RAID & SSD Strategy for Aperture...

Okay, since my OWC Rack unit appears to be defective (affecting performance and some issues cosmetically) the unit will likely be returned. I'm now reconsidering my options. I think I will want to go with a RAID that has the enterprise drives and that requires the PCI controller card since this seem to be more flexible and that they seem to offer better performance then the Oxford 936 chip offers. Also, I'd forgotten how slow that FW 800 really is--what was I thinking?
Another option for me is to build a a 4 drive raid 5 (?) within my current 2006 vintage Mac Pro. What would be the downside of that? I would think: hard on power supply, no hot swap, and I would have to figure out a way to attach another drive robust as a boot volume.
FYI: I plan to use my RAID for: everything except the startup drive. Mail, pics, using Aperture, video (using Final Cut Studio), iTunes library and much more. I see that the Aperture library works best on an SSD, does it make sense to put the OS on a separate volume from the AP library?
BTW: I originally thought that the QUAD interface on the boxes like the OWC unit would be nice because I could use it with my MacBook Pro in a pinch....
Do you have some suggestions? I'm currently looking at something like:
http://www.g-technology.com/products/g-speed-es.cfm
I do like rack mountable equipment but this is not required, I currently have:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/RP936QS8.0T/
Major brands that come to mind are: G-Tech, Sonnet Tech, and CalDigit.
Thanks,
Robert

I have for many years used and advocated RAID0 (that is striped) with good backup, largely due to the limitations of the number of drives that fit in a Mac Pro case, and cost per GB. Real-time redundancy does not IMO make sense for our kind of images work. RAID5, 6, 10 solutions all require more drives than easily fit in a Mac Pro, making them expensive relatively complex external solutions not suitable for most of us.
Today with a new MP I would put OS and apps and Referenced-Masters Library on an SSD (perhaps in the extra optical drive slot), two fast internal drives in RAID0 for images and two least cost internal drives for backup. Least cost externals for off site backup.
Mirrored drives are about as fast for our usages as RAID0 but they cost twice as much per GB and take up twice the number of slots. And like I said IMO real-time redundancy is inappropriate for images work (e.g. real-time redundancy duplicates mistakes/errors instantly, whereas backup we do when things are known to be good). We need *routine backup* rather than +real time redundancy.+
And I use and LOVE the OWC Quad Interface drives on my MBP workflow in the field.
-Allen Wicks

Similar Messages

Which Model 13" MBP for Aperture?

I am a heavy user of Aperture, and keep several other apps open constantly. I currently have a 2010 13" MBP that I've upgraded to 8GB, and it's always running right up against the limit of RAM.
I plan to get a 13" Retina MBP, and I need advice on what specs I need to speed things up.
I currently have a 500GB hard drive, and I try to keep it at least 30% free. Does the same rule of keeping a fair bit of free space apply to SSDs?
Should I pay up for the top processor, or would the basic 2.5 GHz i5 still give me a boost?
Will the newer model and SSD give me a big boost, or do I really need to go for a 15" and 16GB? I don't do video, just photos, but I process a lot of them.
I want the 13" for portability.
Any advice appreciated.

SunnyShots wrote:
I currently have a 500GB hard drive, and I try to keep it at least 30% free. Does the same rule of keeping a fair bit of free space apply to SSDs?
Believe it or not, yes.
SSD's have limited write capability, likely won't reach it, but if your drive is filled up, then the small space remaining can be exhausted and the 10% of spares used, then your SSD can prematurely die.
My advice is to get one with at least twice as much space as your ever going to use.
I plan to get a 13" Retina MBP, and I need advice on what specs I need to speed things up.
Upgrade to a a top end 15" anti-glare instead. The Retina's are overrated, hot blow on the display, and you don't use the resolution its capable of anyway.
The 15" has a discrete GPU so it keeps the heat off the CPU, it's faster and lasts longer through annual OS X upgrades.
The anti-glare screen you can see the screen clear in just about any environment, no so with the glossy Retina's.
I'm very surprised working with photo's you are fast to accept glossy displays, most photographers howl at them because the glare blocks the screen image.
Get a anti-glare while you still can, it seems Apple doesn't care about the pro market by discontinuing them.
https://macmatte.wordpress.com/
But I process a lot of them. I want the 13" for portability.
You really need the graphics performance of the 15", the 13" only has Intel HD CPU graphics, equal to your $400 office store PC.
The slightly extra screen real estate of the 15" is nice, (more so on the 17" but they quit those) no need to sit with the thing on your chest to use it.
The weight difference is slightly more, your driving a vehicle most likely, either way it's really not a big deal breaker, but the larger screen and better graphics performance is going to come in handy with lots of RAM and a SSD, especially for Aperture and a lot of photo's (I know)

