This website is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or approved by SAP AG.

SEM implementation options

All postings related to SEM only

Moderators: Snowy, thx4allthefish

SEM implementation options

Postby McGallin » Tue Feb 25, 2003 8:40 pm

Hello SEM's,
I would like to understand the pros and cons if I adopt a SEM implementation strategy as follows.
We do have a current BW production system live. Now SEM is in scope of the project. We are leaning more towards a new SEM-BW box and datamart data from the original BW environment. Did anybody had done this kind of architecture before. If so please let me know the CONS and PROS of it, any other challenges..
Your hep is appreciated.


Pros/Cons of Seperate SEM System

Postby semmgr » Wed Feb 26, 2003 6:18 am

One of the cons would be the added hardware costs of a unique BW vs SEM system. Another concern could be any data that would be in both systems (just from an overhead view).

On the PRO side, you will be able to maintain each system on its own release schedule. Performance shoould be better on both BW and SEM side for users (as long as box size for new sem is reasonable).

You did not mention which release your current BW system is nor did you mention which piece(s) of SEM you are implementing. These factors may also be a consideration in the decision.

There are customers running two seperate systems, one for SEM and another for BW, with the BW system feeding SEM.

Hope this helps,

Rob Janson
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:03 am
Location: boston, ma

Postby SAPBWSEM » Wed Feb 26, 2003 10:26 am

It would actually be 2-3 extra servers if you go the SEM and BW on a 2 system landscape since you would need to do a SEM landscape such as SEM-DEV, (SEM-TST) and SEM-PRD,

I have been on 3 project with SEM, 1 on the BW 2.1C side with SEM-BPS 3.0A, 1 doing BW-SEM 2.1C/3.0A with BPS and CPM and another doing mostly SEM-BPS on 3.1B and BW 3.0B. All three projects decided to go with BW and SEM on the same servers. But all 3 clients are looking at 100-600 users for BW and SEM combined.

Some project I know that have BW and SEM on different servers are SEM-BCS projects, large number of users, or wanted the latest SEM functionality but cannot upgrade their BW production server yet.

The BW and SEM pairing are as followings:
SEM 3.2C on BW 3.1C
SEM 3.1B on BW 3.0B
SEM 3.1A on BW 3.0A
SEM 3.0A/B on BW 2.1C
SEM 2.0B on BW 2.0B

If you are not on BW 3.x and do not plan to finish the upgrade to the BW 3.x in the near future, you probably should go for a 2 system architecture.

Another thing to note is that BW 3.0B was out in June but SEM 3.1B did not come out untill August forcing customers to remain on BW 3.0A for a few extra months since they are still using SEM 3.1A.

Hope this helps,
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 8:53 pm

Postby McGallin » Wed Feb 26, 2003 1:26 pm

Thanks Rob and Mary for your thoughtfull inputs. We are using currently BW 2.1C and we are looking at implementing SEM BPS. But currently the team is not planning to do an upgrade. Sow we are leaning more towards a two system architecture.

Postby Guest » Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:07 pm

Don't forget hardware!! I am talking about your present hardware. It might good for bw but is it good for SEM? SEM is a beast when it comes to cpu utilization.
We have our systems separated. As it was mention, one of the pros is that I was able to bring SEM to the latest set of patches without affecting the BW systems which feeds SEM.

Return to SEM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

This website is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or approved by SAP AG.