BPM, Workflow, and Case

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

  • 1.  Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Mon September 12, 2022 09:55 AM
    Hi Team,

    Hope you are doing well and best with your health.
    We have a plan to install IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) for a customer with core Case centric capabilities.
    I seek your help understanding a couple of things which seem confusing with IBM CP4BA and BAW on containers. 
    For our use case, there is no need for any process centric requirementAppreciate your advise accordingly.

    1. From case centric capability perspective, we wish to utilize BAW Administration client, Case builder and Case client similar to IBM Case Manager world without Workflow Center and process centric tools like Process Designer, Integration designer. May I check when we install BAW Workflow Server runtime, will the tools install and accessible as part of BAW Workflow Server runtime mentioned in reference https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=overview-runtime-environments?
    2. I understand Workflow Server supports server type namely Development, Test, Staging, Production. I am not sure if tools like Workflow Center, Process Designer, Integration designer, BAW Administration client, Case builder and Case client will be accessible only with Development Server type.
    3. Refer to context above, I understand Workflow center and Workflow Server is needed for solution and other asset deployment from DEV to PROD. How tools like Workflow Center, Process Designer, Integration designer, BAW Administration client, Case builder and Case client would be available in Test and Production for deployment and administration? https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=overview-case-development-production-environments
      Ibm remove preview
      View this on Ibm >
      https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=overview-case-development-production-environments
    4. Only for Case capabilities with BAW on containers, I understand following core key 8 components [marked in dark green] required where operator is not listed here. Kindly advise. 
      I understand rest of the other capabilities optional as per additional need. 
                 
       
    5. Based on above understanding, below are H/W and POD [minimum 8 pods distributed with 3 worker nodes] requirements. ** I understand minimal PODs required would vary from version 20.0.0.2 to 21.0.3 as 21.0.3 has PFS, GraphQL and App Engine as additional PODs which minimal component stack. 
          
          

    6. Will the above sizing vary if there is an existing FileNet Content Manager, CMIS, Navigator workload deployed on AWS EKS? If yes, should we consider below reference only and only for BAW top up in additional to what is existing? 
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=workflow-system-prerequisites
    Ibm remove preview
    View this on Ibm >


    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cloud-paks/cp-biz-automation/21.0.x?topic=SSYHZ8_21.0.x/com.ibm.dba.install/op_topics/con_planning.html#concept_dff_npf_pkb__table_baw

     



    Ibm remove preview
    View this on Ibm >



    Thank you very much for your help as always. 
    Regards
    Ankit Garg


    ------------------------------
    Ankit Garg
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Tue September 13, 2022 03:25 AM

    Hi Ankit,

    let me try to answer your questions.

     

    Regarding question 1+2:
    IBM does not provide any authoring tooling as part of the workflow server runtime containers.
    When deploying a workflow RUNTIME pattern, you only get the workflow server to run/execute workflows. This also applies to pure Case Management solutions. In the BAW architecture, the workflow server provides the Case API layer which is used by the Case Client plugin in ICN to provide Case capabilities used by e.g. the Case Client (for end users) or the Case Admin desktop (for admins).
    The authoring tools (such as Case Builder or Web PD) are ONLY provided with the workflow AUTHORING pattern. IBM currently does not provide a workflow authoring pattern for CNCF based container deployments (authoring containers are only provided as part of a CP4BA deployment on OCP).
    For CNCF, you have to use a traditionally installed workflow center installation for authoring your workflow artifacts (Case Management solutions as well as Process Applications). Please refer to the following description in the BAW documentation (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cloud-paks/cp-biz-automation/22.0.1?topic=workflow-authoring).

     

     

    Regarding question 3:

    Essentially, there is no change compared to traditional Case Management deployments. Authoring tooling (Case Builder) should only exist in the lowest stage, e.g. DEV. Here you can author and test your Case Management solutions. For any higher stage, you would use the Case Admin desktop (or the deployment manager) to deploy the Case solution artefacts. When moving to BAW containers on CNCF, you would add a Process Center installation which provides the Case Builder (and also WebPD) authoring tools. From Workflow Center, you export your BAW Case solution artefacts and you can either use the BAW admin desktop or the BAW container runtime workflow operations REST API to deploy the exported artefacts to the higher workflow runtime stages.

     

    Regarding questions 4+5:
    Unfortunately I cannot see the screenshots which you provided, maybe you can add the text you are referring to instead?