Ideal hardware setup for Aperture

Is there an ideal hardware setup for working with 18megapixel raw files in aperture? Of the three...graphics card, cpu and ram...which are the most important to processing the raw image.
I am running 10.6.3 on a macbookpro 2.2GHz core 2 duo, 4G ram and an Nvidia card with 128Mb of vram.
Overall it feels somewhat slow, about 10 seconds to load the full raw image on screen. Is that just to be expected? Any form of image adjustment usually switches to low res while adjustment is being made.
Thanks in advance.

A fast hard drive seems to be the most important thing now. The more I use Aperture, the more I appreciate the need for fast, fast hard drives! Open the activity monitor and monitor your disk activity. Monitor the IO - if you are constantly in the hundreds for the disk IO counters, you are IO bound (and more than likely it's your library database and preview thumbnails database).
For a laptop, the Seagate 500GB with the 4 GB of flash built in that it manages might be a good way to go. I just got one and haven't had a time to put it in my Mac Book Pro for testing. If it manages to put most of your library database in the 4 GB flash cache, you won't see near the performance issues as with a regular hard drive.
You could get a smaller SSD for your primary drive and to put the library on, then get one of the kits to remove the optical drive and put the hard drive in that bay. Reference your masters on the hard drive and that way you won't go broke buying a huge SSD. Gasp! I know, me recommending referenced files - I'm grudgingly coming around. Well, that and Aperture 3 has some pretty nice features for referenced files that are making me more willing to consider that kind of a setup, esp. when I look at the disk activity and constant fragmentation of the library and thumbnail database files. I'm seriously considering getting an SSD just for my library database and thumbnail databases and referencing the masters on my internal RAID.
Also others have recommended iDefrag and I can heartily recommend it as well if you stick with traditional hard drives. If nothing else, download the free version and run it - I'll bet that the two aperture databases for your library will easily be the most fragmented files on your hard drive, followed by the thumbnails themselves. SSD obviously doesn't have the latency issues of rotating disk so defrag isn't needed - indeed it would just shorten the life of your SSD with a bunch of unnecessary writes. If you do consider SSD, the only one I can recommend for the Mac is from Other World Computing/MacSales as it does internal garbage collection. Until Mac OS X supports TRIM, normal SSDs that don't do internal garbage collection will run fine for a while, then hit a performance wall that will make you want to go back to your hard drive
Anyway don't feel bad - until I started tweaking my hard drive setup, there wasn't a real speed difference between my MacBook Pro and my Mac Pro - want to talk about a real downer!

Getting new Mac for Aperture and have a question...

I totally realize that this is a personal preference with no "wrong" way to do it. However, I would appreciate some thoughts so I can form a better idea of how I will set up an Aperture workflow that will work for me for a long time and how to configure my new iMac.
I use the referenced library workflow and store both my masters and Aperture library on my current internal drive with both backed up to externals. I'm getting a new Mac with the SSD drive for apps and OS (and Aperture library as well). The question is, should I get the mega 2 TB internal HDD along with that SSD for all my masters (which would also include my music and home-made movies)?
My current photo storage adds up to only 130GB right now and grows slowly. I don't even think I would double that in the next year. I realize that if I had, say, a 1.5 TB size Masters library, the the answer would be obvious that I would need to store externally because the iMac HDD isn't big enough. But that isn't my situation.
But since I would be able to fit all my photos on an internal HDD (2TB) to use as referenced, is there a better reason to skip the internal 2TB HDD and just get hooked up with some good, high-speed external system and stick with an internal SSD to just handle the OS, music, and apps? In other words, all my media (photos and movies) would always be stored AND edited from an external drive (I will actually edit on the SSD and then move the referenced files to the external). This means that from now on all new Macs I ever get will only need a moderate sized SSD for OS and apps. I would basicallt forever keep all things media on externals.
I hope this makes sense. Thanks for any help with this.

