I have the following situation:
MOSS 2007 Server Environment A -> Intranet
MOSS 2007 Server Environment B -> Collaboration Environment (approx. 150 site collections for various issues)
Both environments are on different infrastructures but we use the same Active Directory and the same groups. Now we would like to implement the following 2 things:
An overview page within the intranet with all available site collections on environment b.
An overview page within the intranet with only those site collections the user has access on.
now i'm searching for some good ideas what would be the best way to realise something like this.
thanks in advance for any response.
The main thing to be careful of in a solution like this is performance, particularly for your second requirement. That would require looping through every site collection and retrieving permission data, either using the web services or the object model.
I would recommend writing a custom timer job (or two for each requirement if that makes more sense) to execute at a low-traffic time and aggregate this information for storage in a custom SQL database. If there is never low traffic then delay your requests to reduce impact on the server.
A custom web part (or again, two if more appropriate) can then be deployed to both environments. The web part would query the database for the required information and display it to the user.
If the timer job needs to update this data more frequently then you would need to implement some sort of in-memory caching. Depending on your requirements this may need a lot of memory.
Related
Is it applicable to have both SharePoint 2013 and Sitecore 8.2 installed on the same servers (sharing the same Infrastructure)? If yes, is there any drawbacks?
Thanks for your appreciated help in advance.
Technically speaking it is safe, but both will make usage of IIS infrastructure to deliver their websites, and the machine hosting will take its toll on memory and possibly disk I/O depending on how any of these products were configured to store their data.
I had the unfortunate "pleasure" to work with Sitecore 7 and 8, and I can guarantee you it is possible and somewhat safe, but there are conditions to meet, let me go over some possible red flags here and it will hopefully help you to make a more balanced decision on how to set up both products on the same infrastructure.
The first scenario and the safest: 3 SERVERS
SQL Server with two instances, segregating SharePoint and Sitecore
One server for SharePoint (assuming it is a single farm server)
One server for Sitecore (assuming you can handle search/indexing altogether)
This is the best and the safest, since IIS is the tug of war if both SharePoint and Sitecore reside on the same server, on the scenario above SQL Server can deal with both on the same instance if you don't mind access restrictions/security, but it is better to go on distinctive instances, will be safer and easier to administer
The second scenario: 2 SERVERS
SQL Server with two instances, segregating SharePoint and Sitecore
One server for SP + Sitecore
Yes you can have both but you will need to configure ports, sites, application pools and hardware requirements very carefully.
Some considerations:
Microsoft has made clear how SharePoint should be configured, you need a dedicated machine for SQL Server, anddifferent SharePoint servers according to their specific roles in a farm: Web Front End, Application Server, Search Server, etc. or if it is a very small "farm", you can cram all of them into one server but the SQL Server (this is where disk I/O is the king of the hill).
While Sitecore doesn't not need a farm like SharePoint it shares the same similarity, a dedicated server for SQL Server, one server for Sitecore and in some cases you will like to have another server for Search and Indexing.
The bottom line here is, all depends on how big is your project, and size here is measured in the number of factors: number of users, simultaneous users, volume of data stored.
I would not mix SharePoint and Sitecore on the same machine but I would not mind at all to mix them in the same SQL Server in different instances, the reason is simple, SharePoint is more likely to take a hold of IIS, assuming you are running SP 2010/2013, the User Profile Service and the FIM are a common cause of trouble in the SharePoint realm, and it is common for SP Admin to perform IISRESET -NOFORCE to troubleshoot cases like these.
If you are using Sitecore + MVC or MMVC, you might end up customizing the IIS Sites with some heavy loads and you will need to beef up the machine to not bring SharePoint down (assuming the SharePoint Central Admin and SharePoint Web Services + additional User Web Applications you have created) are all there installed on the same server.
I'm trying to not make this overly complicated but sharing some real world scenarios because it all boils down to the load on the server, you need to remember one thing, SharePoint is a beast and it is the one that will need more resources if you want a Single SharePoint Server + Sitecore living on the same place, got it?
The recommendation from both Microsoft and Sitecore is clear: dedicated servers, and anything beyond this is at your own risk.
I've mixed and placed both together, it worked for me but I wouldn't do this again, it is not worth if have the chance to keep them apart.
I agree with Dr. Sushi on all his points. One other thing to consider is the Sitecore licensing limitations. If you are using a persistent license (a.k.a. server license) most of them limit you to 8 cores on the server. If you are running both Sitecore and Sharepoint on the same server you might need to go beyond 8 cores to handle production load, which means now you have to buy multiple licenses for Sitecore for that single installation, or you have to switch to a subscription licensing model.
We're starting to use SharePoint 2013 to manage our department's process documentation and I have some questions about best practices for site structure. I'm a little surprised I can't find the answers via web search, since this seems like a basic question every new SharePoint user must deal with.
Moving from a file share environment, I'm trying hard to get out of that mindset and I understand the many benefits of SharePoint over file shares. I also understand why creating folders in SharePoint forces arbitrary divisions on files whereas one large set of documents with metadata lets you filter and group the files based on different needs.
