Vault IdeaStation
Share your wish list directly with the Autodesk Vault Development Team
5 Kudos

Item Number Scheme for Multi-site Environments

Status: Accepted
by Board Manager on ‎02-01-2013 06:43 AM

We're using full SQL replication and as far as I know, the document numbering schemes are having no issues with being used across multi-sites so on face value, I can't see why the Item numbering schemes should.

Technically speaking again, I get the 'if a workgroup goes down' theory but to be honest if a business is large enough to justify having multi-site replication, it'll be sitting on a pretty good IT infrastructure so although you can never say never, it's a rare occurence for a site to compeletely go down.  However, item's being created is an event that occurs multiple times, hundreds of times per day.  

In addition to that, I worked in the reseller channel for nearly a decade and this was never publicised by Autodesk, I had no idea that we needed to consider this when building multi-site implementations.  A Google search for "autodesk vault item number replication" returns zero information on this and confirms that I haven't missed an technical publications on this story.


The concept of having a numbering scheme per site isn't a practical one, if you allowed the option of defaulting a specific numbering scheme to a specific site then it would be close to being a considerable option.  If it was up to me, I'd consider altering product behaviour to either:


1) Provide an administrative option whereby if a workgroup goes down, prevent any Items being generated.  Then it's up to me, if a site goes down I can simply stop Items being made until things come back online.


2) Keep the current existing workflow, but in the event of a disconnection between publisher and subscriber, when the failed site comes back online, Vault creates an ADMS task to automatically renumber any Items created during that time with the [@WORKGROUP suffix], giving them the next available number.  Warn all users with an in-client prompt that the Items they're creating may be automatically renumered when the system fault is resolved.


3) Most if not all everyday Vault users are not going to have a clue about what we're talking about here, so when this numbering conflict occurs through standard workflow, at least give them an in-client prompt or warning explaining why their Item number isn't now what they first thought it was.


4) Make the Item numbering schemes work the same way as the document numbering schemes!


I can think of many more options, most of which including the above are all much more favorable than what we have now which is Vault modifying production data at will without any warning to the user.


** Pulled from newsgroup post:

Status: Accepted
by *Expert Elite* ‎02-04-2013 05:52 PM - edited ‎02-04-2013 05:54 PM

good ideas.


i think that the functionality of the replicated environment needs to have some consideration on these topics.


for example (and potentially related in some small way to this post);


i have had two subscriber servers have their users simultaneously create a drawing that has been given the exact same number generated from the automatic numbering scheme! was it lag to the provider server, was it something else, who knows. we actually did a test over the phone and could repeat this duplication more than once. the point is that the functionality is lacking & in need of consideration. perhaps something simple like the system being able to buffer a bunch of numbers ready for the specific site to use, thus reserving them from being used elsewhere due to lag or server downtime etc etc.


ps - i actually jumped onto this ideastation just now to log a new idea for consideration of ownership management problems seen between relicated servers. ie due to one remote server being down due to the recent floods we have had in some parts of australia. ie no way to transfer ownership to others when the server is down.

i will submit a ticket separate to this one however i simply mention it here to reinforce the need to have some improved functionality.

by Board Manager on ‎04-12-2013 06:41 AM
Status changed to: Accepted
by *Expert Elite* on ‎11-11-2013 03:12 AM

I'm not too sure how I feel about my original post being moved across to the Idea Station.  I suppose the argument is subjective and open to interpretation, but personally I don't think it should be deemed as a 'feature request' on a wish list to fix/change a technical limitation in Vault which causes a highly problematic scenario that has a direct negative impact on production.  I've proven that this issue can be highly detrimental to an engineering system, I wasn't asking for a new feature, I was originally trying diagnose a serious problem.

Submit Your Ideas

Share and shape product ideas.

New Idea
You are not logged in.

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Top Kudoed Authors