jbshanks wrote:
One other thing... the only way for me to get a 1GB VRAM now is to buy the top-of-the-line iMac. That's the issue.
I've seen that also. That's why I added the "If you can wait.." statement.
If you need to purchase before say late October, then the specs you list for the 21" iMac are quite good and the possibility of developers designing GPU threads that require caching in the VRAM may or may not need amounts beyond 512 MB. The fact that Apple offers an upgrade to the 2 GB VRAM video adapter on their high-end machine tells me that they know that the Pro Apps will be able to take advantage of that amount (not that it is necessary for the enthusiast looking to have a good Aperture experience).
SierraDragon has much more experience than I with Aperture, so he may be able to shed some light on this one.
For my part, I run a 17" MacBook Pro (late 2011) which has the 2.5 Ghz i7, 8 GB Apple provided RAM, and the AMD 6770 with 1 GB VRAM. I installed an OWC 480 GB SSD and I am connected to the Apple Thunderbolt Display (because this machine only offers a Thunderbolt port to connect video signals with). Aperture runs fine on my machine (although for some reason cropping takes a couple of seconds now, where it was immediate before the AP 3.3 update). I run Photoshop CS6 and Illustrator CS6 without any issues on this machine, so it is definitely capable of running in a professional environment.
Since your specs call-out a 2.8 Ghz i7, 16+ GB RAM and an SSD, I personally would not hesitate to purchase that machine if you need to purchase soon. I just mentioned the 1 GB VRAM due to your wanting to be able to handle 4+ years of updates to the OS and software. That doesn't mean the 512 GB VRAM won't work great, just that the 1 GB VRAM would be additional insurance (sort of like Apple Care).

Upgrading Powermac for aperture/final cut

Hi there,
I have a 1.8ghz powermac g5 (single processor) with 1.5gb of RAM, 2* 200gb internal Hard drives and an ATI Radeon XT 128mb. I have recently bought Final Cut and Aperture however performance is pretty slow on these programs with lags on aperture and blocky/unresponsive video on final cut. Playing stand alone High -definition video is also a jerky affair. Although i know i have a slow processor, i cannot afford to replace my hard drive, but could afford a couple of hundred pounds to upgrade. Can anyone recommend which of these would be most beneficial:
1) Upgrading graphics to Radeon x800 XT 256mb
2) Upgrading RAM to 3gb
3) buying external SATA hard drive and RAID'ing it for faster hard drive speeds?
OR, will none of these particularly help me and am i stuck with saving for a whole new Mac?
Kind Regards,
MAtthew LLoyd

What does "software to use with my Final Cut Pro" actually mean? Is it FCP? or FCP X?
iPhoto and Aperture are both equally compatible with FCP, but if it's the older version you use then you'll be exporting from your Photo Manager and bring the images into FCP.
If you have FCP X either will make images available to it via the Media Browser in FCP X.
So, no difference there.
Lightroom has no interaction with either version of FCP, so you'll be exporting from that to the Finder and then adding to the FCP project.
As for which is better - that's really personal preference. It might help if you explain what it is you dislike about iPhoto, and what you're actually looking for in a Photo Manager.

Non-System Raid SSD recognized as Hard Drive instead of Solid State Drive unit in Windows 2012 R2

Hello,
     We have a Raid 10 of 4 SSD in LSI hardware Raid card.
     In Windows 2012 R2 the disk is detected as HDD.
     Is there any way to set in Windows that disk as SSD instead o Hard disk drive?
     Searching I saw that win 8.1 users solve that instaling and runing "WinSAT diskformal" but that don't work in win server because the SSD raid is a non-system one.
http://www.win-raid.com/t70f34-Detection-of-SSDs-by-Win-and-the-use-of-the-Optimizer-former-Defrag-Tool.html
     Thanks.

festuc,
I'm having the same problem as you at the moment with a new server install. I've the latest drivers/firmware, but can't seem to get 2012 to recognize the RAID as an SSD. What's even more boggling, I've essentially cloned this server from another (both on
the hardware and software side) and one actually recognizes it correctly!
To provide some key bits of information:
1) The RAID control in question is Marvel based-- using SuperMicro MoBo with Intel Raid (had problems getting their Adaptec controller-- no SSDs would be recognized at all).
2) I installed the 2012 on the raided SSDs in question.
3) I did install the correct driver prior to the OS installation.
3) Post OS installation, TRIM is reportedly up (fsutil etc...)
4) However, when checking disk optimzation, it is clearly labeled as a HardDisk and optimization does NOT trim.
As I said before, this is working correctly on a separate server with the exact same setup. I'm absolutely stumped at the moment since I've essentially tried everything I could come up with. Reinstalling drivers, rolling back, alternate manufacturer drivers
(for the heck of it), etc... all dead ends.
Here's hoping you or some other saint on here will over some much needed insight to get this sorted out.

