( ESNUG 465 Item 14 ) ------------------------------------------- [06/28/07]
Subject: ( ESNUG 464 #5 ) Now 3 more users come to rescue Synchronicity
> That being said, what our end users really only care about is the time to
> populate and to start working.
>
> Averaged Data Sets (in seconds)
>
> Synchronicity IC Manage
> File Set Vault Set Vault Add Sync
> Block Counts Check-in Checkout Submit Checkout
>
> block10 263 9.93 5.53 2.21 1.33
> block25 380 19.46 8.70 4.71 2.79
> block50 1100 48.42 16.82 12.09 6.62
> block100 6876 63.95 34.87 48.95 24.73
> chip250 58550 1095.65 753.98 393.31 206.10
> chip500 14972 596.58 210.06 144.08 77.93
> chip750 67933 1724.07 1149.81 443.99 246.95
> chip1000 123934 3789.76 2862.01 958.62 521.77
> chip1250 123400 2984.03 2077.78 815.68 399.75
> chip1500 144710 4522.87 3395.39 1061.51 546.72
>
> On our 1.5 Gb chip, it took Synchronicity almost a full hour (57 minutes)
> to check-out the data; IC Manage did the same check-out in 9 minutes.
>
> In general, the check-in times we saw were 3.5X faster using IC Manage
> over Synchronicity. The checkout times were non-linear but also noticably
> faster using IC Manage.
From: [ The Mouse That Roared ]
Hi, John,
I must be anonymous.
I have supported the Synchronicity (Matrix, now Dassault) tools for our
company since about 2000, and I read over the ESNUG post about IC Manage.
Overall, our experience has had ups and downs, but most of the downs are
changing cultures to use version control, then configuration management,
and standard directory structures (can IC Manage solve that?). The IC
Manage tool sounds pretty cool and always gets my interest when I hear
about it. But, I don't hear a lot about integration with an issue / process
tracking tool (like ProjectSync provides for DesignSync).
I see Defect Tracking mentioned on the IC Manage home page, but not much
info on it. Can anyone share some experiences on that?
When we first choose DesignSync, it was because of the Cadence integration.
Now other tools have that integration (to varying degrees) and it becomes
less of an issue. But the integration and customizability of a tool like
ProjectSync has become more important to us and has kept me from looking
(very hard) elsewhere. What are other folks doing for their own issue
tracking / work flow / process modeling?
I have had good support from Synchronicity through the AEs and their help
desk. They have helped me extend the tools (mostly ProjectSync) in lots of
unique ways (even without consulting dollars!). I'm excited for the new
abilities that may come out the of integration with the eMatrix tools, but
so not thrilled so far with the Matrix merger in general ... maybe the
Dassault merger will help more? Who knows?
The newly released DesignSync 5.0 (which I haven't tried yet) appears to
support many features similar to IC Manage and (maybe) closes some of the
performance gaps (again, I haven't tested this).
What would I really like to see is a config manage tool that integrates well
with EDA tools (and handles the data volumes) as well as allows me to bring
in the software tools (open-standards based integration with Visual Studio
and Eclipse). On top of that I'd like an issue tracking (work flow, project
status, process modeling) tool with strong integration to the configuration
management tool. On top of that, I'd like strong integration with a
requirements management tool (e.g. DOORS).
Oh, and I don't want to have to pay consulting dollars to roll out this tool
or suite of tools. I think MatrixOne might have the capabilities to pull
this together ... but, will they do it? What are my options?
- [ The Mouse That Roared ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
From: Joseph Tanenbaum <joseph.tanenbaum=user domain=lsi bot calm>
Hi, John,
I would like to weigh-in on Synchronicity DesignSync and ProjectSync.
First, some full-disclosure. I manage over 100 Synchronicity instantiations
for the former Agere Systems (now, LSI). I am an LSI employee; I do not
work for MatrixOne (they make Synchronicity). I let the M1 rep buy me
lunch, once, but felt so guilty about that I will never do it again. I also
support CVS and Subversion and, have supported ClearCase. I've also worked
with PVCS.
