Financial Management server clusters are an efficient way to push specific job types (such as consolidations or reports) to servers best suited to handle them. Clusters can also be used to separate user groups, like standard users and administrators. An issue arises when HFM clusters are mixed with task flows.
A key functionality of HFM allows several consolidations, data loads, extracts, emails, etc. to be scheduled and automated via a highly customizable operation called a task flow. These task flows allow for jobs to be completed without manual input between each step which can be a serious time saver, but they also present the opportunity for unforeseen HFM failures which can set you back further than if you simply did it manually.
FCCS is the next generation Oracle Hyperion Financial Consolidation Application. There are several fundamental differences in the technical aspect of the FCCS.
Happy New Year – 2018!
Over the years we have featured numerous posts on technical how-tos, tips & tricks and insights from our consultants out in the field. Going into 2018 we are looking forward to expanding on our topics and will include more business-process articles, client successes, event presentations and more! And in case you missed some of these, we thought you might like to see what the most popular technical posts have been to date:
Task Flows in Classic HFM 220.127.116.11 are interesting beasts. If your clients rely on them to run consolidation packages like ours do, they could be in some trouble. If there is any drop in communication between HFM and Shared Services, your results will not be as desired.
We discovered a few interesting things about consolidation tasks and HFM 18.104.22.168 at a recent client engagement. First, there is no “keep-alive” between HFM and the Oracle HTTP Server, so anything relying on a keep-alive will time out and cause issues later. Load balancers would need to have their keep-alive times adjusted, and OHS would need the entry for WLIOTimeoutSecs in the mod_wl_ohs.conf file adjusted upwards too.
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.