| Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 12:25  |
MarioIncandenza
Messages: 231
Registered: February 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi IDL overlords,
I built a runtime and ran it with 'idl -rt='/myroutine_rt.sav''. That
worked.
However, at my installation we have both interactive "development"
licenses and "runtime" licenses. My goal in building a runtime was to
not take up a "development" license for a long, non-interactive job.
At this I did not succeed. What step am I missing to get IDL to not
take an interactive license when it is called with -rt?
Ideas are welcome. Details of how I built and called the runtime are
below.
I built a self-contained routine, starting with PRO MYROUTINE .
I packaged it as a runtime with the following:
IDL> .compile '/mydir/myroutine.pro'
compiled MYROUTINE
IDL> resolve_all
...
IDL> save,/routines,filename='/mydir/myroutine.sav'
Then I ran it from the command line as follows:
computer:mydir>idl -rt='/mydir/myroutine.sav'
IDL had this to say:
% Restored file: IDLRTMAIN.
..and then it ran. But it still took an interactive license.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55371 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 15:17  |
Vince Hradil
Messages: 574
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Aug 16, 5:13 pm, roche...@scientist.com wrote:
> Hi
> We have encountered this problem with fixed and floating licenses. IDL
> seems to preferentially pick the floating license ahead of a fixed
> one. The way we get around it it to use the interactive license up
> (run a command line idl session) and then run your sav file on another
> machine. Then it will pick up that license. Then you can go back and
> get out of the interactive one.
> Not optimal, but it works.
>
> hradilv wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 4:20 pm, David Fanning <da...@dfanning.com> wrote:
>>> hradilv writes:
>>>> When I run idl -rt=foo.sav the system reports "Installation number:
>>>> 11468" which is my interactive license.
>
>>>> idl -vm=foo.sav works fine, but you get that yucky splash screen.
>
>>> Well, yes, someone has to pay for not getting charged a
>>> license!!
>
>>> Cheers,
>
>>> David
>>> --
>>> David Fanning, Ph.D.
>>> Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
>>> Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming:http://www.dfanning.com/
>
>> I understand that. What I failed to mention is that I _have_ runtime
>> licenses. But the idl -rt=foo.sav takes my development license,
>> according to the "Installation number:" report.
I thought all of our licenses were "floating" - just rt vs. devel, but
I'll look into that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55372 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 15:13 |
rochelle
Messages: 3
Registered: August 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi
We have encountered this problem with fixed and floating licenses. IDL
seems to preferentially pick the floating license ahead of a fixed
one. The way we get around it it to use the interactive license up
(run a command line idl session) and then run your sav file on another
machine. Then it will pick up that license. Then you can go back and
get out of the interactive one.
Not optimal, but it works.
hradilv wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:20 pm, David Fanning <da...@dfanning.com> wrote:
>> hradilv writes:
>>> When I run idl -rt=foo.sav the system reports "Installation number:
>>> 11468" which is my interactive license.
>>
>>> idl -vm=foo.sav works fine, but you get that yucky splash screen.
>>
>> Well, yes, someone has to pay for not getting charged a
>> license!!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> David
>> --
>> David Fanning, Ph.D.
>> Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
>> Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming:http://www.dfanning.com/
>
> I understand that. What I failed to mention is that I _have_ runtime
> licenses. But the idl -rt=foo.sav takes my development license,
> according to the "Installation number:" report.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55373 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 15:12 |
Vince Hradil
Messages: 574
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Aug 16, 5:09 pm, Ed Hyer <ejh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I had never used the VM before. Honestly, if the splash-screen
> could be dealt with in some way permitting automated operation, this
> would be the solution to most of my problems. But I rather doubt this
> is what ITTVis intended.
>
> Instead, our group was sold something called "run-time licenses",
> which, my understanding was, were:
> -- for non-interactive use only;
> -- entirely separate from the "interactive" licenses
>
> ITT Vis (http://www.ittvis.com/services/techtip.asp?ttid=3549) seems
> to support my interpretation. But no matter how I run the SAV file, it
> takes an "idl" license and not an "idl_rt" license.
There is NO way to circumvent the splash screen. It's really not that
bad...
Your understanding of rt licenses seems to be the same as mine. I
just haven't been keeping track very well, but it seems to not work as
advertised(?)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55374 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 15:09 |
MarioIncandenza
Messages: 231
Registered: February 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
OK, I had never used the VM before. Honestly, if the splash-screen
could be dealt with in some way permitting automated operation, this
would be the solution to most of my problems. But I rather doubt this
is what ITTVis intended.