Here is the meat of it all: DesignSync and ProjectSync are powerful tools
and, when properly configured, easy to use and maintain. I support 1,100
users by myself! You cannot do that with a tool that is not well behaved.
We have Synchronicity installed at 11 design centers. It took me about a
year to get all the versions, file systems, mirrors, and security
configured according to 'best practices'. We saved thousands of design
hours by centralizing support and removing most administrative tasks from
the designers. We also provide regular training for both beginners and
advanced users.
The result has been the use of Synchronicity at Agere (LSI) has continued
to grow and we have had a number of teams ask us to move them from CVS,
Subversion, and ClearCase to Synchronicity.
When I first started, I heard a lot of complaints about Synchronicity.
Now, we have had to purchase additional licenses because demand is growing.
Not only are 95% of our analog IC designers using Synchronicity, but most
of the digital designers, and now, even software developers.
The interfaces into the Cadence and Synopsys tools saves oodles of hours
for our designers. Some of them never even see a Synchronicity screen or
command line.
I guess you can make a case that CVS and Subversion are so simple that
anyone can use them right out of the box and that Synchronicity is not
that way. Optimizing Synchronicity does take some effort. But once you
have done it you can pass it on to the entire enterprise.
One more thing: tech support at MatrixOne has been superb. I get helpful
responses to my tickets within an hour.
DesignSync and ProjectSync are reliable, robust, and rich with really
useful features. It could be that some people will not like them, but
that is a matter of taste, not of product capability. Synchronicity is
a world-class product and if you are an IC designer, a solid choice.
- Joseph R. Tanenbaum
LSI/Agere Allentown, PA
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
From: Yosi Amir <yosi.amir=user domain=intel bot calm>
Hi John,
I opened few of the discussion items in your site regarding data management
and decided to join the discussion. I disagree about few of the comments
regarding Synchronicity. We use Synchronicity for database management of
our designs. We used it for few of the top CPUs for ~5 years.
Some history: We used Cadence 4.3 for version control (and schematics)
until 2000, and then migrated our designs to Synchronicity. The typical
problems that we faced with Cadence were library corruption problems and
poor support. We had once in a while library corruption and few of our
designers lost some work. Regarding the Cadence UK help: they resolved
trivial problems pretty OK. When it came to more complex problems, it was
a different story, and I am not talking about enhancements at all which
were impossible to get from them.
When we decided to migrate to Cadence 4.4, we had to select a version
control vendor. We evaluated a few version control applications that were
out then in the market. Only Synchronicity was mature enough by then, so
we made the decision to use it. We were looking on few items before making
that decision:
- Performance: In the first tests on Synchronicity the checkin time was
slow especially from remote sites. We tuned it up, configured the
servers and other parameters. Synchronicity improved the SW as well.
Very quickly the checkin time from a remote site improved. It takes
the same time as it takes to copy it over the network. Single
operations are very fast. Massive check-ins (a lib of 10,000 cells,
for example) operations were slow, but we configured it and it takes
a reasonable time, which satisfy us.
- Support: We currently work with few vendors and the support level
from Synchronicity is the best. Their response time is fast, all
problems are resolved very fast. We still see problems when system
problem are involved, but it is understood.
- Reliability and Optime: What is the most important fact is that in
the last 5 years we never lost work that was done by our users. There
is no record that someone checked in something to the database and it
was lost. I can not say it about Cadence. We had in Cadence library
corruptions at lease once in a month.
The uptime of our Synchronicity server is high. We shut them down only
when we have a site shutdown. A couple of years ago one of the servers
died few times and we had to restart it. The problem was nailed down
very quickly and turned out to be a system problem.
We checked the market few times for alternative data management tools. We
compared the capabilities between the vendors. Some looked OK, but I was
not convinced that I will be able to get the same level of reliability to
support our large scale database.
We check the market almost every year and I am always open to hear about
new products.
- Yosi Amir
Intel Israel Design Center Haifa, Israel
Index
Next->Item
|
|
