2 year wait vs Batch Report

Thu May 5 10:23:03 EDT 2005

Great stats Peter. 

I appreciate everyone's input...

Regards,

Alon Raskin
e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com <mailto:araskin at 3i-consulting.com> 
p: +61 3 9625 2189 (Head Office)
f:  +61 3 8610 1239 
c:  +1 207 756 0370
w: http://www.3i-consulting.com

________________________________

From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Peter Roehlen
Sent: Thu 5/5/2005 10:20
To: sap-wug at mit.edu
Subject: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

Hi Alon & Ram,

The below piqued my interest so I had a look at our production system and checked some stats.  (I was a bit concerned about the .1 second allocation for every record in Ram's example.)

We have at present 519 workitems with monitored deadlines (ie records in table SWWWIDH.)  In the 24 hours of May 4, the job ran every ten minutes for a total of 142 times.  The total run time for the day was 85 seconds.

Assuming an hourly run (per the example outlined below) this would result in a run time of 14 seconds for the day (85 / 142 / 24).  Over two years this would equate to 170 minutes (14 * 365 * 2 / 60) or approximately 3 hours.

I'm no accountant, but I think 3 hours spread over two years is probably affordable ; )

Interesting discussion anyway.

Cheers

Peter Roehlen.

	Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:19:12 +0530
	From: "Tiwari, Rammanohar" <rammanohar.tiwari at logicacmg.com>
	To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
	Subject: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

	Hi Alon,

	First of all sorry for sending the mail twice . I am a first timer and I didn't know that I won't receive my own mail, so I thought it is bouncing.

	Well first of all I am not sure if the option I put forward is feasible or not and it is just an option :)

	But if it is then there might be some advantage from the system perspective, over daily monitoring, in the sense:
	if your daily monitoring Job runs every hour and this particular check takes 0.1 second to run ( I think there is a dbaccess to compare the triggering date & time ) for one workflow execute then total time for 400 workflow instances will be ( total time to run this check = 0.1 * 400 * 24 * 360 * 2  / 3600  = 192 hrs ).

	I am really sorry if I've made some major mistake in calculating this.

	So actually system will run 192 hrs for this case.

	Now if you are scheduling 400 jobs for 400 instances but just for once and will execute after 2 years then ( total time = 0.1 * 400 / 3600 =~ 0.01 hrs )

	Also, I am just putting it forward, just as a theoretical option so you can't blame me :)

	Thanks,
	Ram

		-----Original Message-----
		From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]On Behalf Of Alon Raskin
		Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 6:23 PM
		To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
		Subject: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

		Hi Ram,

		Thanks for the input. My problem with this approach is that I now have a batch job scheduled for each instance of the workflow (around 400 or so)... I guess it not a big deal but I am not sure I am seeing what the advantages of using this over the deadline monitoring report...

		Alon Raskin
		e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com <mailto:araskin at 3i-consulting.com> 
		p: +61 3 9625 2189 (Head Office)
		f:  +61 3 8610 1239 
		c:  +1 207 756 0370
		w: http://www.3i-consulting.com <http://au.f212.mail.yahoo.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.3i-consulting.com/> 

________________________________

		From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Tiwari, Rammanohar
		Sent: Thu 5/5/2005 08:49
		To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
		Subject: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

		I think there might be another option ( Not sure though ) :

		Just after that step in your workflow put another step which will schedule a Batch Job (FM BP_JOB_CREATE)  with release date = sy-datum + 2 years.
		I am not sure but system restart should not affect it. 

		The Batch job will then trigger an event ( after two years )  to re-start the terminated workflow.

		Thanks,
		Ram

			-----Original Message-----
			From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]On Behalf Of Alon Raskin
			Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:26 PM
			To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
			Subject: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

			Hi Everyone,

			I would love to hear peoples opinions on this issue.

			We have a situation where a workflow has to do update a field and then wait for 2 years before clearing that field. There are two possibilities to this issue.

