File based interface -Best practice

[former_member208598]

We are in the process of designing a bunch of file based interfaces . We are transferring files with a Linux based server (Connect Direct C:D) including both inbound and outbound .

Connect direct has the capability to post/retrieve files to/from SAP Application server directly. We have SAP PI also in our landscape.

Do we need to use SAP PI in these interfaces? Is there any advantage in using PI?

What would be the best approach to design such interfaces?  There are multiple files involved and the frequency will be daily.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using PI?

Is there any risk if we dont use PI?

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hello,

I would have opted PI just to bring everything under one umbrella i.e. PI + (As already pointed out) PI provide lot of features like better monitoring, guaranteed delivery of (async) messages etc. so certainly u can use PI for these file interfaces.

Thanks

Amit Srivastava

[iaki_vila]

Hi,

Thanks Punet and Rajesh for rescue this thread, it's really interesting. I want to add the question is always necessary the PI like file copier?, i think not, when it's not a critical business situation or the endpoint system has access via NFS, why overload the PI?. Also, with largest files although from PI 7.1 there is a mechanisms to deal with them, like make chunks, if the quantity of that files would be large perhaps some queues on PI or its memory could be affected.

Regards.

[Former Member]

Hi Inaki,

I agree with you to some extent but not all...

using PI as there is certain features definitely be beneficial (alerts, monitoring, keeping count of no of files transferred) unlike directly transferring to target system..these are required if the files are business critical and file volumes are huge..as cost of PI can addup here...

Coming to another point that is handling of huge file volumes PI can handle this very much using the features as said chunk mode, running on single stack , making use of dedicated large volume queues,

enabling duplicate checks if required... by utilising all these features files can be transferred pretty much in better way to target system...hope you agree with me now...note by using dedicated large message queues will not have impact to the other message queues/interfaces..

HTH

Rajesh

[iaki_vila]

Hi Rajesh,

Now I totally agree with you but I faced one situation that I haven’t clear to use the PI. There were two systems, a SAP ECC and SAP RM, one of the issues was the SAP ECC generated for determinate business transactions a lot of additional pdf documentation that it would be seldom viewed by the SAP RM user, not really important. Also, the two systems had a NFS directory shared, why to make a development in PI with all the configuration for huge files?, if the user needed one time that additional information and it was missed by a past file transfer error, hecould press a button which internally call a RFC or abap proxy with or without PI in order to trigger the ECC ABAP code write in that directory. What do you think about this scenario?, thanks in advance.

Regards.

[Former Member]

Hi lnaki,

we need to apologize sonu for hijacking this thread...I provide mine here to sonu...

Regarding to your requirement PI is not required for this case as there is a provision for user to get the file on demand...as said already if files are business critical and require monitoring and blah...better to go via PI for its features else not required ...

HTH

Rajesh

[iaki_vila]

Hi,

You are right, in middle of the our explanation i forgot the real use of this thread. My apologize to Sonu as well.

Regards.

[Former Member]

Hi,

my two cents to this post is go for PI based on the criticality of the business operations of the file transfer...

Using PI as already said governance will be better. and also notifications can be sent for failure transfer for jumping into action

HTH

Rajesh

[Former Member]

Also, it depends upon the content of your messages. Is it really critical and business needs you to monitor its flow ? If so then go with PI with its central monitoring features and other features.

[Shabarish_Nair]

Big question;

What does your architecture board prefer? P2P integration or mediated?

As other stated, using PI will give you benefits of central monitoring, central alerting etc. So that is the tradeoff. Do you want that or not?

[Former Member]

Hi Sanu,

if you already have PI system in the landscape then its good idea to use PI instead of ConnectDirect.

If there are multiple files to be picked from different locations but freequency will be dialy then you can configure the adapters in PI to poll in a perticular time.

Advantages of using PI : -central monitoring and easy to change the interfaces in future as per the requirement

Cheers,

Hidayat

[Former Member]

Hi,

I would suggest using PI for one of its reason of central monitoring, I know connect direct can generates log files, but at times it becomes difficult to open each log file and look for errors when you have so many interface running simultaneously. So for inbound definitely 'yes'. How about outbound, Do you have any outbound interface where you are planning to use connect direct. If yes and if you are also planning to use PI then you will have to invoke connect direct using a CD script. Here the drawback is that PI wont be able to capture any failures if it fails while calling the CD script.

Thanks

Amol

[rajasekhar_reddy14]

I dont think you need PI interface to fulfill your requirement because connect direct is capable to dump files in SAP App server. Even if you use PI interface it does the same .

If you use PI then you can monitoring connection(file adapter) not sure Connect direct generates any log after successful execution if it does so then go without PI.