cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

BTP Cloud Foundry Account Model Spaces - Best Practices

abe_letkeman
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert

Hello community!

I'm trying to plan a BTP CF account model. Where I'm getting stuck is on the use of spaces. Yes, it's flexible and up to the customer how to use the spaces to meet their needs, but I'm trying to understand some strategies and best practices, specifically in a hybrid scenario and including ChaRM - see 'Interplay of SAP Cloud Platform Transport Management, CTS+ and ChaRM in hybrid landscapes'.

Since a cloud foundry space has a 1:1 relationship to a virtual system in solution manager, we have to take into consideration availability of SIDs in the landscape. Also, in cloud foundry, we must specify a space in which to deploy application and service instances.

Taking this into consideration, I think there are a few options..

Option 1 - Use one space for everything. When activating Work Zone, Mobile Services, Process Integration etc., specify the same space for everything. This requires only one SID, would be easier to manage, but provides the least control of entitlements and less granular reporting.

Option 2 - Specify separate spaces for each instance. For example, Work Zone in space "workzone", Mobile Services in space "mobile", Process Integration in space "PI", ABAP in space "customer", etc. This provides better control of entitlements, and reporting, but requires many new SIDs.

Option 3 - something between option 1 and option 2. Are there other, more important factors that need to be taken into consideration? Does it make sense to have something like option 2 in the development subaccount, and option 1 in QA and PROD... or vice versa?

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this. Best regards.

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Harald_Stevens
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert

Hi Abe,

there are a lot of things to consider when setting up your account model. I am not sure if you are aware of the BTP best practices guide on SAP Help. It touches some of the topics like user management or resource sharing.

As the author of the blog you mentioned I would like to concentrate of the aspects of transport and integration into SAP Solution Manager. I would start with the question if you plan to create hybrid apps consisting of a cloud part on BTP and a backend part running on premise. Here it could make sense to mirror your on premise landscape (Dev, Test, Prod, Pre-Prod?, Sandbox?, Training?, ...) with your cloud accounts.

On the other side you might consider to make use of agile principles for your cloud development by using CF spaces which are not 1:1 connected to on premise systems and are fed by a CI/CD pipeline. These spaces would not (all) be modeled inside SAP Solution Manager and by that reduce the number of required SIDs. Only after some testing in the agile landscape and reaching a 'release candidate' status you would handover the app to SAP Cloud Transport Management (and SAP Solution Manager).

This can easily lead to quite a few CF spaces making up your 'transport chain'. Therefore I would rather not try to multiply that number by the different services you use (Mobile, Workzone, ...) and tend more towards Option 1.

On the other side there the aspects I mentioned in the beginning: would you like to separate the users for different apps, so that you need separated CF landscapes? Or is it enough (or even possible) to handle that via role assignments?

All in all, I would rather start on the Option 1 side and then consider further requirements and increase the number of CF spaces as needed. Of course you have to provide enough CF spaces to safely transport (minimum Dev, Test, Prod) and multiply that with the number of accounts needed for other reasons.

Don't let the SID question limit you too much. There are more 40.000 possible SIDs, but of course a lot less 'reasonable' ones...

Kind regards
Harald

abe_letkeman
Product and Topic Expert
Product and Topic Expert
0 Kudos

Hi Harold.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and advice on this topic.

We decided to go with the same strategy that you recommended - start with Option 1 and consider further requirements as needed. I'm glad to have the additional confidence about this approach.

Regarding the SIDs, in some large, mature landscapes it is difficult to find available SIDs considering naming standards. In some cases, the customer naming standard needs to be amended.

Best regards,

Abe

Answers (0)