			1. Put in a 2 year wait step
			2. Terminate the workflow and run a nightly batch job which would query some table and determine if 2 years have passed and then reset the field accordingly.

			Currently I am leaning towards option 1 as I really don't see a difference in option 1 and option 2. Ultimately they are all just batch jobs which check dates and then do some processing. The volumes here are very low.

			Your thoughts?

			Alon Raskin
			e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com <mailto:araskin at 3i-consulting.com> 

			w: http://www.3i-consulting.com <http://au.f212.mail.yahoo.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.3i-consulting.com/> 

		This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.

	This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If yo! u are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
	Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:59:22 -0400
	From: "Alon Raskin" <araskin at 3i-consulting.com>
	To: "SAP Workflow Users' Group" <sap-wug at mit.edu>
	Subject: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

	Hi Thomas,

	I appreciate your input but I was wondering WHY you have this preference? Is it performance related? Or simply past experience?

	Alon Raskin
	e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com 
	p: +61 3 9625 2189 (Head Office)
	f: +61 3 8610 1239 
	c: +1 207 756 0370
	w: http://www.3i-consulting.com

	________________________________

	From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Thomas Lorenz
	Sent: Thu 5/5/2005 09:46
	To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
	Subject: AW: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

	Hi Alon,

	i would prefer an additional ABAP Report to clear the field, which ! runs as Batch once a day. In my opinion it makes little sense to keep these Workflows for two years in "running" mode.

	Greetings,

	Thomas Lorenz

	mobil + 49 170 3558989
	mail tlorenz at web-ls.de
	fon + 49 228 3867985
	fax + 49 228 3868844

	-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
	Von: Alon Raskin [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]Im Auftrag von Alon Raskin
	Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2005 14:53
	An: SAP Workflow Users' Group
	Betreff: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

	Hi Ram,

	Thanks for the input. My problem with this approach is that I now have a batch job scheduled for each instance of the workflow (around 400 or so)... I guess it not a big deal but I am not sure I am seeing what the advantages of using this over the deadline monitoring report...

	Alon Raskin
	e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com 
	p: +61 3 9625 2189 (Head Office)
	f: +61 3 8610 1239 
	c: +1 207 756 0370
	! w: http://www.3i-consulting.com

	________________________________

	From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu on behalf of Tiwari, Rammanohar
	Sent: Thu 5/5/2005 08:49
	To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
	Subject: RE: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

	I think there might be another option ( Not sure though ) :

	Just after that step in your workflow put another step which will schedule a Batch Job (FM BP_JOB_CREATE) with release date = sy-datum + 2 years.
	I am not sure but system restart should not affect it. 

	The Batch job will then trigger an event ( after two years ) to re-start the terminated workflow.

	Thanks,
	Ram

	-----Original Message-----
	From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]On Behalf Of Alon Raskin
	Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 5:26 PM
	To: SAP Workflow Users' Group
	Subject: 2 year wait vs Batch Report

	Hi Everyone,

	I would love to hear peoples opinions on this issue.

	We ! have a situation where a workflow has to do update a field and then wait for 2 years before clearing that field. There are two possibilities to this issue.

	1. Put in a 2 year wait step
	2. Terminate the workflow and run a nightly batch job which would query some table and determine if 2 years have passed and then reset the field accordingly.

	Currently I am leaning towards option 1 as I really don't see a difference in option 1 and option 2. Ultimately they are all just batch jobs which check dates and then do some processing. The volumes here are very low.

	Your thoughts?

	Alon Raskin
	e: araskin at 3i-consulting.com 

	w: http://www.3i-consulting.com

	This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, an! y other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.

	_______________________________________________
	SAP-WUG mailing list
	SAP-WUG at mit.edu
	http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/sap-wug

________________________________

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. <http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/*http://au.movies.yahoo.com> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 17464 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20050505/2a79c734/attachment.bin