Content server pros and cons when compared to others

Hi DMS Gurus,
we are in a process of deciding which storage area to go for, and the client is kneen on going for a common existing  server, as he is not kneen on spending on DMS content server.
my question are,
can we transform any existing file server or system (which is already in use) in to a content server just by installing windows 2003, and content server CDs. if so please tell me how to go about this.
is content server only the preferred storage to process the original files in through WEB DMS, or will Starage in SAP Database,Vault or Archive also will give this funtionality.
let me please know what are the major Pros (benifits) and cons (demerits)  which Content server storage gives when compared to other storage.
Points for sure,
thanks in advance
Shanti

Shanti,
ArchiveLink:
You use SAP ArchiveLink as a communication interface between the document management system and the archiving systems. You can display the archived data using the SAP ArchiveLink viewer. Many times there are documents generated which needs to be tied to a DIR and hence you use the archive link to tie these to a transaction and the originals can be stored in the content server.
KPRO
KPRO apart from attaching the originals, it provides a wide range of other functionalities like content service,
where after every check in& checkout of DIR you can mantain the working copies in the content server.
Knowledge Provider is a component of SAP Web Application Server and provides the general infrastructure for storing and administrating documents.The Content Server and the Cache Server are server components that interact with the Knowledge Provider
Knowledge Provider provides the following services:
-Services for KPro client applications
-Document Management Framework (DMF)
-Document Management Service (DMS)
-Content Management Service (CMS)
-Integration of content servers and cache servers
-Content Server
-Allows you to integrate SAP Content Sever or
external content servers
-Cache Server
-Allows you to store documents close to the client (caching)
-Content Modeling Tool
-Document Modeling Workbench (DMWB)
Hope this helps
Paddy

Similar Messages

  • I upgraded to a new apple mac book pro and now when I try to download to adobe digital edition I receive this error:Error getting License. License Server Communication Problem: E_ACT_NOT_READY

    I upgraded to a new apple mac book pro and now when I try to download to adobe digital edition I receive this error:Error getting License. License Server Communication Problem: E_ACT_NOT_READY

    What does that have to do with Digital Publishing Suite?
    We’d love to help but if does have something to do with it, please give us
    some details.

  • Pros and Cons of Application Isolation/Multiple server instances?

    Hi. I'm setting a new server using ColdFusion Enterprise with Apache to migrate several web application from and old server with ColdFusion 7 server. I'm currently doing research regarding multiple server instances in order to have a separate server for production apps and another for development apps (see http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ColdFusion/10.0/Admin/WSc3ff6d0ea77859461172e0811cbf363c31-7ff 5.html and https://wikidocs.adobe.com/wiki/display/coldfusionen/Using+Multiple+Server+Instanceshttp:/ /). In addition, I'm also doing research regarding application isolation to have separate production application in separate servers. I'm trying to identify all pros and cons for both "Application Isolation" and "Multiple Server Instances" to make a decision on whether I will proceed in applying these techniques. I have found several links that talk about some of the advantages but have not been able to find anything regarding possible disadvantages. Have anyone in this forum has used any of the techniques, and can provide more information/experiences regarding the pros and cons?

    Hi Ricardo_Lorenzo,
    Whether to go for Multiserver instances or Single server, is totally a user requirement based decison. If a user has Single website, or multiple websites (of the same nature, in terms of functionality), usually the part of same domain, then they would go for Single sever installation. One single instance will handle the requests from all the websites (if there are multiple). There would not be a clustering/failover setup within ColdFusion and can use the ColdFusion Standard or Enterprise version.
    On the other hand, if a user has multiple websites, all with different functionality and have multiple applications (may or may not) running, then they can go for Multiserver installation. Each website can be configured with individual instances. Clustering can be done within ColdFusion if needed. One would need an Enterprise license of ColdFusion for the same.
    Hope this helps.
    Regards,
    Anit Kumar

  • Are there pros and cons to using TFS as compared to Sharepoint?

    are there pros and cons to using TFS as compared to Sharepoint?

