Defining landscape with 2 development systems

Good Day All;
We have an interesting issue in defining our landscape in ChaRM. A bit of a background
We have 2 landscapes each with a development and quality system. Also there is a single volume test system. Both landscapes point to a single production system. So it would look like this
DW3               DW4
QW1               QW3
          VW1
          PW1
The DW3 landscape is defined as the production landscape (normal releases) and the DW4 landscape is defined as the emergency landscape. The emergency landscape is synchronized with the production landscape during a normal release.
The migration path for a normal release would be DW3, QW1, VW4, DW4, QW2, PW1.
The migration path for an emergency fix would be DW4, QW2, VW4 (if performance testing is required), PW1.
When a task list is generated, you are asked which development system, DW3 or DW4. When we select DW3, the task list starts at DW4, QW2, PW1, DW3, QW1, PW1 (We have not defined a volume VW4 system in or test landscape).
You will notice that the task list goes to PW1 twice. Is there a way to generate the task list in the correct order. DW3, QW1, DW4, QW2 and PW1.
Regards
Don Newton

Had re-posted this question

Similar Messages

Problem in BW development system.

Hi Experts,
I have problem with BW development system, some of the loads are failed freuently in the BW development and test clients, but they never fail in the production client.
and the error message I am able to see in the Header tab is
"IDocs were found in the ALE inbox for Source System that are not updated.
Processing is overdue."
So I am resolving the issue by " updating manually in OLTP system"
So can any one help me out what will be the problem and how it will be prevented permanently.
regards
sekhar

Hi,
In the system, the Basis team will setup a number of processors for certain specific jobs (you can view them via SM51), and they're ENQUEUE (1), DIALOG (about 6-7), BACKGROUND (3?), SPOOL (2). Each of them serve specific usage. Now when a BI* job comes into the system, it tries to run the job through the Background processors, and also locking up certain tables using the Enqueue. However, if at the point of running the job, there's already someone locking up the table or taking up all the background processors, this BI* job will have to wait until the lock is released or that the background processors are freed up. Hence this could lead to time out on the BI* jobs. It is very common for DEV to be setup with minimal number of processors for each, since the usage is pretty much restricted to the Development team alone.
As for the number of dialog processors, I recalled that there's an OSS note advising on the number of processors to be setup in the environment as a basic setup.
Of course it is also wise to check on the BD87 and the dumps - ST22 and SM21 transactions to find out more information on the reasons of termination.
Thus, frequent termination of jobs is usually related to hardware constraint, or genuinely some configuration setting in the IDOC setup.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Gimmo

Using ChaRm with 2 Development (source) systems

Good Day;
Before I get into the full description of an issue we are facing. I would like to know if anyone out there is using ChaRM and has 2 development systems defined.
Regards
Don

Thanks Avinash
This is the problem I am having
We have 2 landscapes each with a development and quality system. Also there is a single volume test system. Both landscapes point to a single production system. So it would look like this
DW3           DW4
QW1           QW2
           VW1
            PW1
The DW3 landscape is defined as the production landscape (normal releases) and the DW4 landscape is defined as the emergency landscape. The emergency landscape is synchronized with the production landscape during a normal release.
The migration path for a normal release would be DW3, QW1, VW4, (now synchronizing) DW4, QW2, PW1.
The migration path for an emergency fix would be DW4, QW2, VW4 (if performance testing is required), PW1.
All these systems are defined in the ChaRM landscape
When a task list is generated, you are asked which development system, DW3 or DW4. When the task list is generated, it starts at DW4, QW2, PW1, DW3, QW1, PW1 (We have not defined a volume VW4 system in or test landscape).
As well when a creating a transport, and DW3 is selected, ChaRm generates an error stating the task list is out of sequence,
You will notice that the task list goes to PW1 twice. Is there a way to generate the task list in the correct order. DW3, QW1, DW4, QW2 and PW1.
Regards
Don Newton

