Performance in a sync-rfc -- xi -- rfc-call

hi,
we are designing an web application where several systems are involved. A portal application (webdynpro) calls via jco in a sap system (sysA). sysA is connected to other sap systems (FI, HR, ...).
My question: Is it advisable to put the XI between sysA and the other backend systems for synchronous calls? sysA calls through rfc in the other systems. Don't I have performance problems?
Example scenario: A user puts some data in the portal application and he clicks on the save-button. Now the data are passed to sysA (JCO), then a synchronous rfc-call, over the XI, stores them in the backend-systems and returns a return-message. The return-message is then displayed to the user (webfrontend).
We have to decide wheter to use the XI or not, and havn't the time to make a performance analysis. For this I hope in your help!
Regards,
Thomas

Hi Thomas,
no, i dont expect significant performance damage. Of coz requesting application has to wait 4 answer, but it has wait anyway 4 sap response, the XI part of processing time will be less than 10% (my experience).
I would see
advantage XI: better monitoring, better error handling, central repository and so on. The usual XI advantages.
handicap XI: You have a working system. If you are pleasured - why invest money?
Regards,
Udo

Similar Messages

Sync RFC call from XI

Hi
I've a requirement for a XI Inbound Order that I need to check for each MATNR on the Order Line it's associated Division (SPART). Once I know the Division I'll then split up the Order per Division.
Can I from my BPM collect the message, call a RFC via Send Sync Step to return the Divisions and then continue with my transformation ?
I was looking for an example of how to call an RFC from a BPM. NOT using Sync<>Async bridge.
Does anybody have a link to a blog etc for that.?

Hi,
You can either use RFC lookup in mapping or use Sync RFC call in the BPM.
Refer the Blog RFC Scenario using BPM --Starter Kit By Arpith Seth for Sync RFC call in BPM.
Refer this document [Mapping Lookups: Remote Function Calls API|https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/a03e7b02-eea4-2910-089f-8214c6d1b439] for making RFC lokup from mapping.
Thanks
SaNv...

Sync RFC call from BPM - message expired

Hi guys,
I have a scenario with BPM where I'm doing a sync RFC call to ECC and then I want to process the result. However, the processing of BAPI take approx 5 minutes and my messages get expired after 3 minutes.
How to resolve this issue?
Thanks a lot,
Olian

Hello,
Problem might be at BAPI end. Please check BAPI by executing with your set of inputs. If BAPI goes for exception for yoru set of input values.. you may not get response from R3. So you might have error..
secondly.. Please post the error in the communication channel and errro in the SXMB_Moni as well.
Thanks,
subbu

Performance issue due to RFC calls. (R/3 to R/3 system)

Hi,
My application face serious performance problem because of RFC calls (R/3 system to R/3 system).
1)is there any transaction code for doing performance analysis on RFC calls in R/3 system?
2)How far large volume of Data Transfer (mainly due to internal tables) in a RFC call affects the performance? is there any limit for data transfer size at a time in a RFC call? if so how to calculate for best performance?
Thanks and regards,
Prakash.

Hi Andreas,
Suppose an RFC enabled Fm having an internal table as importing parameter.During execution of this Fm with 4000 enteries for the internal table results in performance degrading.is there any way to improve the performance?.
Thanks and regards,
Prakash.

"No Receiver Determined" in BPM Sync RFC Call

My scenario is xml file -> XI BPM -> RFC1 -> RFC2 (will call RFC2 if RFC1 is successful).
I am still just trying to get the RFC1 call working properly. I have been using blogs 1822, 1403 and 1926. I have also used some related BPM threads. It seems to be making the RFC call properly, but failing on the response.
<SAP:Code area="RCVR_DETERMINATION">NO_RECEIVER_CASE_BE
<SAP:P1 />
<SAP:P2 />
<SAP:P3 />
<SAP:P4 />
<SAP:AdditionalText />
<SAP:ApplicationFaultMessage namespace="" />
<SAP:Stack>No receiver could be determined</SAP:Stack>
These docs show my IB Repository and Directory setups. Can anyone look at them and tell me what is missing? Thanks in advance!
http://webpages.charter.net/kpwendel2/bsmDir.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/kpwendel2/bsmRep.jpg

Keith,
the problem is quite clear.
In your BPM, you have a synchronous interface in your sync send step.
However, in configuration, you have configured two asynchronous interfaces.
To be able to use sync send step in BPM, your RFC needs to be able to send a response back. Then you need to have two message mappings (one for bpm->rfc messages, and other for rfc_response -> bpm_response messages) and a interface mapping between the 2 sync interfaces (bpm_sync_int -> rfc_sync_int) using these 2 message mappings.
Also, some hints:
1. Don't do these mappings in BPM transformation step. You can execute them outside of BPM. Doing this, you will get better performance and also won't need to create abstract interfaces for RFC messages.
2. Use configuration wizard in Integration Directory (first, remove and reimport your BPM in Integration Directory). This way, you avoid different interfaces errors.
Regards,
Henrique.

