Advice required on CTS & ChaRM implementation

[Former Member]

Hi all,

My application team req is we have two transport domain controllers.

FD5-->FD3->FD6->FD1 Production path(FD5 Domain Controller)

FD2->FD4 Breakfix path.(FD2 Domain Controller).

We are on NW7.3 BW system with BPC addon in it.ABAP Stack.

We are planning to implement ChaRM & CTS for both the landscapes in SOLMAN.

My understanding on CTS with ChaRM is:

The key thing with Charm is that it will help to move transports from Domain FD5 to Domain FD2 and to do transport conflict resolution across both domains.
I.e., to retrofit break-fix transports that have gone from FD5/3/6/1 into FD2/4 so that they also become part of the next project release.

Please advice can we acheive about requirement by implementing ChaRM and CTS. Im unclear with the things.

Thanks,

Sandeep

[bxiv · Accepted solution]

My understanding is that while ChaRM and CTS+ can function together to make things easier; they can also be implemented at different times.

Some things to know about ChaRM, setting it up in SolMan 7.1 it requires ITSM to be enabled and at some point will reconfigure your transport system by leveraging the RFCs you setup as part of the managed system configuration.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Billy,

Thanks for the info.

Im aware of the Basic configuration and other stuff related to ChaRM setup.

One thing im not clear is how can we acheive the transport movement from one domain to another domain using ChaRM or CTS.

ie : to retrofit break-fix transports that have gone from FD5/3/6/1 into FD2/4 so that they also become part of the next project release.

Currently we are having only ABAP stack, there is no JAVA.

Please let me know what steps i need to follow for this ?

Thanks,

Sandeep

[bxiv · Accepted solution]

I think this would fall more under CTS than ChaRM, as CTS is the portion that will define your routes/domains/etc.

I would think you would need a cut off date for currently running transports, once this happens you could setup virtual systems and have all new transports tied to the virtual systems (weather they are hosted on the current environment or the CTS environment), this provides an easier cut over down the road as you could choose to keep the virtual servers in place or have your FD5/3/6/1 and FD2/4 reconfigured to use CTS. 

Basically this could be a good time to redesign your environment, if it needs it, or keep it how it is but flipping on CTS.  I think having the transport freeze would be most beneficial to avoid transport problems down the road.

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Thanks Billy. I got some clarity on what needs to be done as part of our project.

Regards,

Sandeep