Author Topic: > 300 users accessing a project shared via a DBMS  (Read 1097 times)

Guillaume

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 614
  • Karma: +18/-0
    • View Profile
    • www.umlchannel.com
> 300 users accessing a project shared via a DBMS
« on: October 22, 2012, 11:57:44 pm »
Hi,

Has anyone already managed to share an EA project that's set up on a DBMS (e.g. SQL Server, MySQL), with 200/300+ users who can access this same project?

I'm wondering if this is feasible, e.g. ref possible performance issues, corrupted data.
If anyone has successfully set this up, I'll be interested in your feedback

Thanks
Guillaume

Blog: www.umlchannel.com | Free utilities addin: www.eautils.com


Geert Bellekens

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Karma: +191/-22
  • Make EA work for YOU!
    • View Profile
    • Enterprise Architect Consultant and Value Added Reseller
Re: > 300 users accessing a project shared via a D
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2012, 12:35:26 am »
Hi Guillaume,

I think the maximum I did was about 100 users.
I'm pretty sure the number of concurrent users isn't really going to be the bottleneck when working with EA.

I do recommend to turn on security with the option "require user lock to edit". That will avoid a lot of unintentional changes and annoyances (while creating other annoyances since now elements can be locked by another user and you have to ask them to unlock :-X)

Geert

Guillaume

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 614
  • Karma: +18/-0
    • View Profile
    • www.umlchannel.com
Re: > 300 users accessing a project shared via a D
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2012, 12:37:57 am »
Hi Geert,

Thanks for your feedback. I guess the alternative to your suggestion is to connect the project to a Version Control system like SVN.
this would prevent the use of the internal Security feature.

Guillaume
Guillaume

Blog: www.umlchannel.com | Free utilities addin: www.eautils.com


Geert Bellekens

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Karma: +191/-22
  • Make EA work for YOU!
    • View Profile
    • Enterprise Architect Consultant and Value Added Reseller
Re: > 300 users accessing a project shared via a D
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2012, 12:50:27 am »
Guillaume,

Using external version control can co-exist with EA's security.
When checking out EA will automatically ask whether you want to lock the package, and when checking in it will ask to unlock.

We even have a model that has a mix of the two. Everything has EA's security, but only some (shared) parts have version control.

Geert

OpenIT Solutions

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 464
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: > 300 users accessing a project shared via a D
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2012, 03:36:49 am »
Hi,

We have approx 240 modellers. I've found performance issues, but upon investigation these have been down to db (SQL Server) performance. So if your database is on a souped up platform you should be OK.

I'm also seeing problems when my db grows; we have 54928 elements in one model and response time when adding/editing elements to a diagram is getting poor. Again this could be down to the backend db.

Geert Bellekens

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8150
  • Karma: +191/-22
  • Make EA work for YOU!
    • View Profile
    • Enterprise Architect Consultant and Value Added Reseller
Re: > 300 users accessing a project shared via a D
« Reply #5 on: October 24, 2012, 06:50:37 pm »
Our model has more then 70.000 elements, but I haven't noticed any performance issues related to that.
Adding elements to a diagram is still as fast and responsive as on a smaller model.

The initial load time is slower but other than that...

Geert

PS. The EA Navigator add-in can also be responsible for some performance issues when it comes to responsiveness. I'm currently working on that, I just need to fix a last thread related bug :-[.

OpenIT Solutions

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 464
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: > 300 users accessing a project shared via a D
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2012, 12:37:56 am »
Thanks Geert, good to know, sounds very much like our current performance issues are down to the back end DB. Time to speak to the DBAs :-(