Optimize the performance of the RFC call between ECC and CRM

Hi,
We are planning to extract sales orders, sales activites and service orders to dispaly it on the PDF factsheet of the account.
As of now, the PDF factsheet takes a long time to retrieve the data from ECC to CRM. Can you please suggest us on ways to optimize the performance of the RFC call between ECC and CRM.
Thanks in advance,
Vamsi.

Hello,
[SAP Note 636906 |https://service.sap.com/sap/support/notes/636906]is quite useful here.
Many times, the performance is poor due to function module CRM_CCKPT_EXPORTSUMMARY. This function module gets the customer number, the sales organization and the fact sheet view. If in CRM customizing, you use complete view (001), then all the views in ERP including all the info blocks will be retrieved, which will cause performance issue.
To solve the issue, please use a limited view to retrieve the data from ERP - especially a view, which does not contain info block 013.
Hope it helps
Joaquin

Perform a RFC call

Hi!
My scenario is as follows: IDoc -> XI -> Email
This works fine, but now I need to do a RFC call back to the server which sent the IDoc to XI to get the email address of the receiver dynamically.
I imported the corresponding RFC (BAPI_ISUTASK_GETCOMMCONTROL) from the other server into the Integration Repository.
Now I'm not sure how to continue. How can I do this RFC call? Do I need to create a ccBPM or can I solve my problem in an easier way?
Regards,
Daniel

Hi!
Many thanks for your replies
I tried the way with message lookups like Michal wrote in this article: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.km.cm.docs/library/uuid/801376c6-0501-0010-af8c-cb69aa29941c
It worked nice, so I can retrieve an XML document which includes the email addresses.
Now I'm trying to extend the user defined function to get the required information out of the XML string and return this value. Seems to be not so easy
Regards,
Daniel

Are implicit DB commits initiated when there are Sync or Async RFC call

BC414,Page 3-8 says, whenever there are synchronous and asynchronous rfc calls,implicit DB commits are always initiated.
But I test it in ABAP program as following steps.
1: insert data into dbtable.
2: Call Function "RFCFunction".(within this function, insert data into dbtable).
3: Rollback Work.
All the data is not inserted into db table at all.
Are there anything wrong with my understanding?

Hi!
Strange behavior. Yes, every remote call (can) cause an implicit commit work (or is anyway linked to commit work, 'in background'...).
Also implicit commit works should end a database LUW -> no rollback any longer (see http://saphelp.euroset.lan///EN/41/7af4bfa79e11d1950f0000e82de14a/frameset.htm).
Currently my first guess would be: being on same application server is an exception.
There are quite a number of places, where a implicit commit work occurs (e.g. wait!, PAI). Instead of wondering, why in one exception rollback is still working, remind these cases and build up save booking procedures.
Regards,
Christian

ASync RFC -- Sync RFC -- SOAP scenario: do I need BPM?

Hi,
I have this scenario. ASync RFC --> PI --> Sync RFC --> PI --> SOAP scenario.
Here are the details.
1. users run async RFC and it will pass data to PI.
2. PI will call Sync RFC with received data and get the data.
3. PI now calls web service with received data from #2.
Do I need BPM to implement this scenario.
Thank you.
-Won

I'm still wondering if it's possible to perform my scenario without using RFC lookup or BPM.
Yes, it is possible.
I want to see if PI supports sequence of calling RFC, JDBC, web service, etc and pass data to
the next call in sequence... without BPM...
Yes, PI supports that. Please make a search on SDN, there are numerous blogs / posts which talks about A/S bridge without BPM.

