Sequence Design Question

[gagan8877]

Hi Gurus

I have a design question. We are running DS 7.5.2 EE on windows 2003 server.

In parallel jobs, if we create multiple layers of sequences so that it doesn't look messy on the designer, does that have any implications? I mean if one sequence calls another sequence and the second sequence calls some jobs, then is that a better than design than simply using one sequence to call the jobs?

There are some jobs that were designed like this and were handed off to me, but I could not get a reason for that except that it looks a little neat and less crowded on the designer, but it adds to complexity while troubleshooting and maintenance.

Does DS load some executables, dlls, etc each time a sequence is called and does calling multiple sequences effect performance?

Thanks

[ray.wurlod]

Calling/using nested job sequences to achieve a more modular, and therefore more maintainable, design is a "best practice". While an activity is executing its controller (the job sequence) is effectively sleeping, waiting for the activity to conclude. DLLs on Windows are, by their very nature, shared when the operating system is Windows. On UNIX, most functionality is also provided through shared libraries. So the only implication of more job sequences is more processes, but the impact is negligible and definitely worth it in terms of ease of maintenance.

I disagree that it makes troubleshooting more difficult - your comment suggests that error/warning handling has not been well thought-out by whoever put these sequences together.

[gagan8877]

Calling/using nested job sequences to achieve a more modular, and therefore more maintainable, design is a "best practice". While an activity is executing its controller (the job sequence) is effectively sleeping, waiting for the activity to conclude. DLLs on Windows are, by their very nature, shared when the operating system is Windows. On UNIX, most functionality is also provided through shared libraries. So the only implication of more job sequences is more processes, but the impact is negligible and definitely worth it in terms of ease of maintenance.

I disagree that it makes troubleshooting more difficult - your comment suggests that error/warning handling has not been well thought-out by whoever put these sequences together.

Thanks Ray. There are 15 different sequences that call 15 different subsequences or nested sequences. Which is what doesn't make sense to me. There should be one to call 15, so that we don't have to run 15 times, so as u r saying, should we create a third layer on top of those for execution ease (another sequence that calls those 15), if it doesn't effect performance?

[chulett]

should we create a third layer on top of those for execution ease (another sequence that calls those 15), if it doesn't effect performance?

Yes, you certainly can as long as it is valid to always run them together. And no, it won't affect performance any more than running the individual Sequence jobs would.

[ray.wurlod]

Yes, unless the middle fifteen don't do anything in particular, in which case replace those with "the one sequence to rule them all".

[gagan8877]

Yes, unless the middle fifteen don't do anything in particular, in which case replace those with "the one sequence to rule them all".

Great! Thanks Guys