Slow batch processing on V10 after upgrading from V9

We recently upgraded our HR/Payroll system in Lawson from V9 to V10. After the upgrade our batch processes, such as PR140, PR160 processing times doubled? We have run program traces and database stats to see if we can pin-point the cause. We have also reviewed our virtual machine settings in Hyper-V. We are running SQL Server 2014 on Windows Server 2012 R2. In order to address our processing time. I allocated 6 processors and upgraded from 16GB to 32GB of ram on the database server.

Has anyone encountered slow batch processing since upgrading from V9 to V10? If so, I would be interested in, if you were able to identify the problem. Or if you did identify the problem, were you able to find a resolution?

0911060553270289.pdf

Find more posts tagged with

Infor Lawson Human Resources Group - Discussion

Comments

unknown

What was your old server configuration like? Was your LSF and SQL server on the same box before? Are they separate now? Also, do you have the same logging configuration before? Is your SQL logging now set to "Full", was it set to "Simple" before?

randy-powell

In our old configuration LSF and SQL were on separate host machines. For the new configuration. I started out with LSF and SQL on different host machines. I have since moved LSF and SQL to the same host to see if I could get better performance. I also upped the processors on SQL from 4 to 6 and doubled the memory from 16 to 32 on SQL.

As for logging it is set to "Full" in both V9 and V10.

unknown

That is interesting. Do you have or use any Landmark applications (like process flow)?

randy-powell

Yes, but the two process flows we have run in the off hours to create/change new security roles for employees. So, our custom developed processes flows are minor. But, I do not know if Lawson has standard process flows running to support their configuration for V10?

Has your company encountered slower running process times in V10? Or do you work with Lawson?

bhillz

Best practices would say to keep the database on it's own server. It can be tuned appropriately without have an impact on the LSF functionality (database server tuning is different than application server turning). Keeping a consolidated server would generate load/usage spikes and harder to pinpoint corrective tuning. Each setting change would impact both database and LSF, likely differently.

randy-powell

We originally started out with the LSF and the database on separate hosts machines. We would prefer that for not only best practices. But also to protect against losing the host and impacting both VM's.

I moved them to the same host to eliminate, what I knew I was going to be asked, about network traffic between the host VM machines.

I have read other blogs, like Lawson Guru. And this does not appear to be an isolated incident. Unfortunately, no one has posted their resolution, if one has been identified.

0911060553270289.pdf

d-hofmann

Try increasing the processors. If you stop WAS and try to process with Just LID. Do you still see the slowness?

When we moved from v9 to v10, we saw a large reduction in processing time for everything.

0911060553270289.pdf

randy-powell

I did increase my processors on the database server from 4 to 6. How many processors are you running on your LSF server and your database server. The fact that you saw a reduction in processing time. Makes me wonder about the installation and configuration of our V10? Do you mind sharing who performed your upgrade and if you are self-hosted?

unknown

Are you running SQL 2014 with clustering?

unknown

We are SQL 2014 with LSF clustering, not SQL clustering though. Our SQL box is a VM

0911060553270289.pdf

unknown

Sorry, I see you were asking rpowell460 a question.

0911060553270289.pdf

randy-powell

We are running SQL 2014. But not with clustering.

unknown

I have seen a few comments on the Technology community where people using SQL 2014 with clustering are experiencing slow downs and some even to the point of having to reboot the servers weekly. Has to do with how SQL 2014 when clustered treats table locks differently. But if you are not clustering then I don't think that would be your issue.

monthly_proactive_com201101.pdf

moellerg

Slow batch processing plagued us for a very long time after we upgraded to v10. Things that used to run in 5 minutes were taking > 20 to run, etc. In the end, we had to enlist Infor support to come out and do a massive tuning session on our systems.

moellerg

Seemed like most of the tuning that was recommended was Websphere related, but not all of it. It's been a while now- processing has been acceptable.

dEPM-606 - 12.0.5 What's new.mp4

r11_upload_2014_sample.xls

randy-powell

That is precisely what we are experiencing with our batch jobs. For example our PR140 under V9 ran for 32 minutes for an EOM payroll. Now it runs over an hour and 15 minutes. From the tuning session what did they uncover? Were there environment configuration issues on the LSF server or was it database related? It sounds like you are self-hosted as well? Did Infor perform their tuning sessions on site or remotely.

Greg, I would be interest in Infor's findings.

moellerg

I believe that it was PR140 that caused us to initiate the tuning session. My colleague worked more closely with the tuner that we got, but they just made recommendations- it was up to us to implement as yes, we are self-hosted. I think if memory serves that it was a 3-day deal and a big report afterwards with the recommendations. I "think" we made every tuning recommendation change that was made, and that got us back to acceptable levels of time.

0911060553270289.pdf

randy-powell

That is what I am looking for. I figured they would make recommendation and we would need to perform the implementation. I do not want to get something for nothing. But, can I contact you and your colleague directly or you contact me at 559-457-2571 or Randy.Powell@fresnounified.org. I would like to get a real good understanding of the tuning they suggested.

unknown

Did you upgrade your security at the same time you went from 9.0.1 to 10, or were you already on Lawson security when you went to 10? We upgraded from LAUA to Lawson security before upgrading from 9.0.1 to 10, and until they got the new security tweaked properly, we experienced a lot of performance issues on our 9.0.1 system.

randy-powell

We were using Lawson Security on V9 along with some LAUA. But at that time we did not experience any performance issues.

Copyright © 2025 Infor. All rights reserved.