2 Developement Systems (4 System Landscape)???

Dear all,
an Idea of a person in our project is (because he wants make make sure that nobody/no further project destroys - nonsense but reality) that we have to customize new objects etc. in a further development system AB2 an transport these into the original developmet system AB1.
Does anybody could give me some points pro or cons or have experience in such a construction?
Many thanks
DiDi

Pro:
Provided access is limited in the new development system, the design should be stable and controlled
If using a strict and unique naming convention, you can prevent collisions and overwriting
Con:
Expensive to allocate hardware/resource to configure new landscape
If objects are transported with the same technical names, collisions and overwriting will occur
I think every situation is different, but the most typical scenario and justification for a dual landscape is having one system to support break fixes in the current production environment and another system for new projects. Making a new system for each project introduces more complexities. If you have too many projects going on simultaneously, raise the issue to the program manager or someone who has visibility over multiple projects.

CHARM with a 2 system landscape

Hello ,
we have only a 2 system landscape for our ERP systems.
When I now click on the check button on the maintainance project. I receive an error :
No consolidation system found for DEV-001 (project TEST_CHARM)
No track for project TEST_CHARM with log. system P23/001
Message from function module /TMWFLOW/CHECK_PRJ_CONS: No export system for DEV-001
TMS ( without any client routes)
DEV->PROD
Any suggestions ?
Regards

Hi Daniel,
we are using CHaRM in various transport landscapes with 2 and up to 5 systems. This is all working fine. Please make sure there is a consolidation transport route from DEV, also all RFC connections from Solution Manager to your Transport Landscape are set up, inlcuding 000 clients.
TMS settings need CTC=1, and Trusted Services in STMS need to be activated.
Other prerequsites are:
- Systems are deined in SMSY
- Transport Domain link between Transport domain controllers
- Logical components defined in SMSY (with correct system roles)
- Lofical component added to SMI project
If this is all fine, please hit button "Shipment Routes" in SOLAR_PROJECT_ADMIN in tab page "System Landscape" => "Systems" You should see all transport routes required for this project.
If this works, you are in a good shape.
Best Regards,
Holger Slomka

System Landscape (Dual Development System)

Dear SAP Experts,
We have Two-System Landscape(DEV-PRD) Whereas cross-client data is used in both the Customizing and quality assurance clients.
Currently, our company, just merged with another non-SAP-using company. The First move is to implement FI module and subsequently, all modules that we are now using.
My boss discussed with me if we could create another DEV server for company B to use for their customizing and QA clients as not to impenge on our already customized set up.
Please advise if this set up is possible, and if not, Can anyone kindly give an advise how to approach my problem?
I'll give good points for the help that i can get.
Best Regards,
Jay

You can do this. We currently have two Dev environments one for projects based on NetWeaver integration with our ECC systems and one for regular development / run and maintain.
I suggest doing a system copy of your development and rename the SID / hostname were it appears in the profiles and home directories for UNIX platforms. Then perform post steps for SE06, printers, profiles, RFC etc...
For Microsoft install a CI instance and do a database copy to have current data. Then do post copy steps in SAP.
Although SAP suggests not to refresh Development systems, we do it at least once a year to get current applicaiton data.
Think of it as a sandbox.
If you don't want to integrate your data with the new system, skip the database copy portion for Microsoft and do a fresh install for Unix.
Hope this helps.

System landscape with one missing Hana (2 Hana / 3 ECC)

Hi all,
We’re currently working in a landscape with only 2 Hana: one for DEV+Integration (to be connected to 2 ECC : DEV and INT) and the other for the production system (connected to the prod ECC). Any idea on how we can deliver our tested developments on the same environment (the dev) for integration testing ?
On the DEV system we would like to have a development version of each object connected to the DEV ECC and an integration version of the same objects connected to the INT ECC.
We can copy all objects from one package (dev) to another (int), change the authoring schema and adapt all the inside references. I’m looking for an easier way, ideally with delivery units (which should be the way we will deliver our views on the production system).
Any input will be appreciated…
Regards,
Fred

