This content has been marked as final. Show 4 replies
ad 1 - yes, both 10g and 11g version allow to run multiple instances of UCM on a single machine
ad 2 - yes, take a look at Archiver and BatchLoader; you may also want to write a loader of your own or use some other techniques (db synchronization) - the correct method/tool depends on the amount of data, speed required for transfer, etc.
Describe a bit more your scenario.
Thank you for your reply.
In my project, We are designing 1 HQ ECM, 1 or 2 local ECM and 2 or 3 global ECM and the correct number of ECM is not decided.
Is there any good architecture to integrate the distributed ECMS ?
All the contents will be gathered to HQ ECM and the local/global ECMs will be used for local/global users. local/global ECMs is something like buffer of contents for their local/global users and the all the contents of local/global ECMs sholud be trasferted to the centeral HQ ECM.
To implement the above Centralized and Distributed ECM architecutre, I am reviewing Goldengate, ODI, SOA/BPEL, or other asynchronous message queueing method but until now, we do not have the solution.
In this case, What kind of solution satisfiy the integration requirement of speed and functionality?
Joonho,1 person found this helpful
first of all I would strongly recommend you to find someone experienced who can help you to set the architecture. There are too many questions to ask, not to mention "gut feelings", and I don't think it will be impossible to discuss it with necessary level of details on a public forum.
As for your description, what is the major reason for going distributed at all? UCM is not designed as a distributed system and unless there are really good reasons, it should be avoided (even though it is doable). Besides, a centralized solution is usually much cheaper - if you have one central repository and several (3-5) surrounding systems, but still you want to have all the information in the center.
Do you realize, you will need
a) hardware for 4-6 locations, including backup/restore and disaster recovery parts
b) software licenses for ditto
c) to bother will synchronization (this will significantly increase the costs of implementation)
d) to have administrators for 4-6 locations
It is usually more efficient to strengthen the central solution so that it can handle all the traffic.
What could be good reasons for going distributed? I know of two reasons:
- internet/network connectivity is too weak to handle the traffic from the center; we had one prospect with very old WAN, who had a use case that a locally scanned document should be immediately available to users,
- legislative; some documents must be stored in the country of their origin
So, take all of that into account and try to challenge the person who proposed the distributed solution.
If you really end up with a distributed architecture, you will need a bit more data. Namely, how many documents (count) and of what size (volume of data) will travel from distributed locations and vice versa.
SOA/BPEL will most likely not be eligible because of the volume of data (SOA is designed for distributing short messages, not files).
With ODI, Goldengate and (do not forget!) database replication (see this link: http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:6985569854826), you will have one problem: even if you store documents in the database, UCM keeps some information on the filesystem (even though I was told by PM that they have considered to have an option of having everything in the database - don't you want to give them a push from your side?), so you will need to combine db sync tools with a custom component.
For the above you can also use filesystem sync tools (take a look at what exSun products can do for you).
I'd go with a combination of either db or filesystem sync tool and a custom loader, which would checkin synchronized documents for me.
I hope that helps.
Thank your for your kind reply and your quidance will be very helpful to our project.
Our customer want to build the hybrid centeralized & distributed architecture for their 30,000 ~ 60,000 local & global employees.
if you don't mind, i want to know your email. as you said, this forum is not equequte to discuss the detail project.
Thanks & Regards,