    TFS and SharePoint are two different products with overlapping functionality.
    If you are planning to use TFS for Application Lifecylce management, then I would not suggest SharePoint replacing TFS.
    Hope this helps!
    Ram - SharePoint Architect
    Blog - SharePointDeveloper.in
    Please vote or mark your question answered, if my reply helps you

  • Pros and cons of using email sending package in oracle 8.1.6

    hi ,
    i would like to know the advantages /disadvantages of using email sending package from oracle 8.1.6
    compared to sending the same using say perl or php.
    iam developing a site in php/oracle8.1.6 , in which iam supposed to create a payement module.whenever a user
    register(for free trial or subscribing the site) i'll have to send him a welcoming mail.In addition to this iam also supposed to find out wether subscribers are paying cash at right time and if not send them reminder mails and other for related scenarios . i can do the same in Perl or PHP.but if iam not gaining much(say based on server performance or load) then i think i can go ahead with oracle package. when i tested it i found that its slow . what about the load that it may cause for the server (ours is linux ).
    please do give inputs on this

    Hi Ravi,
    Thanks for your reply.
    But I am specifically looking at pros and cons for web services. So the thread which you passed to me won't help.
    Regards
    Nitin.

  • Pros and cons of using iFS

    HAI ALL,
    assuming that i have stored all of my data(both RDBMS and no-relational data html files,xml files)in an iFS.the first thing i want to ask u is
    1)if i want to read the iFS and display only the RDBMS data from the iFS ,how fast it can be done compared to traditionally storing the RDBMS data in a table in oracle8i ?
    2)if i want to use indexing,how fast is iFS compared to doing indexing in oracle8i ?
    3)if i want to search for a particular record how fast is it compared to doing the same in an RDBMS table in oracle8i ?
    4)say i want to mirror the contents of the iFS from one oracle8i server to another oracle8i server,what are the pros and cons ?
    throw some light on the above points which is crutial for us to either go for iFS or not?
    awaiting reply
    null

    Ravi, I sorry, but I don't understand your questions. My comments are preceded with >>.
    Assuming that I have stored all of my data--both RDBMS and non-relational data, namely html files and xml files--in iFS, the first thing I want to ask you is:
    I don't know what you mean, "store your RDBMS data in iFS". You store RDBMS data in the Oracle database directly. 1) if i want to read the iFS and display only the RDBMS data from the iFS, how fast it can be done compared to traditionally storing the RDBMS data in a table in oracle8i?
    You don't store RDBMS data in iFS.2) if i want to use indexing, how fast is iFS compared to doing indexing in oracle8i ?
    It's the same. Under the covers, iFS uses both the normal RDBMS indexing for its metadata, and the normal interMedia Text indexing for the non-relational data.3) if i want to search for a particular record how fast is it compared to doing the same in an RDBMS table in oracle8i?
    It's the same. iFS uses the normal RDBMS searching capabilities under the covers.4) say i want to mirror the contents of the iFS from one oracle8i server to another oracle8i server,what are the pros and cons?
    I'm not sure what you mean by "mirror". Are you referring to replicating?null

  • What are the pros and cons using Active Data Guard vs Data Guard?

    My understanding is that Active Data Guard is an additional database option for Oracle 11gR2 Enterprise Edition. I need to know the pros and cons using Active Data Guard vs Data Guard in order to decide whether to get pay extra for the Active Data Guard.
    Thanks for any help.

    Hemant K Chitale wrote:
    Before jumping in to Active Data Guard, one needs to evaluate :
    a. Is there really a need to run queries on the Standby ? The Standby could / should be at a remote site so queries are "across the network". Depending on the nature of the queries and the volume of output, the "performance" of the queries may not seem to be the same.
    b. If the database is not in Maximum Protection mode, the data "seen" at the standby may not be in "real-time" synch
    c. Not all applications are truely read-only when querying. Some applications use "jobs" that write to tables when querying. Such would not work with Active DataGuard. (example : EBusiness Suite). There are very complicated ways of handling this -- and one needs to consider if the complications can be introduced and supported.
    Over the network accessing standby read only is really not an good idea, I think no one will compare performance with primary and standby,
    But some of them they want to validate data which are very critical, as it is matching with primary or not, Its an added advantage with ACTIVE DATAGUARD
    Prior to that until unless stop MRP, open database and then we need to validate, So there is an interruption of recovery, I can say its also an advantage where there is no interruption of recovery.

