Strategy for the replication server

[Former Member]

Hello all,

We are curently developing strategy for the SL Replication server and would appreciate your input, especially with companies with large footprint.

1. With SLT RS, the options are

(a) install in the source system'

(b) install in a 'separate system'

- what are the pros/cons for reach two options?

- What is the performance advantage of option (b) since it also trigger RFC to the source system?

- Network. With option (b), there is network traffic between the RS and source, due to RFC, so it is considered a disadvatage against (a)?

- Software maintenance - if there software maintenance in the source system OR the stand-alone RS, the replication will be suspended in both (a) and (b)

What are the other factors to consider on which option to go?

2. We have 4 ECC systems, 4 SCM systems, each for different part of the globe/timezone, and several CRM and SRM systems.If we go for 'separate system', - should we go for one large RS or several RS, and what is the best grouping/split criteria.

Thanks in advance for your time/input.

Regards,

Terry

[tobias_koebler · Accepted solution]

Hi Terry,

what we se usually is that customer run one company-wide SLT box. The monitoring and all operation aspects are easier to handle. For example, you can patch the SLT system independently from the source systems. The general recommendation for the SLT box is to have it close to your HANA -> why? The RFC compression is much better than the DB compression. From a performance perspective I do not see an advantage when you have SLT on the source system. In real life these are only figures, the overall network performance should not be a problem. We have customers with one central SLT box next to Hana and more than 80 ECC systems globally distributed.

Best, Tobias

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Tobias,

Thank you for your feedback.

Regards,

Terry