When comparing two roughly-equivalent environments, UAT and Staging, we kept running into a performance discrepancy we were unable to account for. We had the same data, rules, etc. in each HFM application, the same tuning parameters applied, and similar server host capabilities. We could not run a complex Task Scheduler instruction set in the same amount of time in each environment. UAT would take 90 minutes longer to complete the few dozen steps in the Task than Staging would.Examination of the log entries showed that for nearly every task in the list, it was taking approximately 150 seconds longer to perform each step in UAT than in Staging! We recreated the task list from scratch in Staging and found this extra time between steps was reduced to almost nothing. The same list was recreate in UAT and still ran 150 seconds longer between steps. The 220.127.116.11 Task Flow was being run by the same users in each environment, but was set to RUN AS a different user. When we ran as a simple ‘admin’-type user instead, as was used in the Staging environment, the extra time between steps vanished.
Review of the differences between the simple ‘admin’ user account and the LDAP user account being leveraged for the job in UAT showed the LDAP account had 7 PAGES, or about 3500 Native Group rules, being applied for provisioning. We advised the client of the cause of the issue, and saved them 90+ minutes by their provisioning a user with more straight-forward security.