27" iMac upgrade priorities for Aperture use?

I am about to pull the trigger on a new iMac 27". Current Aperture librabry is about 700GB and this is my primary computer use. Libraries currently live on a 1T Rugged drive and are shared between an 2009 21 iMac and 2010 13MBP. Things are just too slow and I want more screen space. Trying to sort out best use of funds...so, base config looks like this so far:
3.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM
1TB Fusion Drive
GTX 675MX 1GB GDDR5
In terms of more bang for the buck, does it make sense to upgrade to:
3.4 i7 ($200)
3T Fusion ($150)
680MX 2G ($150)
I currently have a 2T USB 3 external and a 3T Firewire external (Time Machine BU). I am thinking, given I need a mobile solution for traveling and working out of home, keeping the libraries on an external would negate the need to upgrade to a 3T fusion. My understadning of Thunderbolt and USB3 is I would not notice the difference working externally or on an internal Fusion-is this more or less correct? Better to spend the money on an external Thunderbolt when they come down a little more?
680MX is considered a fast gaming card...but might it also "future-proof" (if you can even do that these days!) the mac for graphics requirements to come? Or is it overkill for Aperture and PS? Again-better to spend the money elsewhere?
I am leaning towards the faster processor. Although I hear mixed things, the tests I have seen do say this will give an overall boost.
I would welcome any insights from others who walked this path...
many thanks
NJ

I might be missing something*, but if this is correct:
My understadning of Thunderbolt and USB3 is I would not notice the difference working externally or on an internal Fusion-is this more or less correct?
_and_ you need to access your Library from multiple machines in multiple locations, why not just stick with the base iMac configuration you posted and put your Library on your 2 TB USB-3 drive? As long as you are not putting the Library on the internal drive, I think your thinking here is correct:
I am thinking, given I need a mobile solution for traveling and working out of home, keeping the libraries on an external would negate the need to upgrade to a 3T fusion.
I run very large Libraries off external USB-3 drives (mounted to an rMBP w. 16 GB RAM and a 500 GB SSD) and find the performance is no different than when using a large Library that is stored on the SSD. (I have seen no reason to expect external Thunderbolt drives to be noticeably faster than USB-3.) I think the 3 TB Fusion makes sense in a laptop; for your stated needs, I wouldn't upgrade (you may have additional storage needs you didn't mention, though).
I agree with William about the faster GPU -- but just on a hunch. I think Apple's programmers have gotten expert at getting performance where they can, and one place they seem to look is the GPU. For Aperture users, I would say about the GPU the same thing one has always said about RAM: when you buy a new machine, put in as much as (or the fastest) you can afford. Once you have 16 GB of RAM I would spend some money on a GPU upgrade.
*and if I did miss something, apologies in advance .

New external drive choices -- what's best for Aperture?

Hi. Hardware, I'm sorry to say, generally makes my head hurt.
Today Apple's delayed Thunderbolt-to-FW800 adapter made it appearance in Apple Stores.
Purchasers of the new MacBook Pro with Retina Display (rMBP) now have a nearly full set of options for using external drives with Aperture. I had been using a stable of FW800 drives (with my MBP 5,5). I'm looking for recommendations on what to upgrade to.
(Aside: I've been too busy to post a comment recommending the rMPB. It's my main Aperture machine (I use Aperture every day, but work in two different locations) -- I'm _very_ happy with it. Highly recommended. My machine is 16 GB RAM and 500 GB SSD. But there's still this ports problem ... .)
The options I know of:
- use the new adapter and use the old FW drives. These can be daisy-chained, as before. Afaik, the total throughput is limited by what TBolt allows (which may be more than enough).
- move drives to USB3 enclosures. I did this as a stop-gap measure while waiting for the adapters. I got my enclosures from OWC. The drives are not daisy-chainable. The rMBA has two USB3 ports.
- buy eSATA hubs and use the eSATA ports on the drives. This one just became available. Expensive, imho. Not sure how the Mac will handle it (I always have Originals referenced to external drives; I sometimes have Libraries on external drives).
- move drives to TBolt enclosures. These are slowly coming on the market. They are very expensive (imho).
- replace the drives with TBolt drives. Also very expensive.
- replace the drives with USB3 drives
I'm looking for a reasonable middle-term (3-5 years) solution. Fwiw, I'm not convinced that external drive throughput is even an issue with running Aperture. It seem to run well on my rMBA even when a large library is connected via USB2. (I assume Aperture is good at taking advantage of the 16 MB RAM and the SSD "scratch drive".) I need to have one USB2 port, and one TBolt port, available at all times (various peripherals; the TBolt is for external monitors).
Thanks!