Is there any way to limit the number of RFC calls from xMII to SAP R/3

Hi All!
I wanted to know whether the number of simultaneous RFC connections made from xMII to SAP R/3 system can be controlled in any way. Suppose we have a scenario wherein some million Sales Orders or Production Orders are to be updated in SAP R/3 from xMII in a short span of time. For all these updations to take place, multiple RFC calls will be established from xMII to SAP at the same time. This will increase the load on the SAP R/3 system and affect performance of the SAP R/3 system. Is there any check on xMII side to limit the number of RFC calls that can be made to SAP R/3 system?
Regards
Anupam

Anupam,
If you are using 11.5 just keep in mind that the JCO connection points to a single application server (based upon the SAP Server alias connection settings), but the traffic itself to make a BAPI request is effectively the same as any client user traffic. There will obviously be limitations on performance and throughput, with network and server constraints added to the number and size of the R/3 requests, but there is no magic formula to plug-in because of all of these variables.
If you are using 12.0 (or plan to migrate when it goes GA) then taking advantage of the JRA (java resource adapter) and the associated application server pooling that it offers on the NetWeaver side of things will greatly help you in the throughput capacity.
If you have put some of your xMII application into either test or productive use and are running into issues then I would highly recommend entering the specifics into the customer / partner support portal so that they can help you through any associated problems.
Regards,
Jeremy Good

Performance Issue related to RFC

Hi All,
Iam moving attachments from CRM to R/3 .For this Iam using RFC.If Iam attaching multiple files at a time.Do I need to call the RFC in Loop or should I call it Once for all attachments.Which gives better PERFORMANCE.
One more thing If I call the RFC in SYNCHRONOUS mode what happends if the server is down the other side for two to three days.
If I call the RFC in ASYNCHRONOUS mode I need to work on the return values of the RFC.How to handle this situation.
Plz give me the reply as early as possible.
Thanks,
Saritha

Hi,
If an RFC Channel already exists between the client and server the same channel will be used between the systems. Hence, even calling in a loop should not be a problem. But in here the data needs to go one by one through the channel. Try to send them in a table as this goes as one chunk of data.
In case of ASYNCHRONOUS also if you want to receive results then the called system should be up. for this the syntax is
CALL FUNCTION 'FM' STARTING NEW TASK DESTINATION <dest>
PERFORMING <form> ON END OF TASK
EXPORTING
EXCEPTIONS
FORM <form> USING taskname.
RECEIVE RESULTS FROM <fm>
IMPORTING
ENDFORM.
But in any case, the called system should be open for connections.
Try if possible tRFC calls.
Regards,
Goutham

Performance Tuning in HTTP - RFC Interface

Hi,
I'm currently working on a HTTP --> RFC scenario and facing slow performance issues. When I test this interface with a transaction having 1 line item, the response from RFC is instantaneous. However, when there are about 400 line items, the average response time from RFC is about 8-9 seconds. When this interface goes live, there will be transactions with > 1000 line items. I'm really worried about the performance going down, as performance is a major criteria for deploying this interface.
Could you suggest any steps to improve the performance/reduce the response time?
Thanks,
Guru

Guru,
Disable all the Fields in the RFC which you are not using / populating.
One of my colleagues faced a similar problem and when they disabled the fields which were not being used when triggering the RFC call, the perfromance improved drastically.
Also, turn off logging of Synch Messages as this also can cause perfromance issues.
SXMB_ADM --> Integration Engine Configuration --> LOGGING_SYNC should be set to 0
Regards
Bhavesh

Passing chinese character from RFC call between unicode & non unicode syst.

Hi Experts,
I am making a RFC call from an ABAP in non unicode system to a Function module in Unicode system and filling the itab fields in ABAP by using move statement and using offset in order to populate amount fields correctly from flat structure tables returned by function module. But i am facing problem in getting chinese characters correctly in return from the Remote Function Module.
        CALL FUNCTION 'ZFXX_GET_CLR_OI'
          STARTING NEW TASK W_TASKNAME
          DESTINATION S_RFCDES-LOW
          PERFORMING F3100_GET_RFC_DATA ON END OF TASK
          EXPORTING
            P_WAERS               = P_WAERS             "Screen Curr
            P_AUGDT               = P_AUGDT             "Clearing date
            P_BUKRS               = P_BUKRS             "Comp Code
          TABLES
            T_SEL_TABLE           = T_SEL_TABLE
            T_OUTPUT              = T_MCDATA
            T_ERRORS              = T_EMCDATA
          EXCEPTIONS
            COMMUNICATION_FAILURE = 1
            SYSTEM_FAILURE        = 2
            OTHERS                = 3.
       MOVE : t_mcdata1-line+0(32)   TO t_succs-awsys,
               t_mcdata1-line+32(4)   TO t_succs-bukrs,
               t_mcdata1-line+36(10) TO t_succs-belnr,
               t_mcdata1-line+46(4)   TO t_succs-gjahr,
               t_mcdata1-line+50(1)   TO t_succs-shkzg,
               t_mcdata1-line+51(2)   TO t_succs-bschl,
               t_mcdata1-line+53(4)   TO t_succs-gsber,
               t_mcdata1-line+57(16) TO t_succs-dmbtr,
               t_mcdata1-line+73(16) TO t_succs-wrbtr,
               t_mcdata1-line+89(5)   TO t_succs-pswsl,
               t_mcdata1-line+94(6)   TO t_succs-vbund,
               t_mcdata1-line+100(10) TO t_succs-hkont,
               t_mcdata1-line+110(10) TO t_succs-prctr,
               t_mcdata1-line+120(16) TO t_succs-dmbe2,
               t_mcdata1-line+136(20) TO t_succs-txt20.
        APPEND t_succs.
Can anybody suggest or advice me on it ? Any help or suggestion would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Akash

