Be sure to review our Idea Submission Guidelines for more information!
Submission GuidelinesHello all,
This may be a little controversial. As of today, when you buy an Alteryx Server, the basic package covers up to 4 cores :
https://community.alteryx.com/t5/Alteryx-Server-Knowledge-Base/How-Alteryx-defines-cores-for-licensing-our-products/ta-p/158030
I have always known that. But these last years, the technology, the world has evolved. Especially the number of cores in a server. As an example, AMD Epyc CPU for server begin at 8 cores :
https://www.amd.com/en/processors/epyc-7002-series
So the idea is to update the number of cores in initial package for 8 or even 16 cores. It would :
-make Alteryx more competitive
-cost only very few money
-end some user frustration
Moreover, Alteryx Server Additional Capacity license should be 4 cores.
Best regards,
Simon
Dearest colleageues and comrades (Romans, countrymen?):
Have you ever queued up your jobs only to have them block your regularly scheduled programming? Imagine a world where, assuming you had multiple worker nodes, you can direct and prioritise your jobs on your terms.
This is what I am suggesting.
I've recently worked with Alteryx support, and they turned me on to a QoS setting in Alteryx Server settings. Peep this like a marshmallow chick in hot pink:
After learning from the great Server Master Kevin Powney (blessed be his name), I learnt that there are currently 3 'channels' that this QoS variable governs. 0 is the highest priority used for workflows. 4 is used for chained apps. 6 is used for gallery service requests.
This will not do.
Why? Well, for one: hello arcane/memorisation.
Secondly, where is my control? I'm a millenial dammit! Service me!
So, my idea, that I want you to vote so highly on as to save yourself any myself a lot of hassle, is to allow a custom QoS variable to be a traffic variable. And here's how it works:
Example time! [cheers, candy thrown]
In my current situation, we have some jobs that are network-intensive (database calls), and jobs that are processing-intensive (CPU hogs doing hard-core maths).
The network-intensive jobs run on the weekends so that we have the data in the morning on Monday. The processing-intensive jobs need to finish, but suck up all the CPU power. For the last couple of weeks, we've unsuccessfully run these jobs over the weekend. The downside is that since we cannot control how traffic flows (and we only have the 0/4/6 options in QoS, of which these only fit in the 0 lane [breath, sorry]) the CPU-heavy jobs have blocked more critical network jobs.
If we had two paths, we could assign the CPU jobs to lane 1 and the network jobs to lane 0 and they can run in parallel. And then my boss is happy. We like happy bosses, right?
Vote this up! My boss is awesome!
Thanks for your ear,
Hail Caesar or something.
-Cedric
Rather than schedule to put things on the 5th day or the 14th day of a month, we often want to schedule our flows to run on the 5th business day or the 14th business day. I know that the term 'business day' means different things in different parts of the world, but I think it would be a feature that many reporting-oriented departments would enjoy. Let people specify a formula or have a table to go off of for their definition of 'business day' and it should be easy to implement.
I would add a <scheduler> label to this but there isn't one.
It would be great if there was a way to turn-off the validation processes associated with saving applications to a private gallery. Alteryx is an amazing workbench because it allows users to build a variety of correct solutions. However, we cannot publish several of our quite correct solutions because they don't pass the, as we see it unnecessary, validation requirements for saving to our private gallery. The issue, if unresolved, will be a roadblock in our application development and deployment process.
A couple examples..
Utilisateur | Compte |
---|---|
26 | |
5 | |
4 | |
4 | |
3 |