Skip to main content
jv83421-Visitor
1-Visitor
October 6, 2010
Question

Windchill Configuration Assistant

I just installed and executed WCA on a HP-UX server with 8 CPU's and 32 GB
of RAM. It recommended only 3 method servers. I would have guessed more
than 3.

I'm just wondering what others have found using WCA. Are you making use of
the recommended values?

Jim

Jim Van Dragt
Product Development Systems Analyst/Developer - Lead
Information Technology
hermanmiller.com
616 654 5285 OFFICE
616 836 8394 MOBILE
HermanMiller

31 replies

Show previous replies
SteveVinyard1-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 19, 2012
Don't trust this thing for memory allocation and ms config.

[cid:image001.gif@01CD1E05.D1E380F0]

Steve Vinyard
Application Engineer
Translate
DanielReid12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
April 19, 2012
For example, at least with the 9.1 version, even if you set MS to
greater than 4GB (we need rather large MS's here), it will still just
set to 4GB. It also defaults to trying to do a range instead of fixed
size. Fixed size has been recommended many times by many sources,
including some top folks within PTC. I bump the sizes to what I need
after WCA completes.



To answer an earlier question that I don't think got answered, when it
suggests 2 MethodServers and you also wanted a Background MethodServer,
one of those two will be BG. So, if you want 2 FG and 1BG, you would
set 3.


Translate
DanielReid12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
April 19, 2012
How about trying the new enhancement request system?

Translate
GaryMansell12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
April 20, 2012
Daniel/Steve thanks for confirming the FG/BG MS calculation; I was not
certain I had understood it correctly.



Forcing the BG MS to have the same amount of memory allocation as the FG
MS seems wrong to me - we find that our two FG MS's require at least 3-4
GB or else we get out of memory crashes, but that we can run our BG MS
with about 2GB (maybe less) with no problems.



If I am wrong about this - I am happy to hear why...



Rgds



Gary


Translate
DanielReid12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
April 20, 2012
Gary, I think you're probably correct about that but I haven't bothered
with it myself. In at least one case, our BGMS hit peak memory usage
and got into distress. I had actually considered giving it more memory
than the FGMS. This just highlights that there is no "one size fits
all" recommendation for this system.



If you looked at the number of users or even the number of objects or
the size of my file vaults, you might think I have too much memory
allocated. It would take a deeper look into the massive dependencies
(we have one hugely variable and very large product) to get an idea that
we are actually just barely covering our needs.



I'd be curious if anyone else is setting FG and BG separately. I hadn't
even looked into how to do this.


Translate
SteveVinyard1-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 20, 2012
I will typically do as you do. 2GB for BG and 3-4 for FG depending on what I have to work with. I'm partial to giving a lot to the FG if its available and I don't have CPU cores to spare. Especially now that Tomcat lives in each MS too.

[cid:image001.gif@01CD1ED7.58CCEF80]

Steve Vinyard
Application Engineer
Translate
ptc-3038811-Visitor
1-Visitor
April 24, 2012
Hi,

I wonder how companies handles non each qty, such as meter, kg in PDMLink
with a tight CAD link that drives part structure. I can not see a
good/easy way to manage this.

Below are some examples how it could be done:

1.
Add a bulk-part in assembly to transfer qty and meter to part structure in
PDMLink.
Add one normal part in assembly that have geometry and mass in CAD.
Filter the real part in PDMLink 10 with "Delete Occurrence".
If you use a table in ProE for balloons make a filter to get rid of
bulk-item.

2.
Add 2 parameters in normal ProE part with unit and value.
Adapt views in PDMLink and adapt export program to ERP system to show
parameters instead of each that link gives for a normal proe obejct.

Any more ideas how to handle this? The Ideal solution would be that a ProE
part has the bulk-item functionality when it comes to non each units and
driving part structure. I have filed an enhancement request for this.

Thanks!

Best regards,

Magnus Persson
CAD Specialist

Dynapac Compaction Equipment AB
Part of the Atlas Copco Group
Translate
GaryMansell12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
July 18, 2012
Jess,



I am hoping that you can give me some more help with a previous problem
that were kind enough to advise me on via the list previously...



We are having troubles with Business Admin's accidentally generating
large reports which have been crashing our Windchill System.



PTC Tech Support said to set the following values to prevent it
happening (which has worked):



wt.pom.queryLimit=100000

wt.pom.paging.snapshotQueryLimit=5000

com.ptc.windchill.search.queryLimit=500



These values are recommended on the following Configuration Advice Page
on the PTC Website:



Translate
jessh12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
July 18, 2012
The correct value of wt.pom.queryLimit to avoid the possibility of
inappropriately stopping various internal system queries is -1.

Technical support will often advise setting this to other values in
order to put a immediate stop to crashes from unbounded queries like
those you reported. That should only be a very temporary stop-gap
measure to stop the crashes while a better solution is produced, but all
too often this is treated as the final resolution.

I cannot speak to the other wt.pom.paging.snapshotQueryLimit, but I
believe com.ptc.windchill.search.queryLimit is exactly the sort of
usage-specific query-limit that should be used instead of a blanket
wt.pom.queryLimit setting. If there is not already such a setting for
reports in the product, then one should likely be added.

One other issue with the notion of query-limits in general is the notion
that the limit is simply to a specific number of result rows. If the
result rows are simple, e.g. containing only an object id, then the
appropriate limit is really quite large. If the result rows contain 70
columns of data, many of the long strings or LOBs, then the appropriate
limit is much smaller. On the other hand, a row limit is much easier
for business admin's, etc, to understand than a result "byte limit" or a
"cell limit"...

Translate
GaryMansell12-Amethyst
12-Amethyst
July 18, 2012
Jess,



Thanks for your prompt and detailed response - I have decided to ignore
the PTC Recommendation page and set the values as follows:



wt.pom.queryLimit=-1

wt.pom.paging.snapshotQueryLimit=75000

com.ptc.windchill.search.queryLimit=5000



This prevents my Business Admins overflowing the Java MS's with dodgy
reports/searches, allows me to run a Windchill Vault Content
Verification report successfully, and also allows some of our larger
assemblies to be updated via a search.



Thanks for your time.



Best Regards



Gary


Translate
Show more replies
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement