Application Development Discussions
Join the discussions or start your own on all things application development, including tools and APIs, programming models, and keeping your skills sharp.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Stopping user compare when saving composite roles in 4.6c basis pack 25?

david_thelwall
Discoverer
0 Kudos

One of the environments I look after is a 4.6c system with basis pack 25 – they can’t upgrade as it breaks a great deal of very heavy customisation in that system.

We have encountered an issue with the saving of composite roles in that system - when a role is saved we must sit through a very long period of “user distribution in role XXX” while the system performs a user compare of every singular role in that composite role. This is very painful as it can take nearly half an hour simply to save the composite role – we then need to rebuild the menu and compress it (we use the composite role’s menu structure). The odd thing is that this behaviour wasn’t apparent for many years – it suddenly started happening about 2-3 years ago to a previous administrator but he wasn’t aware of any changes going through, it just began to force these lengthy compares on him when saving composites.

I’ve tried in vain to disable this forced compare on every save – I’ve tried the PRGN_CUST modifications including adding the lines “AUTO_USERCOMPARE” with a value of “NO” and “USRCOMPARE_PFUD” with a value of “YES” to try and stop the profile generator from doing this but to no avail. Unless these settings need a restart of the system to take effect (do they?) I’m at a loss to find any other options.

The menu setting in the profile generator of “automatic user master adjustment when saving role” is switched off – though setting “auto_usercompare” seems to have broken the ability to bring up the “settings: role maintenance” dialogue box anyway.

We have a very large number of roles to modify and would be grateful if anyone could offer any advice here.

Thanks

DT

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Former Member
0 Kudos

>

> Unless these settings need a restart of the system to take effect (do they?)

no.

david: is it possible you asked that question in September last year someplace else???

have you read note 779481?

8 REPLIES 8

Former Member
0 Kudos

>

> Unless these settings need a restart of the system to take effect (do they?)

no.

david: is it possible you asked that question in September last year someplace else???

have you read note 779481?

david_thelwall
Discoverer
0 Kudos

Yes that is correct, I asked on SAPFans but wasn’t able to resolve the issue then unfortunately. We have had to revisit the problem due to a current need to make a large number of changes – we have found a rather uncomfortable solution of stopping the transaction after hitting save (while it’s doing the user compares) so that we can get on with the menu rebuild but I’m not very happy using this.

That process involves adding the singular to the composite, save, stopping the transaction during the compare, go back in and rebuild the menu; obviously not too nice, we have 215 of these to do. Another complication is that this environment has CUA implemented for development/test but not production (this problem happens in both test and production in the same way however).

I administer a number of other systems and haven’t seen anything like this in those systems, they have a variation of basis pack and primary version revisions but this seems unique to this particular instance.

I had a look at that OSS note – I haven’t seen that one before but I’m not aware of any roles compare problem happening during the adding of a composite to a user in SU01, that process seems ok; it is more to do with the administration of the composite role itself.

If we can set things up to let us do the additions and then do the compare as a background task (typically takes about 50 minutes to run in the early hours of the morning) then this would be ideal for what we’re after.

0 Kudos

the problem with your issue is that none of use can reproduce that phenomenon, since none of use has that combination of primal release/support package level at hand any longer (at least i think so). so there's only two options left to you:

first: update this special application until the problem goes away - do so by adding note after note on the very subject, like the one i mentioned plus [905924|https://websmp130.sap-ag.de/sap(bD1kZSZjPTAwMQ==)/bc/bsp/spn/sapnotes/index2.htm?numm=905924&nlang=EN&smpsrv=https%3a%2f%2fwebsmp107%2esap-ag%2ede] plus [662484|https://websmp130.sap-ag.de/sap(bD1kZSZjPTAwMQ==)/bc/bsp/spn/sapnotes/index2.htm?numm=662484&nlang=EN&smpsrv=https%3a%2f%2fwebsmp107%2esap-ag%2ede] and stop only when you hit one that is not implementable using SNOTE but only by implementing a support-package -> this will obviously be the point where you're stuck then.

(and yes - for the sake of rob burbank: there are several other ways to implement corrections aside from SNOTE).

second: open a call with SAP. mind you, this might become a lenghty one since they will also give you note after note ...

as i said, i'm pretty sure no one in here can help you doing a proper analysis anymore (but maybe i'm wrong).

anyone - any other (better) suggestions?

0 Kudos

Nothing better, but a guess that implementing such notes in the 900k range from an SP level of 25 (which dates back to somewhere around the year 2002?) would require possibly hundreds of SAP notes to be implemented to get there.

Perhaps a release upgrade is the better option, as 46C is out of mainstream maintenance now anyway, so even the SP levels are drying out.

Cheers,

Julius

0 Kudos

now, i wouldn't do hundreds, just enough to make the problem go away.

you cannot suggest an upgrade to david, not honestly he's on a system which is 30-40% customized - meaning: modified. that would be a major project!!

a customer with such a system will gladly pay the added fee to be supported a little while longer ... and who knows: maybe there are enough of such companies that the duration of the mainstream maintenance will be adapted (again.).

0 Kudos

In the long run, I don't see any other option (except perhaps staying put and modifying even further :-).

SNotes also have prerequisite notes. This is in an area which has seen changes since 2002... I think the system would force you to implement a whole load of notes when you try to implement a 900ker. At SP47 we wanted to implement a note from the BC_SEC area in the 900k range last year, and were confronted by around 20 prerequisite notes...

If not a 3 digit number, then well into the high end of the 2 digit range I would think.

Kind regards,

Julius

0 Kudos

Thanks for the replies everyone, sorry to take so long to get back to this thread (Iu2019ve been sick for quite some time unfortunately).

Iu2019m thinking that there may be an improvement from buffering changes in the required security tables and also the box that this runs on is being hardware upgraded to a roughly 3-fold increase in performance (particularly a memory increase which will help with a tipping point weu2019ve reached with memory utilisation going over 85% and a resulting massive jump in paging above 90% Iu2019m told, this has slowed everything down).

The customisation level is a nightmare u2013 itu2019s effectively running an entire IS modified for a purpose somewhat off-label and has about 2-3 entirely customised IS-sized groups of applications, tables, etc. The upgrade issue is much larger than this as theyu2019re working out how much of that they even want to keep in SAP, a wonderful little mine field that system is!

Weu2019ve noticed a rather wild variation with memory loading and CPU when doing this and buffering changes (to fully buffer the tables) did flatten the peaks out so we can probably soften the problem to some extent u2013 unfortunately the notes Iu2019ve looked at thus far havenu2019t been able to help us here, I was really trying to figure out if anyone else had seen this type of problem (sudden onset of sharply diminished performance in the role allocation process) as well.

A rather complicated problem unfortunately, thanks again to everyone for their input!

0 Kudos

Hi David,

to overcome the buffer issue maybe you try to switch off buffering for some tables especially agr_users as per note #1006276. As you have that problem only in that particular system, did you think about to move the role maintenance to another system and transprot your roles then (or dowload/upload) it to that system as workaround? Whats about moving role maintenance to a special client of that system (create one with sccl with sap_prof to have your existing roles in that new client, but without the user assignements, what will speed up significantly the time of usercompare of course) ?

b.rgds, Bernhard