Good stuff. Thanks. Agree in principle re: "TBolt for displays; USB3 for storage".
I did get a USB 3 hub. (Amazon link. There is a 7-port hub as well.) Highly recommended (at least for rMBP users). This works well with how I use Aperture: I have several external drives with mostly Referenced Originals and some Libraries. Since I rarely use more than one of these at a time, it doesn't matter that the hub throughput is limited to a single USB 3 channel. The USB 3 hub, for me, functions as a quasi-data-server for Aperture, and takes up only one of the two USB 3 ports on the rMBP. (Fwiw, with the rMBA I don't think there's much reason for storing Referenced Originals on a fast drive; because of the efficiency of the way Aperture caches, USB 2 may be fast enough. I haven't measured this yet.)
I mentioned eSATA only because almost all my external drives came with eSATA ports and cables. I have never used eSATA. At this point, I don't plan to.
I have moved a few drives into USB 3 enclosures (purchased from OWC). With the USB 3 hub, and the newly-available Apple TBolt-FW800 adapter (which supports daisy-chained FW devices), I am no longer in any practical way limited by the four ports on the rMBP (2x TBolt, 2x USB 3). Whew.
I backup my system drive wirelessly to a Time Capsule every night (by design, the machine doesn't have access to the TC during the day when I'm working), and use SuperDuper to backup all Libraries and Referenced Originals to specific sparse bundles kept on leap-frogging external drives, with one always off-site. At this point I make no practical distinction between FW800 and USB 3 drives for back-up, as they are all fast enough and the back-ups run unattended. (But USB 3 seems to be much faster.)

Time for a new Mac - Whats the BEST for Aperture?

Its time for me to upgrade my box and while I have money to spend I don't want to break the bank. This computer is just for Aperture!!! Which is the best graphic card(s), do I need 16 gigs of memory, is two quads worth the money? If I put RAID in can I get by with just 2 hard drives or do I need 4 for speed? If I buy the best and most of everything the box and displays comes to $14,000. Do I have to spend that much? $8000 is more realistic. What do you suggest?
TIA
Chris

Best is to wait until after Mac Expo SF in 2 weeks, then decide which Mac Pro is best. Aperture demands heavy hardware so the highest end MP will be "best" but some middle range model or even an older model may be most cost effective while still very good. Wait.
Today 2 drives in a RAID 0 array probably saturates a MP as far as throughput is concerned, but we need to wait and see what new MPs, cards, etc. are before configuring an optimum Aperture box. Doing exactly that homework is much of what I will be doing at Mac Expo.
-Allen Wicks

Macpro config for Aperture

Hi guys
I have the very first macpro ever released, the old 2 x dual core 2.66ghz xeon 5150's and 16gb ram. I have the nvidia 8800gt which i bought a while back when my old ati 1900xt card died.
I'm running 2 x 30" screens.
I'm thinking now is the time where a new one would give a bit of speed boost.
Can anyone suggest a ideal config for Aperture? My cameras are 1Ds mk3's and my aperture library is around 1.4tb at the moment.
I'm thinking the (obscenely priced) 2.93 8 core with 16gb ram from transintl.com and the radeon 4870.
I have lots of hard drives already I can put in it.
thanks

Your existing box (the same as mine) is still very good. Personally I would wait to replace it; at least until we see real-world Aperture performance on the new boxes for a month or two to help determine optimum configuration.
The CPU clock upgrades above the 2.26 8-core are ridiculously expensive, probably not cost effective. Wait until the end of the year and I bet we will see price drop and/or speed bump.
The Radeon 4870 is alleged to perhaps work on our 2006 Macs. Wait and see if it does. Barefeats.com will have tests.
My guess is that careful RAID array of fast hard drives & Library configuration (Referenced Masters Library perhaps?) might help performance on the existing box a great deal.
Wait too for memory tests before you add RAM to a 2009 MP. Early reports suggest groups of 6 rather than 8 DIMMs. Again, barefeats.com will have tests.
-Allen Wicks

Nvidia 8800 GT not the best for Aperture use?

