TM1 Forum

Hello,
is there way to see the how many number of Active users are there in TM1?

mean actually in my datamodel i have 1000 users but i want to see how many users are active users? mean how many users are logging and working out of 1000.

could u help me its urgent for me.

thanks advanveeeeeee

mincharug.shulft wrote:is there way to see the how many number of Active users are there in TM1?

mean actually in my datamodel i have 1000 users but i want to see how many users are active users? mean how many users are logging and working out of 1000.

I'm wondering exactly how much of the documentation you have read. Well, I'll give you some bedtime reading. Operations manual, the "System and Performance Monitoring" chapter, try having a look at the heading Using the TM1 Top Utility, amongst others.

Let me guess, this is urgent, right?

mincharug.shulft wrote:could u help me its urgent for me.

Theeere we go. Aesop, eat your heart out...

Provided that you have the ClientPropertiesSyncInterval parameter in your tm1s.cfg file then you can simply create a dynamic subset in the }Clients dimension to return a list of currently "active" clients (with some degree of not quite real time delay depending on the value in seconds assigned to ClientPropertiesSyncInterval)

The MDX code for the subset is:
{FILTER(
{TM1SUBSETALL( [}Clients] )},
[}ClientProperties].([}ClientProperties].[Status]) = "ACTIVE"
)}

lotsaram wrote:Provided that you have the ClientPropertiesSyncInterval parameter in your tm1s.cfg file then you can simply create a dynamic subset in the }Clients dimension to return a list of currently "active" clients (with some degree of not quite real time delay depending on the value in seconds assigned to ClientPropertiesSyncInterval)

Or turn on Performance Monitor and get it at a glance out of the stat cubes. There are multiple ways to work, all to be found in the manuals. Of course it usually works better if those are read (or at least glanced at; a whole chapter titled "System and Performance Monitoring" is hard to miss if at least one eye is kept open) before TM1 services are offered to clients. It's the whole "cause and effect" thing. Still, if in doubt just skip the manuals and mark every question, without exception, as "urgent".

That is if your particular version of TM1 hapens to have a fully functioning set of PerfMon cubes. But that is a whole other set of frustrations ...

He does state that he is running 9.5.1 which does have the full set of performance cubes?

Havig a full set of performance cubes is not the same as having a full set of working peroformance cubes. In 9.5.1 }StatsByClient is fixed but }StatsByCubeByClient is not updated (just tested myself on 9.5.1 HF17). As I recall in 9.4.1 FP3 the }StatsByCubeByClient cube is "fixed" for the Admin user only, but we don't use any generic accounts so not about to test if that's still the case in 9.5.1.

Still, a zero supressed view of }ClientProperties on Status or running TM1Top would seem to be a pretty simple (and obvious) solution to the OP's "issue".

lotsaram wrote:Havig a full set of performance cubes is not the same as having a full set of working peroformance cubes. In 9.5.1 }StatsByClient is fixed but }StatsByCubeByClient is not updated (just tested myself on 9.5.1 HF17). As I recall in 9.4.1 FP3 the }StatsByCubeByClient cube is "fixed" for the Admin user only, but we don't use any generic accounts so not about to test if that's still the case in 9.5.1.

So what? The information that he's after is in }StatsForServer, which, as far as I could see, was unaffected by the issues that afflicted the cubes that you mentioned in 9.5.1. Or at least not on the versions that I was running at the time.

I agree you can get the number of connected clients in stats for server. I was only getting at the annoying fact that IBM can't get their act together and properly fix the performance monitor.

I hear you lotsaram. The current bug situation has become a little annoying but we do sometimes have to be aware that some of the questions asked may be by new users and they may not get the relevance to the orginal question. A point well made though.