.

RFC Call not returning in normal exec;retunrs in debugger

Hi all
i m sorry for posting it twice,due to my ignorance
i first posted it in wrong forum
i had a requirement to invoke a RFC Async and recieve the results in my program with a condition that the name and parameters of RFC are determined runtime.
To meet this requirement, i generated a the RFC call and return form code dynamically and called that code from my program via a subroutine.
The problem i am facing is that, whenever i execute my program in debug mode the RFCs are called and the parameters are returned( perform on end of task edition is used)
via subroutine, but when i execute the code via F8 the program goes in indefinite wait for return parameters.I am calling 2-3 RFcs at same time, and all of them are on local host.
the Functions are working well and the RFC destination is also working well.
But this amalgum of my program and dynamic calls is not going through.
I read in documentation that if we change the program context or the roll area then the results are not recieved by main program. by the way i am using WAIT to receive the results.
For the moment if i consider, my program context or roll area is getting changed because of dynamic code generation then also the dynamically generated code is the one containing the RFC call and its revieve subroutine, therefore there shall be no problem with that, the other thought i am getting is that in debugger implict commit work happens, is the program working because of that in debugger?? i dont know....
Can any one help me with this, in the above long paragraph if anyone gets confused..i can again try to restate my problem.
One more thing..i have checked the ST22 and SM50 for any abnormalities, couold not find one.
thanks in advance
praveen

WAIT statement also triggers a DB commit like debugger.
Are you using WAIT UNTIL <condition>?
Regards
Sridhar

Strange response time for an RFC call viewed from STAD on R/3 4.7

Hello,
On our R/3 4.7 production system, we have a lot of external RFC calls to execute an abap module function. There are 70 000 of these calls per day.
The mean response time for this RFC call is 35 ms.
Some times a few of them (maybe 10 to 20 per day) are way much longer.
I am currently analysing with STAD one of these long calls which lasted 10 seconds !
Here is the info from STAD
Response time :                10 683 ms
Total time in workprocess : 10 683 ms
CPU time :                               0 ms
RFC+CPIC time :                       0 ms
Wait for work process           0 ms
Processing time           10.679 ms
Load time                            1 ms
Generating time                   0 ms
Roll (in) time                        0 ms
Database request time         3 ms
Enqueue time                      0 ms
Number      Roll ins            0
                 Roll outs           0
                 Enqueues         0
Load time   Program             1 ms
                  Screen              0 ms
                 CUA interf.          0 ms
Roll time    Out                 0 ms
                  In                  0 ms
                Wait                0 ms
Frontend    No.roundtrips       0
                  GUI time            0 ms
                  Net time            0 ms
There is nearly no abap processing in the function module.
I really don't uderstand what is this 10 679 ms processing time especially with 0 ms cpu time and 0 ms wait time.
A usual fast RFC call gives this data
23 ms response time
16 ms cpu time
14 ms processing time
1 ms load time
8 ms Database request time
Does anybody have an idea of what is the system doing during the 10 seconds processing time ?
Regards,
Olivier

