Skip to Content

Why EHP 8 is different

I guess you know: Enhancement Package 8 for SAP ECC 6.0 is different, from our technical perspective of Software Logistics.
These are the aspects that I am aware of:

 

    1. EHP 8 is an “upgrade”
      SAP Business Suite 7 Innovations 2016 with SAP ECC 6.0 EHP 8 (6.18) is based on SAP NetWeaver 7.50 (NW 7.50), and the procedure is load-based. It is not an update in the sense of the Enhancement Packages (EHPs) until now. It is an upgrade, as the shadow system is created from DVDs, not cloned from the customer system (compare my outdated SCN blog on shadow system: SUM: introduction to shadow system).
      You may check the following SAP notes: SAP Note 2318321, SAP Note 530335.
      Note that with SUM 1.0 SP 19, the Report RSUPG_TADIR_COMPONENT_CHECK (attached in SAP Note 2318321) will be executed by SUM automatically.
      (In the future, the handling concerning DVDs will be simpler: Simplified Download for SUM Procedure.)
    2. Unicode only
      NW 7.50 is unicode-only, and SAP has announced long time ago [link] that the successor of SAP NetWeaver 7.40 will only by offered as Unicode system, and that the path to the successor of SAP NetWeaver 7.40 can only be reached from a unicode system … what was that again? I mean to say that you have to start from a Unicode system to reach NW 7.50 (and to reach EHP 8). For NW 7.50, we do not have a non-unicode kernel. But the SUM procedure to create a shadow system requires the non-unicode kernel for a non-unicode source system. Further one, there is no non-unicode load for the load-based procedure for NW 7.50.
    3. ASCS split
      The SUM will create a separate ASCS instance for the following condition (all have to apply together):

      1. The SUM maintenance activity (like an upgrade) is targeting NW 7.50
      2. The source system does not yet has a separate ASCS.
      3. The source system has more than one instance

 

If the source has just one instance, no specific handling happens. Note that the SUM does not explicitely mention this behavior on the dialog, only in the log files. For SUM SP 17, I can imagine that the ASCS split could be offered as option for target 7.40 as well – just an idea.
[Added on 2016-07-11] Note that with SUM SP 17, for a target based on 7.40, SUM will offer to (optionally) split ASCS.

 

Attention
important side effect for DMO and the (optional) use of an Additional Application Server (AAS, fka DI): if your target for DMO is 7.50, and your system does not yet has an ASCS, and you decide to run the SUM on an AAS (e.g. for better performance), then the SUM will create the (required) ASCS on the AAS. And (strange but true): from the perspective of the SUM running on AAS, the PAS (CI) is handled as a remote dialog instance. DMO cannot handle and cannot start remote instances (other than ASCS), so your CI will not come up at the end of the SUM procedure.

 

Kind regards, Boris Rubarth
[Product Management Software Logistics, SAP SE]

24 Comments
You must be Logged on to comment or reply to a post.
  • Hi Boris,

    many thanks for sharing this info. We tried to perform EHP upgrade in sandbox and learned some objects were removed from system during upgrade. Is it like this new approach is causing this deletion of Screens, Index etc.

    These deleted objects are both custom created Z object and some standard objects also.

    Regards,

    Ujjawal

  • Hi Borish,

    Thank you very much for the information.

    Let me just confirm one thing and check if my understanding is correct or not.

    Let’s take “updating” from ECC 6.0 EHP7 to EHP8 as an example.

    Does this procedure belong to Upgrade but not Update?

    Please confirm my understanding. Thank you in advance.

    Best regards,
    Mike Han

    • Hi Mike,
      my hope was that point 1 of my list answers this question.
      Let me cut out the relevant parts from this paragraph.
      “SAP ECC 6.0 EHP 8 … procedure … is not an update … . It is an upgrade …”
      Best regards, Boris

    • Hi Sandip, my recommendation is that this should not be a technical decision, but driven / decided by the line of Business: EHP 8 has extended capabilities. Best Regards, Boris

  • Hi Boris,

    Is there any prerequisite in terms of minimum support pack level for an ERP 6.0 System (Also called SAP ERP 2005) to be upgraded to EHP8 SPS6.

    Thanks,

    Ajay

  • Hi,

    I am looking for a list  / White paper of new features (Comparision between EHP7 and EHP 8), does some one have this white paper, or knows where to find.

     

    Thank you in advance.

    Ahmad

  • Hi Boris,

    The SAP Note 2318321, version 33, has an affirmattion about object catalog Add-On´s and I have a doubt.
    The affirmation is “All repository objects which are assigned to packages of such a project AddOn component must be identifiable as customer objects (orginal system <> ‘SAP’ in object catalog entries).”