  • Same SID for QA & Prd systems - pros and cons?

    We have the foll systems:
    1. Enterprise Portal 7.0
    2. NWDI 7.0
    3. NW 7.0 (with XECO - Ecommerce)
    4. TREX 7.1
    5. Content Server 6.40
    6. ECC 6.0
    Currently the QA and Prd systems have the same SID and system/instance no, although they are on different hosts.
    We would like to know what are the long term pros and cons for keeping the QA and Prd SIDs the same for all systems.
    We are already making a list, so thought we might as well get more inputs from the community too.
    We already have this arrangement for the past 3 months and have not faced any major issues.
    A couple of cons though:
    1. Cannot use solman as it cannot distinguish between the diff servers with same SID
    2. ABAP transports from QA to Prd have to be manually done (cannot use STMS)
    Thanks
    Prasad

    Hi Manoj,
    Changing the SID of java systems is a very tedious procedure. Hom sys copy is just a part of the SID change...there are a whole lot of configs to be done after that...the task is eq to a new setup of systems
    For once, the efforts put in are huge..you can see there are 5 systems..besides, it will involve coordination from all teams - basis, development, functional, project management.
    Here are a few advantages that we know of:
    1. No efforts reqd to change back to original SID
    2. During disaster recovery, we just have to restore the production database on QA and change the hostname, whereas its not so in case of having diff SIDs
    3. For end-users this will be transparent because they will be using the hostname in the URL which is anyways different
    We have the same SIDs for the past 3 months and have not seen major issues, but we also would like to know from the long term perspective if there are any risks that we have not foreseen...hence we seek help from the community.
    Hope its clear now
    Thanks for your response
    Prasad

  • KM Cache and iView Cache - Pros and Cons

    Hi All,
    Can anyone tell me which Caching mechanism is better - KM Caching or iView Caching ?
    What are the Pros and Cons of KM Caching and iView Caching ? Which type of caching is recommended ?
    Any kind of help is appreciated.
    Regards,
    Adren

    Hi Adren,
    As to my understanding, with Portal Cache, we can achieve the following:
    1. Significant improvement in the interface response time
    2. Unnecessary, additional page generation (re-rendering) is avoided when you call a portal page
    3. Web browser-like caching for server-based, dynamic pages in the Web (such as the BW Application Web)
    Cache monitor to monitor the current status of all active caches in your system landscape. The data displayed in the cache monitor can be used for evaluations
    KM cache might eb better than Iview cache.
    Please check the below links we might get soem info about the type of cache which is preferable.
    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04s/helpdata/en/1d/33863c68bebc2ce10000000a114027/frameset.htm
    http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/57/29e334d0049967e10000009b38f83b/frameset.htm
    https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/b52de690-0201-0010-c5a6-b4bde0a12e44
    Hope this helps you.
    Good Luck!
    Regards,
    Shaila...

  • Pros And Cons of Subforms and Groups?

    Does anyone know of any pros and cons related to how things are grouped, either via an object group or a subform? Are there any specific reasons to use groups and not subforms - subforms and not groups?
    For those who care to know a little more, not just questions...
    In designing my forms I have taken this approach:
    Groups (created by selecting Layout > Group) - I use groups for grouping simple objects (Text, Lines, Rectangles, etc.) which build the "static" portion of the form.
    Subforms (created by drawing, or "wrapping" objects together) - I use Subforms for field objects (Text Fields, Numeric Fields, Decimal Fields, Check Boxes, Radio Buttons, Date/Time Fields, etc.) which act as the "live" or "dynamic" portion of the form.
    I like this way of organizing the objects. It seems to make "sense" at least to me, and it also helps in terms of aligning objects, and so on. However, of course, it is not necessary to segregate the objects this much. So what is the preferred or recommended method? All opinions or suggestions are welcome!

