cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

File adapter : File modification check adds delay between each file processing

0 Kudos

Hi All,

I have file modification check used in file adapter, but this adds delay between each file received from source. My idea of using this in channel is to let another interface process files successfully until ECC before this interface starts. For example, I set 15 mins in modification check parameter, so in real time there is a delay of 15 mins between each file processing in PI and all of them created by source at the same time. I know I can minimize this with lesser interval in modification check, but ECC needs some time to process another interface before this interface data is received.

There is no routine interface for these files, so can't play around with ATP.

Please suggest an solution to this.

Thanks in advance.

Kumaran

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

PRAGSMATIC
Participant
0 Kudos

may be this can be a solution ?

Muniyappan
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

I am not able to get your point. Can you explain what the functionality of first and second interface?

Do you mean, when the sender channel started, it should wait for 15 mins, after wait time is over, it should pick all the files at the same time?

Also, second interface should start when first interface processes all files successfully?

0 Kudos

Hi Muni,

Basically I have two EDI interfaces ASN & Invoice which is transformed into Invoice and Delivery IDOCs at SAP. I receive 30-40 EDI files each time for ASN & Invoice and they are delivered to ECC at the same time(little time difference due to processing). Now ECC face problem with updating data properly due to simultaneous processing of Invoice & ASN (not jumping into detailed issue), so request came to delay ASN interface message a little and let Invoice data updated first.

So I added 15 mins to file modification check parameter (Msecs) of ASN interface thinking it will process files after 15 of arrival. This works, but it added 15 mins delay between each file processing. Like 15 mins wait, process 1st file, 15 wait, then process 2nd file, ..

I read in another blog that this is the way it works, can someone advise if you faced similar issue?.

Thank you.

Kumaran

Muniyappan
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

File adapter processes the files sequentially. page 52

https://www.sap.com/documents/2015/08/98d0c1e9-557c-0010-82c7-eda71af511fa.html

Modification check parameter is used to avoid partiall file processing.Meaing once file adapter finds the file, it will wait whatever time mentioned in the modcheck param, and then proceeds. So the behaviour you are experiening makes sense.This is how it works.

What is the file drop frequency in one day? Using ATP you can introduce the delay between two channels.

Are these files transferrred using one interface? if yes, you can pick the files using file name by sorting and make it to EOIO.

0 Kudos

Hi Muniyappan,

Sorry for late reply. Firstly thanks for your response.

I will make it simple.. Lets say SAP writes 100 files on PI server in a time frame of 1 min. Currently what happens in my system - PI channel waits for 5 mins, process first file, wait for 5 mins, then process second file, wait for 5 mins, then process 3 files,.. goes on.. If the modification check is to avoid partial writing, in my case all files were written at same time, so all should get processed sequentially without any waiting.. as all have same modified time.. am I right?.

Sorry to keep asking this again. TIA.

Regards,

Kumaran

former_member190293
Active Contributor
0 Kudos

Hi Kumaran!

When you use modification check, PI determines the file size, waits for given interval and checks the file size again. If the size didn't change - file processing is started. And since files are processed one by one - you have a 5 minute interval between each file processing. I guess it would be quite enough if you would use modification check interval of 3-5 sec, for example.

Regards, Evgeniy.

0 Kudos

Hi Evgeniy,

It makes sense, thanks for your response.

Regards,

Kumaran