Dear Beate;
Thanks for your question!
One of the key advantages and strategic benefits from our SAP SLcM solution is the fact that we are directly/automatically connected with core (academic supporting) backoffice processes like HR and Finance.
On the HR side we share for example the Organizational Management foundation and at the Finance side we are directly tapped into the core financial processes powered by the FICA engine of ERP.
If there are no strong/solid compelling reasons (beside the emotional ones ) to have a point-solution installation of SLcM we always recommend to have SLcM running inside the existing available business suite/ERP. Why?
Direct, automatic integration with HCM (HR)
Direct, automatic integration with FICA (Finance), from tuition fee to collection and distribution to general ledger)
Re-use of key supporting business suite engines like:
1. Workflow
2. Authorisation module
3. DMS
Maintenance of only one system instead of multiple ones
You avoid building and maintaining extra 'interfaces' between ERP1 and ERP2+SLcM.
Etc.
Hope this helps!
Let me know if you have any other concerns or want to have a call, please drop me an e-mail.
Kind regards
Rob
SAP IBS Solution Management (Higher) Education & Research.

How can I build a LabView application that uses the 2012 runtime, on a development system with LabView 2013 or 2014 installed?

I need to build a LabView application .exe to run with the 2012 Runtime, for legacy support. I currently have LabView 2013 installed on my development system, and have 2014 available. How can I build an application that uses the 2012 runtime on this development system? Do I have to downgrade to 2012? Thank you.

We have existing customers that have installed our application that was originally built with 2012 (provided by a contractor that is no longer available). Due to IT regulations, it is far easier to update these customers by simply replacing the .exe file, than creating an install that their IT department must run.
If I have to downgrade to LabView 2012, where can I get the installation for this?

Two ABAP Development Clients with Transport enabled in Development System

Hello All,
I have a unique situation in my development systems. We currently have two abap development clients with client settings which allows repository transports to be created. The reason for this setup is because there are two different abap development teams who want to work independently.
Has anyone see two development clients in development system? Do you see any risk with having two abap development clients with transport enbaled? Should I force them to work in ONLY ONE ABAP development client?
I would like to know your thoughts?
Thx...Rocky

Hello,
It may not a good idea to have two development clients. You have to manage with the following issues:
(1) Customizing transports need to be moved to two clients
(2) You may have to peridically sync. them between each other with all the development objects
(3) Data needs to refreshed in two clients for development/unit test purposes
(4) Same object may be edited in two clients independently at the same time which is likely to go to Production at different times resulting in version sequencing issues
(5) Vension of data of object will be lost if you want to retrieve old version.
Thanks,
Venu

I have Snow Leopard ver.10.6.8 and I have uninstalled iwork, because I don't have the equation writer on pages. So I re install it from the iwork's disk and when I tried to open any of the Apps, the system told me " check with the developer to make sure

I have Snow Leopard ver.10.6.8 and I have uninstalled iwork, because I don't have the equation writer on pages. So I re install it from the iwork's disk and when I tried to open any of the Apps, the system told me " check with the developer to make sure Keynote (for example) works with this version of Mac OS X "
iwork was running in my computer just a few moment ago !
Can anyone tell me what can I do? thanks

So I re install it from the iwork's disk
Did you repair permissions and restarted your computer after the installation? Check SU?

Transports on system landscape with no test environment

Hi,
Please share your experience about transporting from BWD to BWP. I have normally worked with BWD, BWQ, BWP, where we have the chance to test our transports on BWQ before moving the perfect changes to BWP. What precautions should I take when working and dealing with the landscape with no test instance?
Thanks
"Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate." ~ Henry David Thoreau, US Transcendentalist author (1817 - 1862)