What's confusing me is that I also read that it's better to have too many sub-sites than not enough. It seems like sub-sites can easily become pseudo-folders and I'm not sure where that line is crossed.
Here's an example.
We have a SharePoint site devoted to our department. We've create a sub-site dedicated to an application we developed to load data into our business systems. It mainly holds technical documentation about the application. This application supports many different data sources, each with its own set of user instructions for loading, its own schedule (calendar), contact lists, supporting files, etc. There's no compelling reason to separate them to restrict access. However, there doesn't seem like a lot of value in having them all in the same sub-site, either, since someone working on a job will only want to see the docs and supporting files for that data source. I just can't foresee someone wanting to view supporting files across all data sources, although, I could see someone wanting to see the schedule for all data sources combined.
My question is, should I create separate sub-sites under the application for each data source or do I just store everything in the application sub-site and use metadata and views to group things by data source? Putting all the items for a specific data source into its own sub-site seems to be much simpler to manage and present than having to specify metadata for every new file and creating a lot of views. However, I can't shake the feeling that I'm still using file share thinking. Or maybe I'm just missing some basic concept of SharePoint.
Any advice or links to good discussions of this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I would recommend that you use metadata and views to separate data in one repository/site.
My reasons are as below:
In SharePoint, it is recommended to use metadata than "evil"
folders(or subsites in your case). Keep in mind that maintaining
multiple subsites requires big administrative efforts in long term,
for example, some sites will be inherited while others unique
permission.
As time passes by and people rotate, it becomes vague
that where the data was stored and where the new data should go to,
especially with large volume subsites.
Since confidentiality is not concerned in your case, keep data centralized and open to people working in related field increases sharing and collaborating phenomenon. In contrast, using subsites increases the possibility of data silos.
people are all lazy :). Taken me as example, I dont want to remember all those xyz URLs, I want to go to one place and be able to fetch everything that I need.
Is there a way to monitor statistics on usage of documents within a database?
I have a lotus notes database hosted on a local server. I know I can get some info from 'User Detail...' in Info tab of Database property (right click on the database from domino designer), which basically shows me which user accessed database and which CRUD action was performed, but I was looking for something more in depth i.e. which document in particular is read the most and by who.
Since this is StackOverflow, not SuperUser or ServerFault, I'm going to treat this as a programming question. (On those other sites, they would tell you that tracking actions at the document level is not built into Notes and Domino's functionality, but there are some 3rd party add-on products that can do it for you.)
You can implement tracking features down to the document level in Notes and Domino using the Extension Manager API portion of the Notes C API. There is also a free package on the OpenNTF.org web site, called TriggerHappy, which provides a framework for using the Extension Manager features to call Java agents when events that you want to track occur. This can make it significantly easier to accomplish what you want, but it will not scale as well for large user bases.
You should also bear in mind that since Notes and Domino are designed for use in a distributed environment in which users can do their work in local replica databases, a tracking mechanism that is based on an Extension Manager plugin running on the server may not see changes at the moment that users make them. Instead, it might see them when those changes replicate from the user's computer to the server -- and replication does not guarantee that order is preserved, so the server might see some things happen in a different order than what the user actually did.
Have a look at the activity trends, see notes help.
If you need more details, you have to implement it by yourself.
I'm the IT Manager at a mid-size manufacturing company. We are getting our feet wet with SharePoint - so far we're got one blog in production use> It's the CEO's.
We have use cases for a couple of list-based "applications" with some simple workflow that will be implemented by one of our developers. We also want to give our users (at least the more tech-savvy ones) the ability to create and work with their own departmental sites.
We're concerned, however, that we might be starting something that could quickly get out of control if it's widely adopted (which would be a good thing). Since we don't really understand all the architectural trade-offs, we could end up with massive amounts of user data in a structure that bites us down the road.
Our biggest question is whether to have multiple sites for each use vs. a single root site from which everything else descends. Multiple sites would give us flexibility to make changes or develop new features without creating problems for all the users. However, multiple sites might be harder to back-up, search, and maintain user profiles/security. A single massive site seems to reverse the cost/benefits.
I'd appreciate any insight on the one vs. many trade-offs, or links to resources that discuss it. Links to general SharePoint "enterprise best practices" (sorry) would also be appreciated.
Thanks.
However, multiple sites might be harder
to back-up, search, and maintain user
profiles/security. A single massive
site seems to reverse the
cost/benefits.
I would consider this as incorrect. First we need to clarify when we say multiple sites, do we mean multiple site collections or multiple sites - they are two entirely different things.
Now even if they are multiple different site collections, in SQL database, they are just one database, since the database is created as web application level and not site level.
That was regarding backup.
Coming to search and user profiles, again your assumption is wrong. Search and User Profiles are Shared SErvices and they work fine as long as they reside in single Shared Services Provider. Both are farm level services.
A single massive site is (if you really mean site here not site collection) is a complete no-no and a bad design.
I would recommend having multiple site collections (something like Overall department in your company like HR, Finance , IT) and then have subistes under it. This way you have one database in SQL to manage and still you can scale by adding content database to existing web application.
Again here, I assume that you are creating your topology at company level. If this is at some lower level it needs to be refined.
