cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

TRFC entries created when Workflow is triggered

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi

I am facing a issue when triggering Workflow using WF-BATCH. In the Event Trace SWEL it shows System Overloaded restart in Batch. Once the Workflow gets triggered it does not get its value from its attribute but If I instantiate this separately this value is registered. Even the task that WF-BATCH performs in the system is not proper. It checks a condition which should be true but considers it false. This is not happening in the Sandbox where the same Wflow run. I have checked WF-BATCH has SAP ALL and SAPNEW. I read in some article that the load of the System is responsible for this. How this load can be reduced for WF-BATCH to run properly.

Is there a way in which some memory is allocated to WF-BATCH which is not sufficient?

Thanks

Arghadip

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Sounds like faulty config and not missing authorizations... but please check and compare the user type in SU01 if that possibly has an influence.

I think this question should either be in the Workflow forum or NW Admin for basis settings for workload on the system.

Let me know which one you would like it to be moved to?

Cheers,

Julius

Former Member
0 Kudos

I am a SAP Workflow Expert myself so it would be kind if you can redirect to NW Admin.

Thanks

Arghadip

Former Member
0 Kudos

It is moved now.

Cheers,

Julius

Answers (3)

Answers (3)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Had some issue with Coding of the business object.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Is it possible that your sandbox only has one application server and this system has 2 or more and load balancing is playing tricks on you?

Shared memory is accessible for different user contexts but not across application servers! Also search for "slightly shared memory" in SDN...

That the asynchronous call is running under the context of the workflow engine (logical destination in config typically called WORKFLOW_LOCAL_xxx (xxx = mandt) is normal and expected behaviour.

I assume that you have checked in SWU3 that required jobs are scheduled for the WF-BATCH.

Cheers,

Julius

ps: See SAP Note 1251255 as well....

JPReyes
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

I think we need more details.... but have you check notes below?

Read,

Note 1025249 - Entries in transaction SM58 "hang"

Note 1092157 - No parallelization with SWWDHEX

Regards

Juan

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi All

Thanks Juan

The workflow gets triggered with all the container element getting properly updated if I Trigger the event from Tcode SWUE with Trigger FM Synchronously Checked. I further debugged and found this FM gets called when I select this flag.

CALL FUNCTION im_handler->m_linkage-recfb

DESTINATION im_handler->m_linkage-rfcdest

EXPORTING

objtype = l_bor_objtype

objkey = l_bor_objkey

event = l_bor_event

rectype = l_bor_rectype

exceptions_allowed = 'X'

IMPORTING

rec_id = l_receiver_id

TABLES

event_container = lt_event_container

EXCEPTIONS

temp_error = 1

OTHERS = 99. " catch all exceptions

When I Uncheck this Flag this FM gets called in background.

CALL FUNCTION im_handler->m_linkage-recfb

IN BACKGROUND TASK

AS SEPARATE UNIT

DESTINATION im_handler->m_linkage-rfcdest

EXPORTING

objtype = l_bor_objtype

objkey = l_bor_objkey

event = l_bor_event

rectype = l_bor_rectype

exceptions_allowed = space

TABLES

event_container = lt_event_container.

CALL FUNCTION 'ID_OF_BACKGROUNDTASK'

IMPORTING

tid = l_trfc_id.

When we trigger this event synchronously it gets triggered Under the user Id who runs SWUE tcode. For not synchronous it gets triggered with WF-BATCH. WF-BATCH has SAP_ALL and SAP_NEW Authorization. The workflow gets triggered(for not synchronous) after sometime without the container element getting populated after giving a RFC Status as System overloaded, repeat immediately by batch. When i Trigger the event synchronously we have no RFC Status.In standard event gets triggered through TRFC and not through synchronous.

Can you please throw some light on what is the issue.

Thanks

Arghadip