TIGERS MeF Call With Xan Ostro (09/20/2012)

prettybadelyngeSoftware and s/w Development

Nov 18, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

63 views


TIGERS MEF Call With Xan Ostro

September 20, 2012

MEETING

Recap



Page
1

of
4




Project Name:

Performance Issues For

Fed/State 1040 Efile

Date of Meeting:


(MM/DD/YYYY)

September 20,

2012

Location:

303
-
586
-
4497

115759
#

Minutes Prepared By:

Terry Garber

Charge time to:

n/a


1. Purpose of Meeting

Discuss
issues related to performan
ce of the various service requests for MeF Fed/State 1040


2. Attendance at Meeting

(add rows as necessary, Department, email
and phone #, etc. optional)

Name

Attended

Organization

E
-
mail

States


AL,AZ,CO,CT,DE,DC,ID,IL,IN,IA,KS,KY,
L
A,
ME,
MD,MN,MS,MO,

MT,NJ,NM,NYS,
NYC,
NC,ND,OH,OR,

PA,
SC,TN,UT,VA,WV,WI

See State Spreadsheet on TIGERS
website


Industry



Various


see NACTP


IRS


Xan Ostro


Xan.H.Ostro@irs.gov



3. Meeting
Agenda

(
often provided in me
eting invite via email
)


1.


Ongoing dialog on performance concerns

a.

Kate’s “anomalies”

b.

Multi
-
threading

i.

Within one system
-
id s across multiple system
-
ids

ii.

Expected throughput per thread


how many threads needed for a given volume
expected

2.

64
-
bit Zip

a.

Requirem
ents for states (able to receive, able to send?)

b.

Test files


medium and large (threshold) sized

3.

Reconciliation List

a.

Recap changes for next year

b.

Clarification on Guidance with use of Get Submissions by Msg
-
id

4.

Changes to Send Acks

5.

Any other questions raised

by the Guidance document




4. Meeting Notes, Decisions, Issues


Xan Ostro addressed the agenda items:

“Anomalies”:


TIGERS MEF Call With Xan Ostro

September 20, 2012

MEETING

Recap



Page
2

of
4



4. Meeting Notes, Decisions, Issues


FTA
,

on behalf of the states
,

had sent a document to IRS expressing concerns about
service request performance, and had included data fr
om several states.

IRS looked at IL,
who had sent data from several

periods of time. IRS tested with IL, and found that over half
of the transaction time was on the IL side. They found a consistent mean of 15
-
18 seconds,
but the statistical deviation is

larger than desired. A team is working to find out the cause
and what to do in terms of configuration, e.g. does file make a difference. No solutions yet;
they tested 1000 submissions in less than a minute with IL, no delays to
GetNewSubmissions, though

some variations in time between logins and GNS.


Multi
-
Threading:

Xan asked whether any state was attempting to multi
-
thread but getting errors or SOAP
faults;
no state was having
these
errors.

A single system
-
id can have 5 logins, 5 SAMLs, same ETIN and

submission category, used
for the same service request (e.g. GNS) or different service requests. Multiple states have
tried this; the question is whether they obtained increase throughput. MeF will not respond
any differently whether the sessions are fr
om one server or many, although there is
momentary locking on the ETIN and subcategory.

IRS is not queuing responses to avoid
returning duplicate submissions; if a state is not getting throughput unless multiple servers
are used, Xan wants to see the data
, especially timestamps and message
-
ids. States can
test in ATS


p牯ru捴楯n⁶o汵le猠s牥o琠heavy⁥nough⁡琠瑨楳⁴業e⸠⁐a牡汬e氠䝎l⁳ 牶楣攠
牥rue獴猠獨ou汤lg楶e⁩ 捲敡獥d⁴h牯rghpu琮



64
-
bit Zip:

IRS is starting to get returns (mostly Partnership with

many attachments) greater than 4G
when uncompressed. Most 32
-
bit utilities cannot uncompress a file that size. So, IRS is
switching in January to a 64
-
bit
zip utility for everything that they zip or unzip. It will be the
standard zip utility in the Jav
a JDK.

States are not required to use 64
-
bit zip on receipts or Acks; the 64
-
bit utility can also handle
32
-
bit zip, but states are encouraged to move to 64
-
bit zip to handle large files.

Rance Pier of OR noted that MTOM takes a G of memory and it can cr
eate a copy of the
attachments 1 1/3 times actual size. Rance is moving to .Net 4.5 and has configured to
allow bit arrays greater than 2G. Rance will provide a document for .Net states on how to
accommodate very large objects.


Reconciliation List:

The
Get Reconciliation List has been modified to retrieve a choice of submissions not yet
retrieved, or retrieved but not yet receipted and/or Acked.
There is a new submission status
element to indicate what the state wants, and the new not yet retrieved opti
on. Up to 500
submissions can be identified on the list.