Read some articles on taxonomy and site architecture on Technet before going ahead with any one.
Planning worksheets for SharePoint Server 2010
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262451.aspx
Plan sites and site collections
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc263267.aspx
Sites and site collections overview
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262410.aspx
Plan site navigation
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262951.aspx
It purely depends upon your needs and requirements. even having a deferent web applications for deferent site i can provide you one citation taking backup as advantage. You might have few sites where data does not changes frequently like organizational policies, process documents etc. in this case taking regular backups/search crawling does not make sense(although you can opt for differential backup and incremental crawl but still in a week or fortnightly you have to take full backup). hence i would suggest carefully analyze your requirements and then take a decision. Microsoft has provided a good list of checklist and templates for planning purpose. few of the links are provided in madhur's reply and rest you can google upon.
I'm looking at designing some core information systems at a new company I'm working at (described one of my ideas here Workflow system)
I've thought a bit more, and am strongly considering using sharepoint for a lot of the heavy lifting seeing as it comes with so much out of the box.
However, I'm not sure how it will handle the high volume of data we'll be throwing at it. I read the MS whitepaper (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=95450&clcid=0x409), and it says about 2000 items in a list is about the limit using traditional design methods.
But first a bit of info on my plan and data structures :
We have multiple clients. Each client has multiple applications. Each application will have multiple, ongoing jobs (or process runs).
Each application will store significant correspondence and documentation. Each job represents the processing of a data file on a single run, and stores information about the job such as the postscript file, postal manifests, etc.
Job volume will be about 50 - 100 a day. Each job will have a workflow, triggered by external programs. Then, say on a "job scheduler" page, production staff can schedule the jobs and perform custom actions on the job (written as plugins).
I was thinking the jobs would sit outside and accessed via the BDC, but I would still like them represented in sharepoint lists, to add in sharepoint functionality and reporting, and they'd be accessible in multiple places
e.g.
Application portal - see jobs for application
Production scheduler - see lists of upcoming jobs, assign to resources, trigger other functionality (e.g. copy print file to printer, produce mailing machine file)
Invoicing view - view completed but uninvoiced jobs, export to accounting package
Client view - client portal displays jobs, invoices, stock levels (from external warehouse system), documentation, change register / helpdesk
So basic info about the job would sit in the BDC, but then sharepoint would capture additional metadata about each job. Also, down the line we might put in more advanced workflows using WF or something like K2 blackpoint / blackpearl.
Is this feasible? Any resources you'd recommend to read to get up to speed?
To use SharePoint, you should concentrate on what SharePoint is good at and what it is designed for.
SharePoint is a great collaboration portal, it is not so good as a simple high volume database. So...
You can setup a small site for each client and subsites for each job. The goal of the "job site" is to display (using a webpart perhaps) the relevant upcoming jobs, a list of job errors/exceptions and relevant team documentation on each job.
Separate sites can be created to give a particular "view" of the jobs. E.g an "Invoicing" site can be created to give a view again from BDC webparts of what is requiring invoicing.
https://iwsolve.partners.extranet.microsoft.com/SDPS/ may provide some help.
Don't try and store huge amounts of information in a SharePoint list, just because it may be possible to "tag" it with meta data. A database table is perfectly able to include columns supplying additional information if required.
Think about it this way. If you are creating 50-100 jobs a day, putting that data into a list pre-supposes your sites users are going to want to enter metadata on those jobs manually. I thought not, so create systems you need in order to get the metadata stored correctly at source, or store metadata about the "types" of jobs within a SharePoint list and allow SharePoint to match the job type with jobs in the BDC.
SharePoint will help you to integrate all your systems information together, but unfortunately it looks like you have a lot of work to do just planning what information should go where and how each type of use will view it.
Please take a look at this blog post I wrote on managing large SharePoint lists for better performance- it might offer a bit of an explanation for the 2,000 items issue, which is not actually a hard limit on the number of items in a list, as SharePoint will support up to 5 million items per list. One way around this would be to create and maintain different views that filter by an indexed field to show you different items, up to 2,000 at a time. Hope that helps.
Dina Ayoub
Program Manager
Windows SharePoint Services
SharePoint is probably quite a good fit for the UI side of things, though you'll need to think carefully about which parts are stored and modified in SharePoint lists and which parts are stored elsewhere. That's not so much a SharePoint issue as something you always have to deal with when you have multiple data sources.
I'd probably use a SharePoint list as the primary store for jobs, to avoid any sync issues and make editing easier. The volume of data shouldn't be an issue - just make sure you aren't trying to display 2000 items at once - it's the view, not the list itself that runs into performance issues on large numbers of items.
Tough question Dane... I would like to know a little more about your design / vision before giving an opinion.
Based on what I read in your question I would not use SharePoint 2007 as a development platform for this application.
1) Development experience in SharePoint 2007 can be painful and unproductive at times.
Hard to debug
Steep learning curve
2) Easy to get in trouble with performance
Data Layer is complex and can require expert SQL / SharePoint Admin skills to make platform scale.
Content databases should not exceed 100 GB.
3) Deployment can be extremely difficult depending on what you are doing.
4) New version will be released in the next 12 months.
Just my .02.