cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SAP NetWeaver System Landscape

Former Member
0 Kudos

Good morning

We have just gone live with Wave 1 of a SAP NetWeaver Implementation. Now we are in the process of plane for Wave 2 that will start at the beginning of September.

I am responsible for planning the system landscape for the coming Wave.

The may concern is we are currently live witch mean we have a number of end user issues (break fix) being resolved by a support team and in parallel we will have the project team that will be introducing new functionality to the same live system environment.

Do you have any recommendation on what the system landscape should look like?

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (3)

Answers (3)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Good day

The system landscape for wave 1 of the project was a development system with a two client.

The first is a configuration and development client. There is no master or transactional data in this client. Only configuration and development was done in this client.

The second is a Unit test client. This client contains master and transactional data. All changes were moved from the first client to the second client via transaction scc1 for testing.

The QA system has one client. This client was used for Integration and UAT testing.

The production system has one client that is used for live production use.

Now for wave 2 of the project we need to redesign the system landscape because we will have two parties (the project and support) working in one system landscape.

Sum recommendation is to have three development clients. Two for support where all support changes are made in tested in. Two for the project that will be used for project changes and testing and the third for to consolidate all the change from the two development clients. There will be one QA client that is used for regression testing and then the live production client in the production system.

There are a suggestion to add a new QA and regression test systems to the landscape.

The third option is to keep the landscape as it is now.

What is the optimal system landscape for wave 2?

Thank you.

Matt_Fraser
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Ok, having done it both ways before myself, I can say that unless you really need the parallel development systems, you'll save yourself a lot of headache and administrative effort if you keep all development (support and project) in the same system and client. What I would suggest in this case is that you clearly define different projects in SPRO_ADMIN for each activity, so that it will be clear to developers when they release their change requests and to your transport administrator whenever the same objects are being worked on in both activities.

That being said, there are some situations where the additional effort of maintaining parallel tracks is called for. For instance, if the second wave project involves a release upgrade or application of support packs, but the project is envisioned to take some time before moving to production and support activities can't wait, then having parallel DEV and QAS systems is often the only way to go. If you do this, though, your support team has to be religious about performing EVERY activity twice... first in the support DEV system, then again in the project DEV system. Otherwise, when the project moves into production, it will do so without having been tested with the support team's changes in place. This could be disastrous.

It IS possible to design a more complex transport landscape than simple parallel systems, and on the J2EE side of things this is supported with the use of NWDI. What I mean is that you could have a track that works from DEV-SUPPORT through QAS-SUPPORT through DEV-PROJECT through QAS-PROJECT through PRD. This way, the changes and fixes made by the support team are fed right into the project development system via transports. Note that this only really works, though, if you keep support pack levels consistent throughout, in which case why not just have everyone work in the same DEV system and save the headache? Not to mention the cost of extra servers.

--Matt

Matt_Fraser
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Dawid,

Are you asking about parallel landscapes? This is possible, but probably only called for if you plan to do a release upgrade as part of Wave 2. Most likely you can continue with the same landscape you already implemented (assuming you have a DEV, QAS, and PRD instance).

--Matt

former_member239282
Active Participant
0 Kudos

Hi,

the issue is about the sizing, you don't say anything about the landscape of Wave1, at any case you should consider the most workload at least (throughtput, bandwith, concurrent users etc.)