2 year wait vs Batch Report

Thu May 5 10:47:50 EDT 2005

Hi Peter,

I knew that 0.1 second is too much for this :) but I used it just for comparison purpose ( And to make you check your system and come up with some real time stats ).

But this is not the major mistake I made actually.
I didn't consider that even SAP's system programs need to do some checking to start the scheduled jobs after 2 year ( I think almost every second along with all other scheduled jobs )

But then all is not lost . I will use this example when I'll write a book called "SAP for Stupid" :-). I've gathered a lot of these , mostly my own contributions ...

Cheers,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:sap-wug-bounces at mit.edu]On Behalf Of Peter Roehlen
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 7:51 PM
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 Raaskin
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:  <mailto:araskin at 3i-consulting.com> araskin at 3i-consulting.com
p: +61 3 9625 2189 (Head Office)
f:  +61 3 8610 1239 
c:  +1 207 756 0370
w:  <http://au.f212.mail.yahoo.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.3i-consulting.com/> 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 Raaskin
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:  <mailto:araskin at 3i-consulting.com> araskin at 3i-consulting.com

w:  <http://au.f212.mail.yahoo.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.3i-consulting.com/> 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  <http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/tagline/*http://au.movies.yahoo.com> Yahoo! Movies.

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/sap-wug/attachments/20050505/6a68ec1b/attachment.htm