tomok wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:46 pm
PavoGa wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:43 pm
Alan Kirk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:54 pm
My mileage varies greatly indeed. If I'm having users testing reports in a dev environment (especially complex reports which draw from multiple servers), websheets on TM1 web etc, etc, I want them using EXACTLY the same documents that they are or will be using in production. Faffing around changing server names is not just more work, it's the embodiment of the expression "something is going to get missed".
We have the same instance name across servers. Our DEV server does have additional instances.
When you have on-premise TM1 you have a lot of luxuries those of us in the IBM Cloud do not.
{Facepalm, sigh...}

As if there weren't enough reasons for avoiding the cloud (more precisely
IBM's implementation of the cloud) like the plague...
Imagine this situation with running DEV / UAT instances of an SQL Server instance in Azure, AWS, etc, where a new instance means (a) Making a copy of the disk image, (b) Creating a new server instance, (c) Firing her up and (d) Pointing to the new instance for testing. Still, this is the company that regards
this "improvement" in PAW 2.0.62 as being a Big! Leap! Forward!
IBM wrote:Planning Analytics on Cloud customers can now delete TM1 databases by using Planning Analytics Workspace Administration. You no longer need to submit a support ticket to have a TM1 database deleted for you.
The self-service delete action removes the database from the user interface. However, the database directory and its contents are retained on the data tier. You can later decide whether they should be deleted, moved, copied, or kept on the data tier.
You must use the Planning Analytics Workspace new interface, which is also referred to as New Experience, to delete the database. This functionality is not available in the Planning Analytics Workspace Classic Experience.
The comparable action in AWS:
- Go to the dashboard.
- Delete the instance.
- Click [Yes] to confirm.
Since you delete instances separately from their data storage, whether you retain the database folder is in your hands.
Not to wish to state the bleeding obvious, but this is the sort of thing that should have been under user control
from day one whereas the Cloud offering has been running for ... {rhetorically}
HOW many years now? And they've only just
NOW gotten around to this? Much like the restriction on how many instances you have in cloud, to me this speaks to (yet another) complete failure on IBM's part to understand real world usage of the product.
Raise a
support ticket with the necessary human costs just to delete a database. For frick's sake... It's no wonder that IBM can't turn a profit on this sort of thing.
tomok wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:46 pm
We have two cloud instances, one for production and one for non-production. On that non-production I have to have a DEV service and a UAT service (for SOX purposes).
That is indeed one advantage that we have in the Land Down Under; we don't have to give the time of day to that oversized load of legalistic blather which is the walking definition of "being seen to do something" while in fact achieving nothing. Well, nothing except the prodigious generation of red tape, anyway.
Sarbanes Oxley Act wrote:SEC. 406. CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS.(a) CODE OF ETHICS DISCLOSURE.—The Commission shall issue rules to require each issuer, together with periodic reports required pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to disclose whether or not, and if not, the reason there for,such issuer has adopted a code of ethics for senior financial officers, applicable to its principal financial officer and comptroller or principal accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions.
Yeeeeah, that'll fix it.
"Our Code Of Ettics (sic) for La Cosa Nostra: We're legitimate businessmen who run a legitimate business. We don't know nothing about any organised racketeering or stock market manipulation."
And having this extra piece of time consuming paperwork that nobody reads (aside from the person who wrote it) as their waste bin liner has modified many a person's behaviour no end.
tomok wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:46 pm
Since you can't have two TM1 services with the same name up at the same time on one server that blows up any idea of having all my TM1 services with the same name.
You're welcome to Cloud. As I said, I really don't need more reasons to avoid it, but thanks for this one.