Hi all,
Certainly I see and hear that smaller companies don't have enough funds to implement 3- system landscape, but I don't see why they would want to do that - better save money then and just do ABAP R3 reporting if all you will have is just implementing one module. Aren't you suppose to have sufficient funds in order to maintain and have SAP R3 and BW running? When they start wanting to implement more modules, then it will get clumsy and unstructured. They would have to spend more effort in doing the workaround and dealing with an unruly environment.
Thanks
"When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb
"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky, Russion Literaturer (1821 - 1881)
"Be smart and know who you're dealing with...But again who wants to" ~ Anonymous

Replacing development system with copy of production system during upgrade

Hello Guru,
We are planning to replace our development ECC 5.0 system with a copy of production system, and to perform upgrade to ECC 6.0.
SAP upgrade guide stating that:
"If you have modified SAP objects, make sure that you keep your development sysetem. Do not copy your production system to your development system for test purpose."
If we are planning to "Reset to original" for majority of SAP's objects during SPAU, are there other reasons we need to consider the impact of replacing development system with a copy of production system?
Thanks in advance!

Thanks for your response.
When we first implemented SAP system 3 and half years ago, the consultants and the developers were using the development system like a sandbox system, they tried out features or developed programs for learning purpose.
Hence, the development system and production system are very different.
There are many repair transport requests that will never transport into production.
Also, we developed client strategy (different client numbers for each system u2013 Dev, QA, Prod) during the initial implementation.
We were told by the upgrade consultant, it is standard that the development system replaced by a copy of production system during upgrade. The client number in development system will be the same as the production system after upgrade. If I want to avoid confusion for the developer & testing users, I would have to create a new client using the previous development client number, and then perform client copy.
As I review the SAP upgrade guide, I saw the statement about not to replace development system with production system, I would like to know the reasons behind SAP's statement.
By the way, we will replace our QA system with a copy of production system during the upgrade.

Signal Express not activated with Labview Full Development System Volume License

I'm using a volume license manager to generate license for disconnected machines. I just upgraded to Labview 2009. The license files work for labview but are not working for signal express. I have the Labview full development system which included signal express in the past. Both labview and signal express work fine on my computer that also has the volume licensing manager software installed. This computer is connected to the license server. I need to get signal express activated on my disconnected machines.

LabVIEW Full Development licenses still include Signal Express. Are you saying that whenever you are connected to the server you can run Signal Express just fine, but whenever you create a disconnected license Signal Express is not able to launch? Can you verify that you are, in fact, checking a license out from the server whenever you are connected to the network?
If you still have trouble I would recommend calling NI support so we could get more informatioin (such as your license file, contract ID, etc).

E-recruimtment: Question about landscape standalone with several HR Systems

Hi,
We are going to start with the implementation of E-recruitment , normally version 6.0.
The aim is to install 1 e-recruitment system as a standalone system who shall communicate with several HR systems of several companies (subsidiary company in different coountries Luxembourg, France, Belgium) and probably those HR systems (backend) runs on different versions.
So the aim is that every company shall search for its own candidates in the e-recruitment system and shall do its own hirings.
Up till now it isn't clear for us how this works ?
Thus anybody have already experience of such a landsccape who is willing to share his information ?
Wat are the benefits, the disadvantages, the difficulties, are there things we have to think about , ...
Kind Regards
Pascale

