The EPM Week In Review: Week Ending June 25, 2016
It seems like everyone has finished their Kscope presentations but me…as this was the busiest week I’ve encountered since I started doing my week in review. Patches and Updates: On-Prem: The Planning 11.1.2.4.005 patch has been released. This includes a laundry list bug fixes. We’ve waited a while for this one… The FR 11.1.2.4.702 patch has been released. When I looked at the readme, I only saw the 701 notes…so I’m not entirely sure what this fixed. Cloud: As of July 1st, you should see the updates coming for PBCS, EPBCS, and FCCS in your test environments. This is the giant PBCS update we’ve all been waiting for that adds literally thirty (yes 30!) pages worth of new functionality and fixes to both PBCS and EPBCS. Check out the official PDF’s here: PBCS July Update EPBCS July Update FCCS July Update New Blog Posts: This week I started my series on building your own NAS server with FreeNAS. I also mentioned my upcoming presentations at Kscope. Gary has published the first release of his new
Brian @ Kscope16
It’s that time of year again…Kscope! Unfortunately, Kscope always occurs during my busy season. As a result, much like last year, this will be a very quick in and out trip. I’ll be there Tuesday, June 28th only. Luckily, both of my presentations happen to be on that day, so it worked out nicely for me. I also have a few meetings with Oracle that I’m not allowed to talk about that occur on that day as well. Here are my presentations: PBCS is Still Hyperion Planning Jun 28, 2016, Session 9, 11:15 am – 12:15 pm With Oracle’s release of PBCS, many service companies have started releasing their one-size-fits-all implementations. The unfortunate truth is that PBCS is still Hyperion Planning. This presentation discusses the best practices around implementing PBCS and how to avoid the pitfalls of implementations offered at insanely cheap (and underestimated) pricing. Attend this session if you don’t want to have your PBCS project “land and expand.” The Planning Repository Revisited: Beyond the Basics Jun 28, 20165, Session 10, 2:00 pm – 3:00
The EPM Week In Review: Week Ending June 18, 2016
This week was again on the slower side. Opal tried to make up for it all on her own… Patches and Updates: Notta… New Blog Posts: This week I continued my Essbase performance series with another set of baseline benchmarks. After Kscope I’ll be able to dedicate a lot more time to continuing this series. I also created a new page dedicated to providing a list of bloggers and blogs in the EPM community. Gary shows us around the Essbase 12 docs. An interesting read, though I’m not sure I agree with all of his conclusions. Jason talk about spreadsheet management. He has some great thoughts on how spreadsheets themselves are not necessarily the problem, but rather how we manage those spreadsheets. Planning helps in one way while Dodeca helps in another. Dmitry has perhaps the longest blog post of all time. While it may be long, it is definitely worth the read as he describes how to use Essbase with a statistical application named R. Very, very interesting stuff. Dayalan has an in-depth article
Essbase Performance Series: Part 3 – Local Storage Baseline (Anvil)
Welcome to part three of a series that will have a lot of parts. In our we took a look at our test results using the CrystalDiskMark synthetic benchmark. Today we’ll be looking at the test results using a synthetic benchmark tool named Anvil. As we said in part two, the idea here is to see first how everything measures up in synthetic benchmarks before we get into the actual benchmarking in Essbase. Also as discussed in part two, we have three basic local storage options: Direct-attached physical storage on a physical server running our operating system and Essbase directly Direct-attached physical storage on a virtual server using VT-d technology to pass the storage through directly to the guest operating system as though it was physically connected Direct-attached physical storage on a virtual server using the storage as a data store for the virtual host As we continue with today’s baseline, we still have the following direct-attached physical storage on the bench for testing: One (1) Samsung 850 EVO SSD (250GB) Attached to an LSI 9210-8i flashed
The EPM Week In Review: Week Ending June 11, 2016
This was a really, really slow week for blogging. It’s almost like something is happening that is occupying everyone’s time. Drop me a line if you know what’s going on. Patches and Updates: I mentioned last that Essbase 11.1.2.4.010 had been released. It finally made its way to the Proactive Support Blog. HPCM 11.1.2.4.121 has been released. There appears to be a massive amount of new features, including a new REST API. Check out the readme. Calc Manager 11.1.2.4.006 has been released. This appears to be general bug-fixes. Hopefully it fixes your bug! Check out the readme. I’ve heard that the Planning 11.1.2.4.005 patch was due out in the next week or so…until they delayed it to add one more bug fix. That bug fix should only take a week or so to add according to my source, so we might get this patch prior to Kscope…we’ll just have to wait and see. New Blog Posts: This week (5 minutes ago), I posted part 2 of my Essbase performance series. Cameron is a little survey-happy
Essbase Performance Series: Part 2 – Local Storage Baseline (CDM)
Welcome to part two of a series that will have a lot of parts. In our introduction post, we covered what we plan to do in this series at a high level. In this post, we’ll get a look at some synthetic benchmarks for our various local storage options. The idea here is to see first how everything measures up in benchmarks before we get into the actual benchmarking in Essbase. As we discussed in our introduction, we have three basic local storage options: Direct-attached physical storage on a physical server running our operating system and Essbase directly Direct-attached physical storage on a virtual server using VT-d technology to pass the storage through directly to the guest operating system as though it was physically connected Direct-attached physical storage on a virtual server using the storage as a data store for the virtual host For the purposes of today’s baseline, we have the following direct-attached physical storage on the bench for testing: One (1) Samsung 850 EVO SSD (250GB) Attached to an LSI 9210-8i flashed to IT