    We development an Add-On and when it is instlled in customer, in object catalog entries is equal “SAP”.

    Do you know what we are doing wrong?

    I believe that, if i solve this question about catalog of the objects, maybe, I am going to solve my problem of lossless my objects during upgrade of the SAP.

    Best regards,

    Adriana Medeiros.

    • Hi Adriana,

      my understanding of your scenario is:
      you as a 3rd party vendor are developing an AddOn that is installed at customer side. You wonder why the catalog entry for your objects is “SAP” in the customer system, which seems to be in contradiction to a statement in SAP Note 22318321.
      First let me state that it is OK (and on purpose) that your AddOn components have original system SAP – as long as you have developed and provided your AddOn strictly according to the AddOn Assembly Kit (AAK), and you have not delivered any objects via transport. The AddOn objects are still rescued during the upgrade, although they have original system SAP).
      The text that you have taken from SAP Note 2318321 is a section dealing with “Project AddOns”, and the section defines this as “Project AddOn components are customer components with own developments”. You as a 3rd party vendor do not develop Project AddOns. So the section is not relevant for you.

      Best regards,
      Boris

  • Hi, do you know any restrictions regarding moving from EHP0 to EHP8 when using HR_CEE components in EHP0?

    I know HR_CEE has been retrofitted into SAP HR in EHP8, but I’m wondering if is it any restriction for this procedure.

     

    Thanks

  • Hi Boris,

    SAP Enhancement Package 8 of SAP ERP 6.0 has been initially delivered with SP01-stack.

    We would like to install it w/o installing others SP Stacks.

    In the SAP Note: “2258099 – Enhancement package 8 for SAP ERP 6.0: Required SWC“, it’s mentioned:

    “SAP Enhancement Package 8 for SAP ERP 6.0 (EHP8) is shipped as a full server load.”

    Does this mean that installation shipment can be installed and used without installing others stacks? (productive usage)

    Thank you for your help.

    Best regards,

    Zobair

     

  • Hi Boris,

    About:

    Attention
    important side effect for DMO and the (optional) use of an Additional Application Server (AAS, fka DI): if your target for DMO is 7.50, and your system does not yet has an ASCS, and you decide to run the SUM on an AAS (e.g. for better performance), then the SUM will create the (required) ASCS on the AAS. And (strange but true): from the perspective of the SUM running on AAS, the PAS (CI) is handled as a remote dialog instance. DMO cannot handle and cannot start remote instances (other than ASCS), so your CI will not come up at the end of the SUM procedure.

    So is possible to run SUM on AAS also without ASCS instance splitted in a DMO (S/4 1809 Conversion)  scenario that include the system move (despite described on part of note reported above 2644872 – Database Migration Option (DMO) of SUM 2.0 SP04 – running SUM with DMO on an AAS is only supported if your system has a separate ASCS instance)?

    Which issue we could meet running DMO on AAS without ASCS Split?

    Thank you for the precious knowledge shared with us

    Andrew

     

    • Hi Andrew,

      not sure if I got your question correct:

      • you ask whether a scenario is possible, and reference the SAP statement that it is not supported (“running SUM with DMO on an AAS [for DMO with System Move] is only supported if your system has a separate ASCS instance“)
      • you ask what the issues may be, and list the explanation what can happen (“CI will not come up“)

      Let me know how I can support you, thanks.

      Boris

  • Yes, i will try to explain better. The questions are:

    Is possible to run SUM on AAS (for better performance),  without ASCS instance splitted (central instance exists) in a DMO (S/4 1809 Conversion) scenario with System Move option? if not, why is not technically possible? The splitting off is usually performed in the last part of the execution phase and with system move option this 2^part will be executed directly in the target system/host, where a new target ASCS has been already installed.

    IN CASE OF the ASCS splitting off is mandatory:

    What we would like to avoid are the two downtime, the first one for the initial ASCS Splitting(from Central Instance with SWPM) in order to create a separate ASCS and the other one related to the SUM/DMO Execution Phase. We would like to combine these activities in the same procedure, so, is possible to use the SUM/DMO feature “ASCS SPLIT” by running SUM on AAS host instead of running in the Central Instance host?

    Thank you

    Andrew

    • Hi Andrew,

      the splitting off is mandatory – we had observed an issue, that is why we came up with this requirement. I checked but did not find the issue detail (took a while), nevertheless the requirement is valid.

      I have no better idea on how to avoid the two downtimes for this case, sorry.

      Regards, Boris