Workflow Deadline Monitoring Question

Tue Dec 2 05:28:15 EST 2003

Hi David,

We switched from dynamic (as needed) to periodic deadline monitoring a short time ago. The reason was that more
and more workflows (with deadlines) are started which cause the job scheduling to fail (more and more the job
was already running when it was being rescheduled, which caused the workflow to go into error).

Now I use an interval of 15 minutes, although some steps have deadlines of less than 15 minute (f.i. 1 minute).
It al depends on the 'time criticalness' of your processes. As you indicated, steps with deadlines are executed
when (after) the deadline monitoring job has run AND the deadlines have been reached.

Regards,

Fred Kouw

"David E. Yung" wrote:

> On this note, I have a question for the group...
>
> Would you recommend (or is this the option you've made) to use periodic
> deadline monitoring versus as needed.  If so, I have another question:
>
> Let's say for example that you schedule the deadline monitoring to be every
> 5 minutes, but you have a certain workflow which sets the deadline of a work
> item to be 1 minute in the future.  What happens to this item?  Does it
> execute within the specified minute or does it need to wait the 5 minutes
> (at the most obviously) to be executed?
>
> Right now, I have gone with the as needed approach because I don't want jobs
> running every minute.
>
> Any opinions, recommendations etc on this matter will be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Also, what period of time have you chosen for the interval of the jobs?
>
> Regards
>
> David Yung
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Michael Pokraka
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:20
> To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: Workflow Deadline Monitoring Question
>
> No prob, another small bit of info I might add is that I'm on a 6.20
> system at the moment and as-needed scheduling is no longer available.
> Which makes sense and emphasizes that SAP see workflow as becoming
> widespread and much more utilized.
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> Josefek, Richard wrote:
> > Mike,
> > Thank you so much for your response.
> > Shortly after receiving it, we implemented the change and our workflow
> > processing has been working flawlessly since.
> > I cannot tell you how many hours have been put into researching this
> > problem over the past year. We even went so far as opening up an OSS note
> > with SAP. They were no help at all.
> >
> > Thank you again!
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of
> > Michael Pokraka
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 7:17 AM
> > To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Workflow Deadline Monitoring Question
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > Check that your monitoring is configured for periodic deadline monitoring
> > (as opposed to as-needed). Non-periodic causes WI's to check and schedule
> > deadline jobs. In other words, if an item is created and it sees that no
> > job is scheduled before it's deadline, it will schedule it unless the
> > 'periodic monitoring' is set.
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> >
> > Somewhere in the mists of time Josefek, Richardwrote:
> >>> We've run into a problem that I'm hoping you can shed some light on for
> >>> us.  We've had a problem occurring in our Production environment since
> >>> last December, 2002.  Recently, these problems have been causing our
> >>> clients a lot of work to monitor and resolve.  Here's a synopsis:
> >>>
> >>> We use Maestro to control Workflow deadline monitoring.  Maestro runs
> >>> SWWDHEX on a schedule that our clients have requested.  We do not use
> >>> SAP.  However, last December, configuration for the SAP controlling of
> >>> deadline monitoring was turned on in our Production environment by an
> >>> SAP consultant.  We immediately corrected the situation and turned it
> >>> off.  However, this has caused a series of problems that we have yet to
> >>> recover from.
> >>>
> >>> Individuals approving within one of two workflows were causing the
> >>> SWWDHEX to instantiate in SAP (without their knowledge).  Once, this
> >>> happens, it continues every 10 minutes.   One of the things we did to
> >>> prevent this from happening was remove security from each individual.
> >>> However, we have found this is not a good solution because every once
> >>> in
> >>> a while (under conditions we cannot determine) a client will receive an
> >>> error message "Background job SWWDHEX cannot be scheduled (error 6)".
> >>> Some of these clients will notice the error message and try to approve
> >>> the document again and the second time they are successful.
> >>>
> >>> We are assuming that the configuration that was turned on has somehow
> >>> caused this irrevocable process to begin, even though we have shut it
> >>> off.  We think that somewhere in the SAP environment, there is some
> >>> trigger that is causing this job to run.  (Perhaps an assumption in the
> >>> code that if we are not using permanent deadline monitoring, we must be
> >>> using periodic instead of checking table values?)
> >>>
> >>> Any assistance you can provide on what triggers there might be in SAP
> >>> that would cause this to happen would be much appreciated!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >> Rick
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary,
> >> privileged and/or confidential and is intended exclusively for the
> >> person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, copying, retention or
> >> disclosure by any person other than the intended recipient or the
> >> intended
> >> recipient's designees is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
> >> intended
> >> recipient or their designee, please notify the sender immediately by
> >> return e-mail and delete all copies.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________
> This inbound message from KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN IV-Scan, powered by MessageLabs.
> For further information visit: http://www.veiliginternet.nl
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________

**********************************************************************
This e-mail and any attachment may contain confidential and privileged
material intended for the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you
are notified that no part of the e-mail or any attachment may be disclosed,
copied or distributed, and that any other action related to this e-mail or
attachment is strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received
this e-mail by error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail,
and delete this message. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM), its
subsidiaries and/or its employees shall not be liable for the incorrect or
incomplete transmission of this e-mail or any attachments, nor responsible
for any delay in receipt.
**********************************************************************

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
This outbound message from KPN has been checked for all known viruses by KPN IV-Scan, powered by MessageLabs.
For further information visit: http://www.veiliginternet.nl
_____________________________________________________________________________________________