Instead, our group was sold something called "run-time licenses",
which, my understanding was, were:
-- for non-interactive use only;
-- entirely separate from the "interactive" licenses
ITT Vis (http://www.ittvis.com/services/techtip.asp?ttid=3549) seems
to support my interpretation. But no matter how I run the SAV file, it
takes an "idl" license and not an "idl_rt" license.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55376 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 14:28 |
Vince Hradil
Messages: 574
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Aug 16, 4:20 pm, David Fanning <da...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> hradilv writes:
>> When I run idl -rt=foo.sav the system reports "Installation number:
>> 11468" which is my interactive license.
>
>> idl -vm=foo.sav works fine, but you get that yucky splash screen.
>
> Well, yes, someone has to pay for not getting charged a
> license!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
> --
> David Fanning, Ph.D.
> Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
> Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming:http://www.dfanning.com/
I understand that. What I failed to mention is that I _have_ runtime
licenses. But the idl -rt=foo.sav takes my development license,
according to the "Installation number:" report.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55377 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 14:20 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hradilv writes:
> When I run idl -rt=foo.sav the system reports "Installation number:
> 11468" which is my interactive license.
>
> idl -vm=foo.sav works fine, but you get that yucky splash screen.
Well, yes, someone has to pay for not getting charged a
license!!
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55379 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 14:14 |
Vince Hradil
Messages: 574
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Aug 16, 4:11 pm, David Fanning <da...@dfanning.com> wrote:
> hradilv writes:
>> That's why I've been running out of licenses. Boy I would sure like
>> to know the answer to this one.
>
> What makes you think run-time IDL doesn't need a license?
> It may take fewer license units (I don't know), but a
> license is DEFINITELY involved. Perhaps you are thinking
> of the Virtual Machine.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
> --
> David Fanning, Ph.D.
> Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
> Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming:http://www.dfanning.com/
When I run idl -rt=foo.sav the system reports "Installation number:
11468" which is my interactive license.
idl -vm=foo.sav works fine, but you get that yucky splash screen.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55380 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 14:11 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
hradilv writes:
> That's why I've been running out of licenses. Boy I would sure like
> to know the answer to this one.
What makes you think run-time IDL doesn't need a license?
It may take fewer license units (I don't know), but a
license is DEFINITELY involved. Perhaps you are thinking
of the Virtual Machine.
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55381 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 14:06 |
Haje Korth
Messages: 651
Registered: May 1997
|
Senior Member |
|
|
does it work with -vm=...? H.
"Ed Hyer" <ejhyer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187292339.116003.230070@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com.. .
> Hi IDL overlords,
>
> I built a runtime and ran it with 'idl -rt='/myroutine_rt.sav''. That
> worked.
> However, at my installation we have both interactive "development"
> licenses and "runtime" licenses. My goal in building a runtime was to
> not take up a "development" license for a long, non-interactive job.
> At this I did not succeed. What step am I missing to get IDL to not
> take an interactive license when it is called with -rt?
>
> Ideas are welcome. Details of how I built and called the runtime are
> below.
>
> I built a self-contained routine, starting with PRO MYROUTINE .
> I packaged it as a runtime with the following:
> IDL> .compile '/mydir/myroutine.pro'
> compiled MYROUTINE
> IDL> resolve_all
> ...
> IDL> save,/routines,filename='/mydir/myroutine.sav'
>
> Then I ran it from the command line as follows:
> computer:mydir>idl -rt='/mydir/myroutine.sav'
>
> IDL had this to say:
> % Restored file: IDLRTMAIN.
>
> ..and then it ran. But it still took an interactive license.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Runtime license: newbie questions [message #55382 is a reply to message #55288] |
Thu, 16 August 2007 14:00 |
Vince Hradil
Messages: 574
Registered: December 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Aug 16, 2:25 pm, Ed Hyer <ejh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi IDL overlords,
>
> I built a runtime and ran it with 'idl -rt='/myroutine_rt.sav''. That
> worked.
> However, at my installation we have both interactive "development"
> licenses and "runtime" licenses. My goal in building a runtime was to
> not take up a "development" license for a long, non-interactive job.
> At this I did not succeed. What step am I missing to get IDL to not
> take an interactive license when it is called with -rt?
>
> Ideas are welcome. Details of how I built and called the runtime are
> below.
>
> I built a self-contained routine, starting with PRO MYROUTINE .
> I packaged it as a runtime with the following:
> IDL> .compile '/mydir/myroutine.pro'
> compiled MYROUTINE
> IDL> resolve_all
> ...
> IDL> save,/routines,filename='/mydir/myroutine.sav'
>
> Then I ran it from the command line as follows:
> computer:mydir>idl -rt='/mydir/myroutine.sav'
>
> IDL had this to say:
> % Restored file: IDLRTMAIN.
>
> ..and then it ran. But it still took an interactive license.
That's why I've been running out of licenses. Boy I would sure like
to know the answer to this one.
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