     

    Regarding question 6:

    Sizing your environment will depend on the capabilities which you plan to deploy. For your FN CM container deployment (CPE, ICN) you have to account for the Case Management load you anticipate (number of cases created, FN P8 workflow operations which run on the CPE, etc). The workflow server will in this case only provide the Case API so the resources required for the workflow server should not be very high.
    A ball park sizing estimate for a BAW 22.1 container deployment can be found here
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/22.x?topic=workflow-planning

     

    Best regards,

    Michael



    ------------------------------
    Michael Kirchner
    Leading Technical Specialist - Digital Business Automation
    IBM Technology
    Germany
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Tue September 13, 2022 04:32 AM
    Thank you very much Michael Kirchner for detailed response.

    1. Refer to questions 1, 2 and 3, do we really require Workflow Center/Process Center/Process Designer/Integration designer in context of only Case centric development and solution as we can leveraged on traditional Case Builder, BAW Admin client, BAW Case client, P8 Process Designer and FDM for artifact and solution deployment?

    2. Refer to questions 1, 2 and 3, are you referring to traditional on-prem installation of Workflow center which will connect to BAW on Containers with CNCF via HTTP protocol as only choice with BAW on Containers CNCF?

    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/22.x?topic=path-db2-database-server
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=workflow-connections-from-center-server

    3. I wish to understand more of capability, tooling, etc. of Workflow Server i.e. BAW on Containers CNCF with server types namely Development, Test, Staging, Production. With naming differentiation intend is clear but from product capability and usage perspective, I wish to understand the difference.

    4. Based on the customer's current product compatibility, we are looking for BAW on containers' version 20.0.0.2 OR 21.0.3 at this point. We wish to know minimum runtime PODs/tooling/capabilities required for our case centric development? As per our understanding from references below, the stand-alone Business Automation Workflow configuration includes these components [at minimum must required]

    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/22.x?topic=workflow-containers-installing-configuring-migrating-business-automation
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=cibaw-containers-in-v20x-installing-configuring-migrating-business-automation-workflow

    The stand-alone Business Automation Workflow configuration includes these components:
    1. Workflow Server (JMS included)
    2. IBM Process Federation Server
    3. Elasticsearch (except for Linux on IBM Z and on IBM Power (ppc64le), which supports external Elasticsearch only)
    4. From the Foundation pattern:
    5. Application Engine (data persistence enabled)
    6. User Management Service (UMS): For information about installing UMS, see Installing User Management Services on Containers for Business Automation Workflow
    7. Business Automation Navigator (BAN)
    8. From the Content pattern:
    9. Content Platform Engine (Content Platform Engine)
    10. Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS)
    11. Content Services GraphQL
    12. BAW Registry
    13. Operator
    In my understanding, those mark in Blue would be applicable for BAW on Containers CNCF base/core capability around case development. 


    5. On sizing track, I am confused because BAW on Containers CNCF sizing https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/22.x?topic=workflow-planning also refers to CP4BA https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cloud-paks/cp-biz-automation/22.0.1?topic=pcmppd-system-requirements. Do we need to consider sizing for all listed each and every mandatory component mentioned in question 4 above. 

    Thank you very much again for your advise and help on this track.

    ------------------------------
    Ankit Garg
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Tue September 13, 2022 06:16 AM

    Hi Ankit,

    regarding Q1+Q2:

    Yes, once you move from IBM Case Mgr (ICM) to BAW, you need to install Workflow Center (WFC) as WFC provides the artefact repository and the authoring tools for managing the lifecycle of Case Solutions (and Process Applications).

    A traditional WFC implementation provides you the "legacy" Case Builder (outside of WFC). You can still use this legacy Case Builder to modify your existing Case Solution artefacts and deploy then using the BAW admin desktop. However, the recommendation by IBM is to promote the Case Solutions in the legacy Case Builder to become "BAW Case Solutions". The BAW Case Solutions you will continue to manage via the Case Builder which is integrated in WFC. The promotion itself will be done automatically and you can continue to work with your Case Solution in the WFC Case Builder as you were used to in the legacy Case Builder. The look & feel of WFC Case Builder will be more modern (based on the IBM Carbon Design) and it will allow you to use the Client Side Human Services ("coaches") UIs and the BPMN workflow engine for your Case Solution. But this is only optional, you can still add new activities to your existing solutions or even create new solutions which entirely use the classic Case Widgets and the CPE based workflows.

    Yes, for CNCF based (containerized) BAW deployments, a traditionally installed WFC is the only choice for an authoring environment.

     

    Regarding Q3:

    To be honest, I do not understand your question.