    Actually, there's a big difference between using groups and subforms to relate objects to each other although if you don't use any scripting and/or data binding, you probably wouldn't notice much difference.
    Once you get into scripting and/or data binding, the use of groups and subforms makes a significant difference because groups (which are actually <area> XFA objects) are "invisible" when it comes to scripting and data binding.
    This means that if, on a page, you had 4 text fields, each named TextField1/2/3/4, and TextField1/2 were grouped while TextField3/4 were wrapped in a subform (named "Subform") and you needed to access these text fields from the context of the page, you would do:
    TextField1 OR TextField2
    because they're grouped with an <area> tag which is transparent in the Object Model. If, on the other hand, you needed to access the 3rd and 4th text field, you would do:
    Subform.TextField3 OR Subform.TextField4
    because subforms are defined in the XFA Scripting Object Model.
    The use of groups and subforms also affects data binding. That is, it affects the way XML data imported into your form is used to populate values of fields. For instance, if your data looked like this:
    <data>
    <TextField1>1</TextField1>
    <TextField2>2</TextField2>
    <TextField3>3</TextField3>
    <TextField4>4</TextField4>
    </data>
    and your form had TextField1/2 grouped into a group named "Group", TextField3/4 wrapped into a subform named "Subform" and then another TextField3/4 which were siblings to the Subform and Group objects but placed
    prior to the Subform object in the object hierarchy, importing the above data into the form would populate TextField1/2 in the Group object and TextField3/4 which are siblings to the Group and Subform objects -- not TextField3/4 which are wrapped in the Subform object.
    Now let's say your data was as follows:
    <data>
    <TextField1>1</TextField1>
    <TextField2>2</TextField2>
    <Subform>
      <TextField3>3</TextField3>
      <TextField4>4</TextField4>
    </Subform>
    </data>
    This would result in populating TextField1/2 in the Group and, as opposed to the first scenario, TextField3/4 which are wrapped in the Subform object.
    This is a very simple example to prove a point. If you think about it a little, the implications -- especially concerning data binding -- are quite large. To help illustrate this further, I've attached a sample form with the hierarchy I described earlier as well as two data files: data1.xml is the first one I described in this post, while data2.xml is the second one. Try importing both into the form to see the differences in the results and then compare the object hierarchy in the Hierarchy palette with the nesting of the data nodes in the data files.
    Finally, there's also the fact that subform instances can be created and deleted dynamically at runtime while groups cannot have instances. For dynamic forms, this is a big consideration.
    Stefan
    Adobe Systems

  • SAPSPRINT vs Local Printers (Pro and Cons)

    Hi guys.
    Anyone can help me out citing pro and cons by installing a SAPSPRINT over windows vs having printers installed directy over the Iseries Server.
    Its planned to install productive printers which are very critical, so we would like to devise the best approach.
    By installing the SAPSPRINT would avoid the bottlenecks if the printers are installed locally?
    Thanks!

    Hi Markus, nice to see you.
    I agree with the fact that a central print server you can have a better administration of your printers.
    My concern is that based on Note 19706 - Tuning the Spooler, productive printers must never be defined with access type U or S, and all printers created on that print server are type U, which is the recommended access method for remote printers.
    Group 1 (Productive printer):
    All printers with the shortest possible response time.
    For example: Goods receipt/issue sheets, delivery notes, patient entry sheets,...
    Printers with a fast response (Group 1):
    Devices with short response times must NEVER be defined with access type 'U' or 'S'. When a problem occurs (e.g. network problems, PC is switched off etc.), a single printer linked to a work process by access type 'U' disturbs all the connected printers. All printers in this group MUST be linked with access type 'L' or 'C' (depending on the operating system). If they are not linked to the server, they must be defined in the host spooler as "remote printers" and forwarded via the the host spooler.
    So why this note recommends to put printers locally in order avoid network issues and so on, but SAP also recommends a SAPSPRINT as printing solution?
    Does SAPSPRINT overrule any recommendation to local printers and is a definite solution way better than local printing?
    Thanks Markus again