Hi Graham,
Thank you for your input and thoughts.
I will have to investigate on RZ23N and RZ21 because I'm not used to use them.
I'm used to investigate performance problems with ST03 and STAD.
My system is R/3 4.7 WAS 6.20. ABAP and BASIS 43
Kernel 6.40 patch level 109
We know these are old patch levels but we are not allowed to stop this system for upgrade "if it's not broken" as it is used 7/7 24/24.
I'm nearlly sure that the problem is not an RFC issue because I've found other slow dialog steps for web service calls and even for a SAPSYS technical dialog step of type <no buffer>. (what is this ?)
This SAPSYS dialog step has the following data :
User : SAPSYS
Task type : B
Program : <no buffer>
CPU time                       0 ms
RFC+CPIC time              0 ms
Total time in workprocs    5.490 ms
Response time               5.490 ms
Wait for work process           0 ms
Processing time             5.489 ms
Load time                            0 ms
Generating time                   0 ms
Roll (in+wait) time                0 ms
Database request time          1 ms ( 3 Database requests)
Enqueue time                       0 ms
All hundreds of other SAPSYS <no buffer> steps have a less than 5 ms response time.
It looks like the system was frozen during 5 seconds...
Here are some extracts from STAD of another case from last saturday.
11:00:03     bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RFC     R     3     USER_LECKIT     13     13     0     0
11:00:03     bt1sqkvf_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECDIS     13     13     0     0
11:00:04     bt1sqkvh_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     19     19     0     16
11:00:04     bt1sqkvf_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECKIT     77     77     0     16
11:00:04     bt1sqkve_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECDIS     13     13     0     0
11:00:04     bt1sqkvf_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECDIS     14     14     0     16
11:00:05     bt1sqkvg_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     12     12     0     16
11:00:05     bt1sqkve_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECKIT     53     53     0     0
11:00:06     bt1sqkvh_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     76     76     0     0
11:00:06     bt1sqk2t_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECDIS     20     20     0     31
11:00:06     bt1sqk2t_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     12     12     0     0
11:00:06     bt1sqkve_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECKIT     13     13     0     0
11:00:06     bt1sqkvf_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECKIT     34     34     0     16
11:00:07     bt1sqkvh_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECDIS     15     15     0     0
11:00:07     bt1sqkvg_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     13     13     0     16
11:00:07     bt1sqk2t_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     19     19     0     0
11:00:07     bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RFC     R     3     USER_LECKIT     23     13     10     0
11:00:07     bt1sqkve_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECDIS     38     38     0     0
11:00:08     bt1sqkvf_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECKIT     20     20     0     16
11:00:09     bt1sqkvg_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECDIS     9 495     9 495     0     16
11:00:09     bt1sqk2t_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECDIS     9 404     9 404     0     0
11:00:09     bt1sqkvh_PLG_18      RFC     R     1     USER_LECKIT     9 181     9 181     0     0
11:00:10     bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RFC     R     3     USER_LECDIS     23     23     0     0
11:00:10     bt1sqkve_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECKIT     8 465     8 465     0     16
11:00:18     bt1sqkvh_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     18     18     0     16
11:00:18     bt1sqkvg_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     89     89     0     0
11:00:18     bt1sqk2t_PLG_18      RFC     R     0     USER_LECKIT     75     75     0     0
11:00:18     bt1sqkvh_PLG_18      RFC     R     1     USER_LECDIS     43     43     0     0
11:00:18     bt1sqk2t_PLG_18      RFC     R     1     USER_LECDIS     32     32     0     16
11:00:18     bt1sqkvg_PLG_18      RFC     R     1     USER_LECDIS     15     15     0     16
11:00:18     bt1sqkve_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECDIS     13     13     0     0
11:00:18     bt1sqkve_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECDIS     14     14     0     0
11:00:18     bt1sqkvf_PLG_18      RFC     R     4     USER_LECKIT     69     69     0     16
11:00:18     bt1sqkvf_PLG_18     RFC     R     5     USER_LECDIS     49     49     0     16
11:00:18     bt1sqkve_PLG_18     RFC     R     5     USER_LECKIT     19     19     0     16
11:00:18     bt1sqkvf_PLG_18     RFC     R     5     USER_LECDIS     15     15     0     16
The load at that time was very light with only a few jobs starting :
11:00:08 bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RSCONN01                     B 31 USER_BATCH     39
11:00:08 bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RSBTCRTE                     B 31 USER_BATCH     34
11:00:08 bt1fsaplpr02_PLG /SDF/RSORAVSH                B 33 USER_BATCH     64
11:00:08 bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RSBTCRTE                     B 33 USER_BATCH     43
11:00:08 bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RSBTCRTE                     B 34 USER_BATCH     34
11:00:08 bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RSBTCRTE                     B 35 USER_BATCH     37
11:00:09 bt1fsaplpr02_PLG RVV50R10C                    B 34 USER_BATCH     60
11:00:09 bt1fsaplpr02_PLG ZLM_HDS_IS_PURGE_RESERVATION B 35 USER_BATCH    206
I'm thinking also now about the message server as there is load balancing for each RFC call ?
Regards,
Olivier

Performance in a sync-rfc -- xi -- rfc-call

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for