    For CNCF only a "workflow runtime" pattern exists. Typically, you would deploy this pattern into different namespaces on a single K8s cluster or you might even have different K8s clusters representing the different stages. But there is no difference in tooling for each of these deployments. In order to access the authoring tools you, you have to use the traditionally installed WFC. For an OCP based deployment, there also exists a "workflow authoring" pattern (which included authoring tooling) but this does NOT apply to CNCF deployments.

     

    Regarding Q4 + Q5:

    I'd recommend to deploy at least BAW 21.0.3 containers on CNCF as this is a long term support release (LTSR). The latest version of BAW which can be deployed on CNCF would be BAW 22.0.1. In case you do not need any of the newer capabilities, moving to V21.0.3 is fine. Please have a look at https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6516702 regarding the installation of BAW 21.0.3 on CNCF.

    Essentially, you are right, the "blue" boxes in the picture you included are the components represent a CNCF based BAW deployment. However, please note that this picture describes an OCP based deployment. You will not have the IBM Automation Foundation (IAF) layer in this case (it only runs on OCP) and you will not be able to use BAI as well. Additionally, on CNCF you will have the UMS pod(s) which are not shown in your picture as an OCP based deployment uses IAM for user/teams management and SSO.

    If you only want to use Case Management applications with traditional FN CPE workflows, you would not make use of the GraphQL containers, the Resource Registry, the AppEngine (which runs the new Workplace Portal) and the JMS piece. However, I'm not aware that it is possible to completely remove the corresponding containers from a deployment perspective as the operator expects these services to exist (as they all manifest a standard BAW deployment). You could, however, use the CRD to reduce the CPU and RAM limits for these pods to the lowest value stated in the product documentation.

    Regarding the sizing, you could take the infrastructure you currently use for the different stages (in the traditional ICM installation) as a reference for estimating the resources you want to spend for the Navigator, CPE and maybe the CSS pods (in case you need content based retrieval). For the other pods (Workflow, CMIS, GraphQL, RR, AppEngine, UMS) I would start with the smallest sizing you find for BAW in https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cloud-paks/cp-biz-automation/21.0.3?topic=ppd-system-requirements

    Do not forget UMS (mentioned at the bottom of the page).

     

    Best regards,

    Michael



    ------------------------------
    Michael Kirchner
    Leading Technical Specialist - Digital Business Automation
    IBM Technology
    Germany
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Tue September 13, 2022 06:27 AM

    Hi Ankit,

     

    let me add the following remarks:

     

    Please have a look at

    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=v2103-upgrading-case-manager

    and especially

    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=manager-preparing-upgrade

    and here steps 7 in

    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=upgrading-using-external-content-navigator#tld_upgradesystem_ext__custom_extpkg

     

    Due to the changed architecture in BAW (Case API runs on the workflow server not on the ICN server), custom widgets or ICN plugin code may need to be adjusted.

    Also, please be aware that the CPE, Navigator and Workflow Containers are based on Liberty as opposed to tWAS in traditional environments. There are differences in libraries which Liberty makes available compared to tWAS and this could effect any custom code that has been written for your existing Case solutions.

     

    Best regards,

    Michael



    ------------------------------
    Michael Kirchner
    Leading Technical Specialist - Digital Business Automation
    IBM Technology
    Germany
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Tue September 13, 2022 08:25 AM
    Thank you Michael Kirchner for your detailed response.

    1. For Question Q1 and Q2 I am good.
    2. For Q3, I am referring to below reference where Workflow Server can be designated as following server types:
    1. Development
    2. Test
    3. Staging
    4. Production
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=overview-runtime-environments

    I wish to understand more of capability, tooling, etc. of Workflow Server i.e. BAW on Containers CNCF with server types namely Development, Test, Staging, Production. With naming differentiation intend is clear but from product capability and usage perspective, I wish to understand the difference.
    3. For Question Q4 and Q5 I am good too. Request you to check with product team if can discard GraphQL containers, the Resource Registry, the AppEngine (which runs the new Workplace Portal) and the JMS piece from BAW 20.0.0.2 and 21.0.3 deployments by any means still core case capabilities persists similar to ICM.

    4. I would like to have more detailed understanding on external CPE/navigator, embedded and any other in container world and rationale around such build as on-prem never arise with such prerequisite needs. Kindly share reference for conceptual understanding not install/use/administration etc.

    Lastly, in our case we are building new Case system for customer hence migration and upgrade is not applicable.
    Thank you for sharing additional links and quick turn around to my questions/clarifications.

