| Author |
Message
|
| vennela |
 Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2002 11:19 am Post subject: No of workflow users |
 |
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
Is it going to be an issue if we have 50 thousand users in the Runtime. When we tried to import 9,000 users, the BT would break. So we had to break the FDL into smaller chunks and import them into BT.
Though we haven't tried importing into RT DB yet, we soon will. Has anyone experienced RT complaining about the number of users.
---
Venny |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jmac |
| Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2002 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Vennela:
If you haven't already done so, I would post this one to the IBM newsgroup.
The developers should be able to give you a definitive answer on this.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2002 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
I didn't post it anywhere else. Please post it and let us know what they have to say about this.
---
Venny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fbaril3 |
| Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 53
|
Hello,
Has any one got the answer from IBM about the 50 thousand users (for BuildTime and RunTime aspects) ?
THX. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
No
I am yet to post this question in the IBM newsgroup
Venny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Venny:
As far as I remember this would be the largest user base installed for MQWF. I seem to remember reading somewhere of a 20,000 user base.
Also, you will need to be very careful with your staffing. I.E. with 50K users, if you were to make a mistake and let a workitem be assigned to all users, your system would probably be brought to its knees creating 50K workitems.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| manoj |
| Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 30 Jan 2002
Posts: 237
Location: Virgina
|
Venny,
I didn't get u r point on "breaking the fdl in to smaller chunks and importing to the build time database". I believe if u want all the users to be imported to build time at a given point of time then it should n't matter whether u 've single FDL or multiple FDLs.
The problem with single FDL may be the incapability of the build time import utility to parse large files rather than the build time itself.
Also 50K users , how does it make sense ?
_________________
-manoj |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2002 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Venny/Manoj:
I too have run into the limit on imports and have just split the FDL. So there is indeed a limit on how much you can import.
As far as 50000 users being too many.... I'm sure IBM cant wait to use you as a reference 
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vladimir |
| Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2002 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
Hi, guys
It is really interesting topic for me, because we were planning to use WF for up to 100K users  , but decided not to do this currently. May be in the future. In fact we decided not to store users with the "basic" rights (you can treat them as "guests" with no buiseness rules or authorities or orgUnit hierarchies assigned). Doing this and storing these user records in our own application DB we narrowed the number of users managed in WF significantly.
As regarding BT import (I am pretty sure it will be similar for RT) - I think it is a limitation of internal language that Import/Export utility uses. This limitations are not published anywhere (at least I haven't heard about such document), but they exist. They have limits for statement size (something like 10K) and based on your experience it seems like they have a limit for the whole batch too.
John is right - IBM should answer this question. They gave us this number about statement limit when we created too complex data structures in our models. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Vladimir wrote
| Quote: |
| In fact we decided not to store users with the "basic" rights (you can treat them as "guests" with no buiseness rules or authorities or orgUnit hierarchies assigned). Doing this and storing these user records in our own application DB we narrowed the number of users managed in WF significantly. |
This technique is similar to the "Virtual User" technique. Which will allow you to greatly reduce the number of workitems created. This technique simply takes it one step further in that the user does not have an actual MQWF ID, but uses a guest ID. Back in the beginning when IBM charged by the seat for MQWF, there were several schemes that we considered using that are very similar to this.
If you have never read about the Virtual user and other techniques, you should have a look at the Redbook "Advanced workflow systems" By D. Shute and M. Hoffmann. Granted this book is a FlowMark book, but 80% of its contents is relevant to MQWF
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vladimir |
| Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
John,
Thank you! I will definitely check this book!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vladimir |
| Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Vladimir:
As I said in my previous post, I think about 80% of it is still relevant.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vladimir |
| Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
| Ok, thanks again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