Hello Rachael,
you cannot split the so called pool of talents. every applicant has the option to release his profile in the system. if he does so, he agrees to be assigned / checked to any other requisition (=position) you open in your e-recruiting system. When you open a new requisition you can check if you already have suitable candidates in the system to get in contact with instead of finding new ones (you can just put him on the requisition). In the more strategic overall talent management topic one goal is to have a pool filled with critical applicant groups (engineers, sales people, researchers. ... - the short and strategic necessary applicant groups according to your business) to hire fast (and cheap).
This pool is accessable to every recruiter in standard. There is no restriction that if an applicant applied for company A a recruiter from company B cannot take him and get in contact with him.
For the requisition handling. Requisitions are always restricted to its recruiting team. If you create a requisition you assing the people who have to work with it (and the roles they have for the process). Recruiters can only access the requisitions they belong to. So this should not be a problem. By maintaining the company and branch for a requisition you can always find out which requisition belongs to which company and react on this in correspondences for example.
Managers are not really assigned to requisitions. Their task is restricted to request requisitions (of course in this case they become a member of the recruiting team). The candidate handling works by questionairs. The manager gets a list of requisitions and assigned candidates he is supposed to evaluate. The evaluation is done via filling the questionaire. He has no direct access to all candidates in the system.
The 2 ECC systems for one E-Recruiting standalone system are possible - unfortunately with some restrictions.
There are 2 ways of communication. The HR system has to deliver all employees and if you want to integrate OM all org.units, positions and jobs to the e-recruiting system. The employees get internal candidates for internal recruitment and even if you do not plan do use this every recruiter, manager needs a candidate to work with the system. The standard way for this is ALE. If you have a consolidated HR system infrastructure with non overlapping employee IDs and organizational unit IDs you can easily transfere data from both system into the e-recruiting system. If the number ranges overlap you will need special adaptions for mapping Ids for global identification. This might get a very chalanging task exp. if you include OM.
The other way is transfering hirings to the HR systems. This is more tricky. If you really plan to use this function (note that due to the restrictions in the function not all implementations use it anyways) you will need some custome developments. How much effort is needed for that would need more info on the systems and the requirements. I think in the best scenario I could imaging it would take me 5 days but as usual the sky is the limit if it's more complex.
Best Regards
Roman Weise

How do you move changes from your project developments into the maintenance development system?

Good day colleagues.
We are in the process of introducing retrofit, and the picture is clear for us, generally speaking, to retrofit the project landscape with the changes done in the maintenance landscape.
What about the other way around? We mean, when the project is set to Go Live, we understand the transports will be all added, e.g. to the Production System buffer to be moved there via Maintenance Cycle, based on the way we defined the project and the logical component being used.
However, how do you feed those project transports to your Maintenance Development System using ChaRM? or do you do that Manually? We doubt. Copying Production back into Development? no way !!!
How do you establish that? We have a sort of idea but the documents about retrofit only seem to talk about moving transports one way, as far as we have found.
Many thanks for any feedback.
Juan Carlos

Hi Piyush.
I apologize for a late close on this questioning about moving projects back into the maintenance stream.
Basically there are 2 solutions as far as we know:
1. What Vivek mentions, which is performing a cutover and repacking the project transports into 2 transports in the maintenance stream: A workbench and a customizing.   In that sense, at the end of the day you end up moving just 2 transports to the maintenance stream up to Production.   They contain all your project objects. Thanks to Vivek, again.
This is a very practical and interesting approach. The only reason we did not adopt it, is based on the fact that if by any chance we encounter an issue with a project transport object in the maintenance stream (Dev or QA), now that all is bundled together, we may be stuck right at the time weare getting ready to GoLive. How tough is going to be that issue? how easy and quick to fix?how much would that affect the whole project time frame?   Those questions made us decide to option 2.
2. What we are doing is that at cutover we move at the same time all project transports to the transport buffer of each of the maintenance stream systems (Dev, QA, and Prod).   We first open the gate to move the transports to Dev and we test, then to QA and we test, as well. If there may be an issue, and the issue can not be quickly resolved by the project team, we can go up to the extreme of using a new feature introduced in ChaRM in SP10, if we are not wrong, but definitely available in SP12. That feature provides a way to selectively decide which transports of the release are to Go Live and which ones do not, although we have no had to use that feature, yet, but it is there.
We do not see any risk on adding the transports to the maintenance buffers at the same time. There are ways to control the systems that are open for receiving transports, and the project phases, which guarantees no room for error. There have to be deliberate actions taken (more than one in our case), to wrongly move a project to GoLive before its time comes.
That is more or less the scenario Piyush.
Hope that explains the scenario. So far no decision on really publishing as a blog. It seems not to be written on stone, as consulting with different companies, each adds its own flavor to the recipe and shuffle ideas to get to what they are looking for and makes them happy.
Juan

Defining landscape with 2 development systems

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for