    ------------------------------
    Ankit Garg
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Wed September 14, 2022 12:38 PM
    Edited by Michael Kirchner Wed September 14, 2022 12:40 PM

    Hi Ankit,

    regarding Q3:
    Dev, Test, QA, Prod are just placeholders for different BAW environments which all offer the same capabilities and tools. Depending on the client and their best practices for developing application, there may be only two environments (Dev and Prod) or even more (e.g. unit test, integration test, etc.).
    When mapping it to a CNCF deployment, you would use the traditionally installed Process Center environment (which includes a workflow runtime and a CPE/ICN as well) as Dev stage and thus have access to the authoring tools in this stage only.

    All other stages would be containerized and running on a CNCF K8s cluster and they would all have the same capabilities, namely workflow runtime only (including tools like Process Admin Console). You would have at least two K8s clusters in order to separate the Prod cluster from all lower stages (which can then be deployed on one K8s cluster into different namespaces). Technically you could also install the Prod stage into a different namespace on the same K8s cluster which runs the non-Prod stages but in this case there is no option for you to test updates to the K8s cluster software without the risk to immediately break the Prod deployment. I'm also working with clients which actually operate separate K8s clusters for each stage.

    Regarding the question whether you can deploy BAW on CNCF without GraphQL, RR, etc. to reduce the footprint, I kindly ask you to open a ticket with the IBM support on this topic. Even if it was feasible from a technical point of view, you ultimately want to have a fully supported configuration and this statement has to come from IBM support.

    External CPE/ICN vs. embdedded CPE/ICN:
    This difference only matters for a traditional installation. In a nutshell the "external" CPE/ICN pattern distinguishes an installation where ICN and CPE are installed into a separate tWAS App Server instance as opposed to the "embedded" pattern where CPE and ICN are installed in the same instance of tWAS which is also used by the BAW workflow component.

    The embedded pattern is simpler to install but has limitations regarding scalability (you can only scale all components together CPE, ICN and Workflow whereas the "external" pattern allows you the scale ICN, CPE and Workflow independent from each other), besides content search services (CSS) of CPE are only supported with an "external" pattern.
    IBM generally recommends to install the "external" pattern when you want to use case management or content management alongside with workflow (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=workflow-planning-external-content-platform-engine).
    Container based deployments always follow the "external" CPE/ICN pattern as CPE and ICN run in separate containers using "their own" instance of Liberty.

     

    Best regards,

    Michael



    ------------------------------
    Michael Kirchner
    Leading Technical Specialist - Digital Business Automation
    IBM Technology
    Germany
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Wed September 14, 2022 12:59 PM
    Hello Michael,

    I have some question on Q3 - external CPE, external ICN topology. We have traditional ICM install where one server for CPE and one server for ICN/ICM. We are planning to upgrade to BAW where recommended approach to add 3rd server for BAW.

    What I am reading that once we move to BAW, all case client apps will run from BAW servers. If we are using ICN purely for Case solution, why shouldn't we use embedded ICN and external CPE? I think running ICN on BAW will improve performance rather than using external ICN. What are your thoughts?

    -Nitin

    ------------------------------
    Nitin Upasani
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Wed September 14, 2022 11:19 PM
    Hi Nitin,

    There is tactical shift with BAW architecture adopting ICM. BAW is more towards process centric where FileNet Content Manager/ICM and related products treated as external for adoption to traditional BPM. 

    With new topology the case code and custom case widgets and extension packages are located on different servers, Business Automation Workflow versus IBM Content Navigator, which requires adjustments to the custom widget and extension package paths.

    Please refer to links below.

    Planning for an external Content Platform Engine
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=workflow-planning-external-content-platform-engine

    Planning for an external IBM Content Navigator
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=workflow-planning-external-content-navigator

    Upgrading your IBM Case Manager system using an external IBM Content Navigator
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=upgrading-using-external-content-navigator#tld_upgradesystem_ext__custom_extpkg

    Upgrading your IBM Case Manager system by using the embedded IBM Content Navigator
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=upgrading-using-embedded-content-navigator

    Thank you.

    ------------------------------
    Ankit Garg
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Thu September 15, 2022 04:00 AM
    Edited by Michael Kirchner Thu September 15, 2022 09:37 AM

    Hi Nintin,

     

    as already pointed out by Ankit, the "embedded" CPE/ICN pattern is more targeted to support BAW Process Applications which may also need to manage content related to process instances. In such a scenario, the "BPM Document Store" is used which is a dedicated Object Store in the CPE, considered to manage documents during the active state of a process instance lifecycle. In order to make the installation of such a BAW environment as simple as possible, we support the "embedded" scenario where the BAW installer will basically also trigger the installation, configuration and deployment of CPE and ICN.

