffice.

    And, on a second note - I do like to deliver ALL applications in ONE way, so the full infrastructure model never appealed to me as it was always "when we could sequence". MSI offers the possibility to phase all applications into ONE distribution method, and SCCM extends this into MS SC suite.

    Terminal Servers (RDS, Xenapp etc) of course fulfills a different need, but I would however like to bring the management of their applications into a single console (v.Next?, merchandise? not there yet, but well - we are moving at least).

    For larger companies this is probably not an issue - as having a "per user" team and a "per machine" team isn't that big of an cost, and the cost is spread over such a big user/client base...

    Again, a good application strategy will probably do more good than the full infrastructure actually delivering to per machine, as I see more issues, more troubleshooting and just this "other way of delivering applications that are special and not standard".

    And - AD does allow the delivery with the standalone model through security groups and " check to see if a machine was in the authorized group ", which doesn't exclude you from using the full infrastructure model - however for all apps not sequenced you will still have to be dependt on the "other tool" if full infrastructure is your main method

    Thursday, October 1, 2009 9:11 PM
  • Dave,

    Being unable to apply per computer assignment using the dedicated app-v server has always been a limitation which I have wanted to see fixed or fix myself.  When Microsoft introduced the other deployment models, I think that closed the door.

    Of course, you can solve the issue yourself if you are willing to put in the effort.  This isn't well documented or understood so this makes a good chance to write about it.  The way this would be done is to write your own IIS based publishing application on the management server.  This would consist of an aspx page that would use the user credentials and machine.  With this (and using interfaces provided by the management server dlls), you could enumerate the applications, shortcuts, and osd/icon references to output your own applist.xml file.  You will need to apply your own logic to solve the inherent user/computer conflicts that might be present (there are four combinations of assigned/notassigned) which depends on your exact use case.  The client is then configured to use this page as the publishing server, rather than rtsp/s (betcha several people are now saying to themselves "so that is why http and https shows up in that dialog!").  Apps still stream via rtsp/s (or other method as desired). 

    I'm not sure that ANYONE is using this method today, probably because it is more work than the alternatives.  Usually, I find that the need for per-machine deployment is a small subset of what they need to deploy.  So going with the stand-alone client for a handfull of lab machines is much less work.  Also, consider deploying a second app-v server & database and having only those machines point to the secondary server.
    Tuesday, October 6, 2009 4:15 PM
  • Dave,

    You can add my vote for the ability to stream applications to workstations as well as users. But as Tim mentions, this would cut into the SCCM world at the moment but I do believe MS would be looking to add this at some point. I'm sure App-V over time will become more and more part of the SCCM suite. I too manage a network consisting of 4000 apps, 35,000 workstations and 140,000 users and the ability to stream apps to workstations as well as users would go along way in managing it all.
    Wednesday, December 2, 2009 1:27 AM