Deprecation of the FTP and Shared repository types in Docman in 24R1 - a heads-up

@Caleb Dahl   For companies that are commercial and sell to A&D, they may only have a few documents that are ITAR controlled, usually drawings or images of the part.   they cannot put those documents into a cloud repository whose infrastructure is not ITAR controlled or meets the stringent requirements that we see in the GOV cloud.  However, with an external repository that is secured and controlled,  they can still link those documents to objects in IFS.    That is the impact with respect to external repository.   The other issue is the limitation of the number of repositories, the limitation to one file storage repository is also problematic even if the customer is in the GOV cloud.  even with in the ITAR and defense requirements there are always requirements for encapsulation such that documents across programs are not co-mingled.  this is also a challenge for multi company, multi national companies that wish to keep physical documents segregated based on company or country.   Israel, France, China, Canada are all examples where you would want to segregate and regionalize the document repositories for security and performance reasons.

@Mathias Dahl the terminology and implications of this are incredibly confusing. what is the reason these options are going to be done from a technical standpoint? We have constant sales pressure to sell deals and storage options is discussed on almost every deal. Limiting options here could be lose deals in the multiple millions of dollars. The documentation implies to use anything other than Internal the customer needs to be using Remote (aka on-premise deployment) which IFS does NOT want to sell. 

@DeanBurell 

It seems your idea ended up as a new post in this forum. You need to post it in the Ideas section.

Thanks!

No what I want is the solution to support multiple repositories and external non-cloud repositories as the current functionality in IFS 10 supports and every previous version since IFS 98. Just having multiple shares in the cloud is not enough.

@Mathias Dahl  “As you know, IFS Cloud in Cloud Deployment does not support storing documents on hardware owned by the customer. There we only support database or IFS Cloud File Storage with Azure Storage as the backend. That's a business decision made by IFS (not "R&D") when IFS Cloud was first released.”

This is the problem.  IFS wants all customers to move to the hosted cloud, but is removing functionality that would enable them to do so.  IFS wants to promote that the IFS applications is one product and is the same whether implemented in the IFS Cloud or Remote,  a key selling point that differentiates us from our competition.  and what you are saying here is that it is different and functions different.

Multiple shares/repositories in the cloud does address the issue of segregation of files, and that is a good thing and will address one of the use cases of multi company and multi country.

Based on your comment regarding performance,  I could be wrong but in earlier versions of IFS the ftp was implemented in the thick client, not the application server.  in either case if find it interesting that you would not implement across multiple regions for performance, especially with global companies.

Regarding “all network traffic anyway goes through a single point. This is why our customer SAAB, which need to follow export control regulations, cannot fully use Docman for all their document management.”    Explain your reasoning behind this,   

We have print servers and other services that connect IFS to on-prem solutions, seems like it would be better to resolve the issue so our customers can get the full value of IFS Docman rather than forcing them to either not use the solution or be limited.

@dean

This is the problem.  IFS wants all customers to move to the hosted cloud, but is removing functionality that would enable them to do so.  

IFS probably want that, yes, but still see that there is a need for “on premise” in some cases. Here, the needs of cloud operations, and the certifications they work hard to adhere to, conflicts with the need of some customers, and then another option is needed (“Remote”). It makes sense to me.

IFS wants to promote that the IFS applications is one product and is the same whether implemented in the IFS Cloud or Remote,  a key selling point that differentiates us from our competition.  and what you are saying here is that it is different and functions different.

Let’s sat that IFS Cloud consists of, say, one million “features” (~8000 different object types, where each object type surely have hundreds of behaviors or features, on average).

I don't think it's unreasonable that, due to the very different "execution context" (public cloud, with all that entails when it comes to security, for example vs on premise hardware controlled by customer), a few of those features will not work the same, or cannot be implemented in either of the deployment options.

Based on your comment regarding performance,  I could be wrong but in earlier versions of IFS the ftp was implemented in the thick client, not the application server.

We left the thick client when we released Apps 7.5, over 10 years ago. Since then, all file transfers have been going via the application server.

...in either case if find it interesting that you would not implement across multiple regions for performance, especially with global companies.

I think it's not impossible to get there, but we need more features to get there, each one needs to be prioritized and investigated and I think our cloud operations would also need to evolve to support that.

We have print servers and other services that connect IFS to on-prem solutions

I didn't know that and since that's news to me I cannot comment on if it's relevant or not to the discussion.

Regardless, was I able to explain to you clearly what the idea is that you need to register, about IFS Cloud File Storage supporting multiple shares (and Docman needs to be adjusted to use that feature)?

@kjro That’s not in the plans as I understand things, no.

@chanaka-shanil - FYI

Thanks for reporting that. Seems the document moved here:

https://docs.ifs.com/techdocs/23r1/030_administration/210_cloud_file_storage/#introduction

I updated the link in my original post.

Hi Mikael,

What I have understood is that it is only possible to define one File Storage location in Cloud version.

Correct. In Cloud Deployment, all files are stored in Azure Storage and in Remote Deployment all files are stored under one SMB/Samba/Windows network share.

This will cause problems for e.g. Defence industry when classified document shall be stored. The demand is that they must be stored in the country where the XC license is valid.

For an installation where there are sites in different countries it must be possible to define more than one location as each country have their own XC licenses.

It's a problem but it's not a new problem and we haven't supported that since Apps 7 when our "fat Windows client" directly communicated with the document file repository. The change/deprecation we intended to communicate through this post does not change anything related to what you wrote there.

How is this demand addressed in the change of the functionality?

It's not addressed now and it was not addressed since Apps 7 (which had it's own problems, mostly from a security point of view).

To summarize, we argue that the change/deprecation neither makes the situation better or worse with regards to the requirement you describe (which is about ITAR, Export Control, whatever you want to call it).

Is it clear?

Hi @Kelum-WIA 

 > currently uses the default Database ... They won’t move from Database to File Storage

Do you know why? File Storage is cheaper and backup and restore operations quicker.

> the File Storage uses an Azure Blob Storage Account to store files in the Cloud deployment model. Is it possible to have a completely different Azure subscription for this Azure Blob Storage?

This is really a question about the IFS Cloud File Storage feature and not Document Management, but no, not as far as I know.

Any comments, @chanaka-shanil ?

Thanks @Kelum-WIA 

Then I think they should migrate to FS now. We have a built-in assistant for that. As I said, I don't think they will be able to use another Azure Storage account, so they will not save money that way, but they should save money on not using the more expensive database storage, so it should be a win anyway.

Hi @chanaka-shanil,

May I get your advice on the matter, please. 

Your support is much appreciated.

Thanks