Migrating from 9.5.2. to 10.x: performance problems

[Lawrence]

Greetings everyone,

we are experiencing serious performance problems after migrating from 9.5.2 to 10.x. (using Excel 2010)

Current prod env:
virtual machine, 2 cores, 3 GB ram
9.5.2 32-bit
Server 2003 R2

new env
physical machine, 32 cores, 64 GB ram
Server 2008 R2 Enterprise
tested with 10.1.0, 10.2.2 32- and 64-bit


(I installed tm1 on a different machine to ensure that there are no hardware specific problems, but got the same results)

Normal reports are running fine, but in our (rule heavy) planning tool we are experiencing a drastic performance decrease, i.e. calculation on top level (~100 cost centers) is taking at least three times longer, which doesn’t make any sense to me given the difference in hardware. I tried several parameter combinations in the cfg-file but without any effect. I am aware that there are a lot of changes in version 10 and above, but I seem to miss something. I am simply running out of ideas...

Thanks a lot in advance

Lawrence

[jim wood]

Have you tried doing this on a 32-bit install? I only ask as 63-bit is very top heavy, with rules being memory based this be even more evident with your model. Also have you tried switching on persistent feeders?

Jim.

[declanr]

Not sure if its still the case but when version 10 first came a lot of people found it slower and it turned out to be largely due to parallel interaction getting turned on by default in 10+; when those configs flipped it to off it seemed to help.

[BrianL]

If you're on 10.2 you could also look at enabling MTQ to speed up view calculations. It can make a big difference.

[Lawrence]

Thank you for your answers and suggestions

-tried both 32 and 64 bit install, no change in calculation time
-persistent feeders on/off: no change
-MTQ: tested with 0 and 31,32: no change
-parallel interaction on/off: no change

Tried them in combination: no change unfortunately...

We are running our system in a Citrix-env which I had in mind being the culprit (ping is fine), but on my local installation of Excel it runs slow too

[jim wood]

This may be one for Big Blue support. Hopefully they'll be able to work through it with you. Hopefully.

[BrianL]

You could also try using the old 9.5.2 client with the new 10.x server. This could at least narrow down if it's a client or server issue.

[Lawrence]

@BrianL great idea, but did not work either

[BrianL]

Oh well. I'd have to 2nd Jim and suggest you contact support.

[Steve Vincent]

we're in the process of moving from 9.5.2 to 10.2.2 as well, but can't say i've found the same kind of issue.

[declanr]

Thank you for your answers and suggestions

-tried both 32 and 64 bit install, no change in calculation time
-persistent feeders on/off: no change
-MTQ: tested with 0 and 31,32: no change
-parallel interaction on/off: no change

Tried them in combination: no change unfortunately...

We are running our system in a Citrix-env which I had in mind being the culprit (ping is fine), but on my local installation of Excel it runs slow too

None of the above making any kind of change seems very fishy to me. How are you calculating that it takes longer than it did previously? Are you recording how long the view request takes on the server or are you just judging by how long it takes to appear on your screen? I'd suggest turning on view debugging and watching the log file for time taken in addition to viewing the request in opsconsole/tm1top.

[Steve Rowe]

I'm thinking if your normal stuff works OK and it is a specific issue around your planning app then maybe it is something unique to your planning app, this should rule out generic TM1 settings.

How are you addressing TM1 in your planning app when get the performance hit?

Maybe 64 bit and 10.2 are different enough that dim order needs to be optimised, did the planning app increase in RAM size in the same proportion to other cubes?

[Lawrence]

@declanr
I ran the applications side by side indeed, but after that I measured the calculation time directly in perspectives on each database server to prevent any Excel/vba effect: vm needed half the time the physical machine did for exactly the same view

@Steve Rowe

How are you addressing TM1 in your planning app when get the performance hit?

I am sorry, I am not quite sure what you mean by that

RAM did increase on 64bit, but nothing suspicious (main planning cube from 46 to 54 MB)

[Steve Rowe]

I mean what are you using to look at the data when you see the hit?
Cube viewer, vanilla Excel, custom Excel with a load of VBA, BI or TM1 web

[Lawrence]

Ah I see: both in Cube Viewer and in a custom Excel application.

In cube viewer:
prod env: 1:17 mins
test env: 2:31 mins

identical view of course