Running all workflows on a dedicated application server

[Soady, Phil]

This is all true and good advice.
Assumes of course events are used ;-)
 
ALE/EDI error handling at technical level (the process code handlers)
start workflows defined in customizing raising than raising events
from memory.
 
 
 
Phil Soady
Senior Consultant - Business Technologies
Professional Services
SAP Australia
Level 1, 168 Walker Street, North Sydney 2060, Australia.
M   +61 412 213 079
E   phil.soady at sap.com
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: SAP Workflow [mailto:Owner-SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Michael Pokraka
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:08 AM
To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Running all workflows on a dedicated application server
 
 
Hi Stephan,
You don't mention the version, but from 4.6-ish on there's the event queue which gives you even more control than what you're looking for. Trans. SWEQADM - you can either send things to a specific server group, or leave it load balanced. The other aspect to this is that it will deliver events at a specified rate - e.g. 50 events/Minute. Once you set up the event queue you still need to specify for each linkage whether it should use the event queue or not.
 
Cheers
Mike
 
Becker, Stephan wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We are trying to spec out a production system with several thousand
> users and a substantial amount of EDI/Workflow traffic.
>
> I would like to divert all workflow traffic to a dedicated application
> server (eg to prevent peak load when an EDI batch hits the system and
> starts loads of workflows that would block all available dialog and
> background tasks for a while) and am wondering about the best way to
> do this and any experiences out there:
>
> -          I have tried to assign a reference RFC destination to the
> WORKFLOW_LOCAL_nnn logical destination, with the reference destination
> (type R/3 connection) pointing to the background server logon group.
> However, I am
> still getting the RFC call to the app server I create the event from..
> -          The other way seems to be to assign an RFC destination in the
> event linkage (SWE2). Apart from the fact that this would have to be done
> per event linkage, what's the difference?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Regards,
> Stephan
>
>