This is VERY bad. I'd call your platinum support person right away and dig in here.
Are the new machines getting the right id numbers - 60,000 and beyond, or are they overwriting lower level objects?
Seriously, this could be catastrophic, you need to work out what's going on before you get beyond help.
This has been raised and is being dealt with, with no explanation forthcoming as yet from McAfee while they investigate.
This morning, the licence count for machines has returned to normal, perhaps a reindex of the database last night (via toastcache) rectifed the issue in some way.
The ID's being added to the database from new objects were the next ones 'in the pool' so we don't suspect overwriting of existing Database objects at the moment.
The only odd thing is that we have some machines with the same names but diff IDs in the database, usually this isn't possible and duplicate objects are given the 0001 / 0002 suffix. At the moment, we can't be sure that these duplicates were a cause of yesterdays licence count issue, or if these have been the database for some time.
As you suggest, it sounds like your namecache went awry. Interesting.
Duplicate names (exact same name) should not be possible, but again if the namecache broke, quite expected. The question is why did the machine reactivate? Names with 0001,0002 etc are completely expected - it just means you have two machines with the same network name, or you activated the same machine multiple times without deleting it from EEM (and without "legally" removing EEPC in the first place" OR there was some network problem during activation, like the user turned the machine off, or your network went down.
Ah yes, we are quite familiar with the 0001, 0002 method that SB uses to mark duplicates. Our automated install process takes care of any existing 'old' objects if a machine reinstalls SB (and retains the same Computer Name). We rarely see 0001 and 0002 duplicates now, other than in a few communities where they still manage the installation and user account registrations manually.
The mystery to us is only around the duplicates where the same object name has been allowed to exist twice in the database. We're going to check the audit logs of a few to see if we can piece together what has happened for those objects although early indications are that there are only relatively few. Hopefully this was just a side-effect of the namecache and not an early warning that there is some sort of widespread corruption in our database....
you're using quite an early version of EEM still - I know there was a delete/recreate bug that got fixed later on - not sure if your version is subject to it though.
try creating a user, delete them, restore them, then try to create a user with the exact same name - if it works, then you indeed have the flawed version and need to upgrade to prevent that occuring.
Confirmed that we have the 'flaw' within EEM 5.2.2. Many Thanks. Looking to upgrade to 5.2.12 in a few weeks.