I've been reading from barefeats ( http://barefeats.com/harper10.html ) that the 8800 GT is not the best graphics card for Aperture. Actually I don't think they actually tested Aperture, but Motion 3. The Nvidia is a more expensive option than the ATIs, yet it would be worse for Aperture? Has someone specifically benchmarked Aperture 2 (not another pro app, and no synthetic tests of core image) with the 8800 GT against the other cards? Would Apple update Aperture to make it take better advantage of the 8800 GT's strengths (when available in a system)? I hope so. I already got the Nvidia, and am waiting to get a Mac Pro in the summer.

Here's my prelim findings (as posted in another thread). Will come back with more detailed comments after I have a chance to test some more:
Re: nvidia 8800GT in 1st generation MacPro
Posted: 25-Apr-2008 13:08 in response to: Dale Strumpell
Reply Email
I've just put one in my first gen mac pro, too. I can confirm a great deal of improvement over the stock 7300 gt. My prob was when an image had been straightened, cropped etc if I then attempted edge sharpening it was just awful - beachballs in abundance, crappy panning, slower than Capture NX. Now, though, it is fast and pleasant to use. That's the good news. The bad news is either:
1. Apple put such a puny graphics card in a Mac Pro (sic) in the first place (although it copes with everything except its own Pro photo software)
2. Apple wrote such idiosyncratic software (leaning on the on-graphics card memory so much) that meant Mac Pro (sic) machines hardly more than a year old couldn't cope without a new graphics card when running Apple's own pro photo software. That and the 7300 is still on the "recommended" list of cards for running Aperture 2.
Ho and, indeed, hum.
Cheers
D

Did up date for 10.7.4 to 10.7.5 and update for Aperture and now Aperture doesn't open. How do I fix?

Did up date for 10.7.4 to 10.7.5 and update for Aperture and now Aperture doesn't open. How do I fix?

I heard dump the app and reinstall? How do I go about that?

Release strategy for PO and Contract

Hi,
I maintain characteritic for PO
Plant
Doc Type
Net Order Value
Purchasing Group
I maintain characteristic for contract
Company code
Target Value
Doc Type
Purchasing group
My class consist of
Plant
Doc Type
Net Order Value
Purchasing Group
Company code
Target value
Q1: Do i need to maintain ALL characteristic value when i define my release strategy for PO or Contract as some characteristic only apply to PO only or contract only?
Q2: What option do i have if i need to maintain all characteristic value ? leave it blank ? empty
Currently my PO release is working fine but when i try to maintain the contract release inside the class . my PO release is not triggering . I maintained diffrent release group for both PO and Contract .
Thank for your advice

First of all
For purchasing like PO,pr,contract you can able to get in ekko table.No need to maintain separate release unless if it your business requirement.Take Document type as one of the characteristics it will distinguish whether it is PO or contract.
You have to maintain all the characteristic value then only it will trigered release.
Check the release indicator as well.
Hope it will help.

Release strategy for quantity contract

Hi Gurus,
In quantity contract .. target value will not filled by the value(in header details) as it is quantityt contract.
We may have different line items with different cost..
my doubt is how the release strategy will be triggered for the quanityt contract and how the system will consider the whole value of the contract..
please explain/clarify
regards
subbu

Hi,
The release strategy for the contract will work in the exact mechanism as for the PO i.e. it will be determined based upon the total net value of the entire purchasing document.
Cheers,
HT

Release Strategy for SA/Contract/PO

Hi friends,
Should we have different release groups and release codes in contracting/ SA/ PO.
Because...
I have maintained 4 characteristics in release strategy for PO _[ Comp Co, plant, porg, total net order value].
But i want to maintan only 2 characteristics in release strategy for contract [plant, total net order value]
because the same is reflecting in contract config also.
Is it possible..please help me frnds.
Prabhu

Hi Prabhu,
Unfortunately you need to maintain characteristics of all possible values for company code and plant for contractsu2019 to subject the release.
Wish that SAP would be more flexible with release of PO, Contract and RFQ but it does not.
Regards

RAID & SSD Strategy for Aperture...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for