  • Neptune for UI development Pros and Cons

    Hi ,
    we are evaluating neptune for UI development for what are the pros and cons of using neptune.
    i see only that webdynpro abap developer can be easily moved to neptune , some javascript knowledge is still required.
    some question
    1) can neptune make calls to odata services ? do that requires code in javascript or ABAP
    2) any accelerators provided by neptune  like for workflow scenarios , list and details .
    3) can sap standard fiori apps extensibility  or modification is possible through neptune
    4) security if its accessing business functionality directly
    regards
    Yashpal

    Hi Yashpal,
    I will give you my view, but as Robbe says I work for the company and other SAP developers like DJ Adams has other development tool preferences than me ( I call his Sublime Text development spaghetti coding and he sees Neptune as a crutch that restricts a developer's freedom but this is just a friendly point-of-view discussion and I have promised him a beer in Walldorf next time our paths cross there)
    So the important message is that SAP has opened up their platform for different development tools and it is now a choice for the individual developer or SAP customer. This is a fantastic move by SAP and I think a bit overlooked by the community, Look at the new Xamarin partnership as an example (and yes they are a competitor, but I did mention them )
    Now the pros of Neptune are in my opinion:
    ABAP developer friendly development (removed 90% of JavaScripting needed)
    Connected to the SAP transport System (Software Logistics as is)
    Drag Drop designer that gives structured code (easy for a new developer to take over code, compared to the spaghetti provided by DJ <-  I'll need to buy a few extra beers for that remark)
    Native json communication provided by the Neptune Server (you can argue all you want about Odata, our solution is more flexible gives incredible performance and superb and easy to use offline capabilities)
    Integration with Adobe build, use an SAP program to generate hybrid apps  (The average ABAP developer does not install cordova and build hybrid apps - with Neptune he/she does)
    Integration with SMP. Automatic connection with the REST API's of SMP both on-premise and in the Cloud
    Reduced time to market. One of the largest SAP implementation partners in the Nordics stated that Neptune reduced development time by 80%
    Free templates (Advanced templates such as fully functional PM, HCM, SD templates are available Experience | Neptune Software  <- sorry for the marketing but you did ask)
    UI5, all of the other third-party tools (Not SAP tools like App Builder, Eclipse etc) uses non UI5 frameworks. I personally believe that SAPUI5 (UI5) is the future of SAP UX and thus it only makes sense to keep a common and future-proof framework.
    Network crunching. We optimize all networking. Which makes sense for mobility.
    no extra infrastructure needed - it is a certified add-on and takes 15 mins to install.
    Works with most versions of SAP. We even have alot of customers using 4.7 (we need the ICF so nothing lower). This is something the community often forgets. Yes it is cool to play with the latest Netweaver release, but do our customers have that installed?
    Cons (woot!)
    Cost, even if Neptune is very affordable it still requires license for productive usage (free for developers though - and hey we need to live as well ) So custom coding  is cheaper in respect to license (but not in TCO in my opinion)
    Generated code, even if we have added as much freedom to code custom JavaScript as possible there will always be restrictions in generated code compared to notepad. (But I haven't met an issue that couldn't be solved by custom coding in the Neptune Application Designer yet)
    Other backend systems. Neptune is based on ABAP and as such it obviosly works best with an ABAP backend.
    .... (Add stuff from other non Neptune ppl )
    Regarding your questions:
    1. Yes you can use Odata, best way is to consume it on the ABAP level, but you can of course consume it through JavaScript as well (Not recomended by me)
    2. Yes see above (free templates and also premium templates by our partners)
    3. No you can't modify a fiori app with Neptune, but the two solutions work perfectly together (You can add Neptune apps in the Fiori launchpad) One of our partners have created an RDS solution based on both Fiori and Neptune.
    4. Neptune is an add-on to Netweaver and as such has no extra security in itself beyond that (And we seek not to do that). But we support any security you wish to add on top. I strongly advice having a look at the SAP Secure offering (App protection and MDM)  as well as SMP (also the new Cloud edition which gives easy affordable protection for your backend)
    So that was my very biased answer
    Njål

