Migration from palo 2.1 to palo ce 3.2 and server hangs

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Migration from palo 2.1 to palo ce 3.2 and server hangs


    I have Palo OLAP Server version 2.1 on windows 2003 server.
    Now I want to migrate to community edition version 3.2
    I installed server 2008 R2, configured server, then copy cubes and data.

    I can succsefful connect to palo ce 3.2 from Excel.
    My problem: when I try to perform the calculations with my cube, it appears on the palo server ce 3.2 process that uses the processor.

    The process can be performed on the server for more than 20 hours, and the old server is much faster.
    When a new server is m immet more memory, faster processors and disks.

    What do I need to do to understand the reason for freezing.
    May need to convert databases from version 2.1 to version 3.2?
  • Hi.
    I suppose you are using rules. If so. You could try to disable all the rules and start to enable them one by one to find which rule causes the problem.
    I think than the way of rule processing could change between versions. So 3.2 could be calculating lot more cells than 2.1 with the same model. don't have experience with 2.1. First version I saw was 2.5.

  • Thanks, I found the rules.
    The problem is that the rules are the rules stopped working.
    Size of files to the new server the same everywhere, and all the old files is different.
    The problem is that the rules are not updated.
    I just copied the folder with cubes from the old server to the new one, but got a problem with the rules.
    Prompt how to upgrade to version 3.2?

    The post was edited 1 time, last by TeploukhovAA ().

  • What does it mean "the rules stopped working. "?

    You copied the model to 3.2
    Were you able to start the server and connect to database using excel to disable rules?
    If yes you should run calculations you had troubles with.
    If these calculations are fast you should try to take rule by rule and activate it and try speed after each rule.
    You will find the rule(s) causing the problem.
    I don't know how many rules you have, but probably the best would be to write them from scratch. As I said algorithms could change, because first versions of palo used several engines for calculation, where each of them could return different result. This was unified in 3.x versions
  • Thanks for the answer .
    " the rules stopped working. " means that the rules are not processed because when you try to edit you can see error of syntax rules .
    I do not understand how to disable rules. When working with them have the ability to create , remove, update and edit rules .
    All rules in one and the same error, such as :
    in the rule there is error : [8; " @ 31 { 6 } = N: { 31 } 4 @ 31 @ * { 5}" " " " " ; 1369113826 ; 1 ;
    the rule without error : 8; " @ 31 { 6} = { 31 } * 4 @ 31 @ { 5}" " " " " , 1369113826 , 1, without the letter "N:"

    If you edit the rules using Excel, the rule works .
    I tried on a server with notepad delete rule "N:", but after that the rules in Excel is not visible.

    I have a lot of rules , there is a possibility to edit them automatically?
  • right click on the show pop-up menu to (de)activate the rule or modify the *_rule.csv file directly. Just change last ";1;" to ";0;"
    As far I remember there was some problem with N: . You can try to replace it by B: - it is the same
    The rule syntax
    " @ 31 { 6 } = N: { 31 } 4 @ 31 @ * { 5}" looks strange
    As I said, I do not know 2.1. It seems that the internal rules syntax could change - probably from 2.1 to 2.5
    I don't know how the external syntax look like in your model. You can try to export rules from 2.1 to text file or copy text of individual rules from 2.1 editor and import/paste it to 3.2
    The external format should look like this:
    ['dimension':'element'] = ['dimension':'element2'] * [ ... ]
    where internally (*_rule.csv file) it should look like this:
    {31@10} = {31@11}*{ ... }

    removing N: could be problem if you are using markers in your rules. Markered rules worked only with base rules in 3.2