    That said, the "embedded" pattern also supports BAW Case Management Solutions (Design and Target OS are also created on the FN CM domain) but it introduces some restrictions which I already pointed out in my last post:

    • You cannot scale the content related components separately from the BAW process component
    • You cannot install and configure Content Search Services (CSS)

    Especially the CSS restriction may be an issue for typical Case Management scenarios where you often collect several content artefacts related to a particular case instance and you may later on want to search this content based on its fulltext. Also, the "embedded" scenario may prevent you to expose advanced Enterprise Content Management capabilities, for example "external share" because it requires to run ICN on tWAS v9 whereas BAW only supports tWAS v8. For that reason, IBM recommends to use the "external" pattern for CPE/ICN when using Case Management or if you want to make heavy usage of the superb Content Management Capabilities which FileNet CM delivers.

    From a performance perspective, I agree with you that an architecture where all Case related API is hosted on a single server (like in ICM) may have some advantages over distributing them across two servers (ICN, Workflow), especially if you implement heavy interaction between the ICN and the Case API (e.g. in custom widgets) but I would always argue that it should not become visible to the end users on properly sized and configured environments.

    That said, there is slightly additional effort to ensure for example that CORS is correctly working when requests are using resources from both, the ICN and the Workflow server.

     

    Best regards,

    Michael



    ------------------------------
    Michael Kirchner
    Leading Technical Specialist - Digital Business Automation
    IBM Technology
    Germany
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Thu September 15, 2022 12:27 AM
    Thank you Michael Kirchner.
    I will approach IBM Support for below track.

    Regarding the question whether you can deploy BAW on CNCF without GraphQL, RR, etc. to reduce the footprint, I kindly ask you to open a ticket with the IBM support on this topic. Even if it was feasible from a technical point of view, you ultimately want to have a fully supported configuration and this statement has to come from IBM support.

    ------------------------------
    Ankit Garg
    ------------------------------



  • 12.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Fri September 16, 2022 12:02 AM
    Edited by Ankit Garg Fri September 16, 2022 12:03 AM
    Hi Michael Kirchner.

    Update received from IBM Support. Additionally I have created an idea requesting more information on inner working of runtime pods with dependencies https://dba.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/IWF-I-837

    You cannot customize/exclude pods from the stand alone installation. That said, I want to note that some of the services you mentioned not being required is incorrect: Workflow Server JMS is used for internal communication between pods while Elastic Search is used for the task indexer used by Process Portal/PFS. Additionally, I believe the Content Services GraphQL is used for certain functionality in the CPE. Hence those pods are used by other services and we would recommend keeping them installed with standard settings.

    That said, the Application Engine is mainly used by Workspace which is a use case you likely are not using. Thus, while you cannot remove that pod from the deployment as mentioned, you could decrease the resources provided to the pods via the resource_ae and resource_init parameter options as detailed here:
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/cloud-paks/cp-biz-automation/21.0.3?topic=parameters-business-automation-application-engine

    Additionally, other pods (like elastic search) have similar parameters which can be used to tune the resources allocated as well and is detailed in the parameter listings for each component:
    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/baw/20.x?topic=workflow-parameters

    ------------------------------
    Ankit Garg
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Fri September 30, 2022 01:07 PM
    Idea https://dba.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/IWF-I-837 accepted as future consideration.

    ------------------------------
    Ankit Garg
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Sun February 12, 2023 09:26 PM

    Morning Ankit, 

    https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/01/new-quick-start-deploys-ibm-filenet-content-manager-on-aws/

    I realized that this quick-start is no longer available, do you know why? 



    ------------------------------
    YING WANG
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: Clarifications on IBM BAW on Containers deployment with AWS EKS (CNCF) | CP4BAW is not our consideration

    Posted Sun February 12, 2023 10:32 PM
    Edited by Ankit Garg Sun February 12, 2023 10:53 PM

    I am not sure but FileNet CPE 5.5.3 seems out of support soon hence might not be available. Support schedule for Content Platform Engine and IBM Content Navigator 

    Please see if below reference helps. https://ibm.github.io/cloud-pak/assets/html/ibm-cp-fncm-case-table.html

    ------------------------------
    Ankit Garg Architect
    ------------------------------