  • HT204053 What are the pros and cons of 1) choosing to use the SAME Apple ID for iCloud services on one side, and purchases on the iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore, on the other side; or 2) to have and use two separate Apple Ids for these "two sides

    All is in the title, so I repeat it below with a better identation.
    What are the pros and cons of
    1) choosing to use the SAME
                                                  Apple ID for iCloud services on one side, and
                                                  purchases on the iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore, on the other side; or
    2) to have and use two separate Apple Ids for these "two sides"?
    P.S.
    I have loads and loads of free podcasts in iTunes in my iMac, that are certainly more thant the 5 gigas the iCloud provides for free, so I don't want those to go to the cloud. But this is perhaps a different question...
    Also need to mention that I have itunes on a mac, a pc and an iphone.
    Sorry to look so silly with this question, but I don't get the "big picture".

    You need to create a user account for your wife (or yourself depending on who has the current user account). When syncing, each of you should sign in as a separate user, login to iTunes and then sync. I had this problem when my sister got an iPhone. When we did her initial sync, everything on my iPhone showed up on hers. Apple gave me this solution.

  • What are the Pros and Cons while joining tables at DF and Universe level

    Hi Experts,
    I am new to Data federator designer. I need help on the below.
    Could you please let me know the Pros and Cons while joining the source tables in data federator
    And While joining the DF target tables in universe designer.
    Regards,
    Gana

    Hi,
    1. I have created target tables based on source tables with one to one mapping and then join all target tables in universe.
    Ex: Source tables: Infocube text tables, fact tables and 3rd party data base table
    Target tables:Target tables are same as source tables
    --- Yes this is the way to create target Tables  and join them in the universe.These target Tables gives you the flexibility  like in future your requirement is to add one more object based on some calculation which is not possible in the universe so that time you can create  one more column in the target table and do the calculation. at the same time if you are using source table you can not do anything.
    2. Created single target table with all objects of source tables and merged all sources tables data.
    Ex: Source tables: Infocube text tables, fact tables and 3rd party data base table
    Target table: Single table.
    --- This is bit complex structure to merge all tables data in the one target table.in this situation you have to put more efforts and it is more complex.basically this type of target table is useful when you are merging data by multiple source into single  or  creating one target table based on the  union of tables by adding two mapping rules or more and you can not join tables in universe.
    Better approach is first 1. create target tables based on the source tables and join them in the universe.
    Thanks,
    Amit

  • What are the pros and cons of installing java+abap stack for portal?

    Hi all,
      1.What are the pros and cons of installing java+abap stack for portal?
      2.what effect it does on the ume options to be choosen??
      3.for the purpose of integration of r3,bw and crm on portal and crm 4.0 60.2.3 business package which option of stack(java or abap or both)will be good option and which ume option while installation should be choosen?
    regards
    Rajendra

    Hi Rajendra,
    The NetWeaver Installation Master Guide offers some good scenarios on the pros and cons:
    https://websmp201.sapag.de/~sapidb/011000358700005412792005E.pdf
    In a nutshell:
    ABAP+JAVA
    Pros
    - Decrease # of servers required to administer the portal
    - Less costly
    Cons
    - Upgrades could be dependent on ABAP and Java release level
    - Additional load on the server due to ABAP stack
    - Limited scalability
    JAVA and ABAP on separate server
    Pros
    - Improved performance
    - Allows each system to be single-use purpose therefore downtime does not affect other components
    - More scalable
    Cons
    - Adds complexity to landscape
    - Additional costs
    Regards,
    Thomas Pham

Maybe you are looking for