The “no receipt” option was removed. New
tp䑌猠w楬氠le⁲ 汥l獥d⁦o爠瑨楳⁦un捴楯na汩瑹Ⱐw楴i⁩ 獴牵捴楯n献s⁉琠w楬氠le⁲ 汥l獥d⁢efo牥r
AqpⰠany⁤ayowⰠbu琠no琠fo爠r獥⁩ ⁴he⁣ 牲en琠f楬楮i⁳ a獯





TIGERS MEF Call With Xan Ostro

September 20, 2012

MEETING

Recap



Page
3

of
4



4. Meeting Notes, Decisions, Issues


Get Submissions:

States are using the Reconciliation List to identify submissions, and then using
GetSubmissions to retrieve them. GetSubmissions is not efficient. Xan wants states to use
GetSubmissions by Message
-
Id instead of GetSubmissions. Stat
es will have to save the
message
-
id of their original GetNewSubmissions pull. There is a place in the SOAP body
for this message
-
id. The Get Submissions by Message
-
Id will return the same file as the
original. The Get Submissions by Message
-
Id itself wi
ll have a new message
-
id.

The
Reconciliation List will retrieve submission ids, not the actual submissions. The new option
of “not retrieved” gives submission ids of submissions the state has never tried to retrieve.
創on楮i⁒ 捯n捩c楡i楯i⁌楳琠ioe猠sot

捡u獥⁡ny⁩獳 e猠so爠re䘻⁇e瑓ubm楳獩on猠su汬猠s牯r
瑨e⁤a瑡ba獥Ⱐand⁩猠楮eff楣ien琮†qhe業楴n⁇e瑓ubm楳獩on猠sa猠seen we牥r⁴o‵0㬠
䝥瑎twpubm楳獩on猠sa猠seen⁩ 捲敡獥d⁴o′00⸠⁓endA捫猠楳⁡汳漠up⁴o′00⸠⁔he
max業um⁢y瑥⁳楺e⁩猠 o琠go楮i⁵p㬠楮

fa捴cheay⁣ n獩摥爠redu捩湧⁩琮†䡩猠s牥re牥r捥⁩猠
neve爠瑯⁧ove爠r00j⁦o爠ro牰r牡瑥⽐a牴re牳桩rⰠ汥獳lfo爠䥮d楶楤ia氮†
qhe牥⁩猠a⁰end楮i
q䥇b剓o牥rue獴sfo爠瑨e⁒ 捯n捩c楡i楯i⁌楳琠io⁩ 捬畤e⁴he⁳楺ef⁴he⁶a物ou猠獵bm楳獩on献s⁉琠
楳⁨a牤⁴o⁤o⁡nd

楳o琠楮i瑨楳⁲敬ia獥Ⱐbu琠楴⁩猠獴楬氠lu琠瑨e牥r


Send Acks:

States could send 100 Acks, but if there was a duplicate or a parsing error, all 100 would be
rejected. In the new system, if the Acks are well
-
formed, IRS will accept what is right an
send b
ack a list of Acks that are duplicates or will not validate. It will not be necessary to
resend the good Acks. Up to 200 can be sent at a time. This will go into effect with ATS on
November 5, and will go into production with Business returns. The limi
t for Send receipts
has not been changed; the Reconciliation List will go up to 500.
States noted that there will
be two SendRecipts for every SendAcks


Xan agreed it is awkward, but it won’t be changed
瑨楳⁹ea爮


Certificates:

Certificates should be cu
rrent through 2014 and should not need replacement until mid
-
year
2013. States should use la.alt for ATS and la for Production.


Miscellaneous:

Q: Any servers set up to test all these changes? A: Not until ATS.

States would like to be testing with vendor
s by that time, but they spend the first two weeks
making sure the changes work. Xan: IRS is pressed to get done, no additional bandwidth.

Q: Any more discussion on Volume Testing? A: No, ATS can’t handle. No plans at this
瑩te.



vou爠ru楤in捥⁴o⁔牡r
獭楴瑥牳⁲e捯mmend猠sa楴楮i′Q⁴o‴U⁨ou牳⁴r⁡瑴emp琠瑯⁰u汬
獴s瑥⁁捫c

with GetAcknowledgements. Some states’ Acks may be available very quickly; it
va物e猠獴a瑥
-

-
獴s瑥⸠⁁㨠⁉剓o楳⁳ie楮i⁡⁨楧h⁲ 瑥f⁇e瑎twA捫猠c楴io瑨楮i⁲ 瑵牮rdⰠ
wh楣栠楳o琠
eff楣ien琮†䝥瑁捫cow汥lgemen琠捡n⁢e⁳ bm楴瑥d⁷楴i⁵p⁴o‱00⁳ bm楳獩on
楤献


TIGERS MEF Call With Xan Ostro

September 20, 2012

MEETING

Recap



Page
4

of
4



4. Meeting Notes, Decisions, Issues


Q: Would it be better for IRS to bundle Acks, rather than pulling from the database? A: No,
the issue is the empties.

Q: Should GetNewAcknowledgments be changed to be able to p
ull only state Acks? A:
They can do that now! They just can’t specify a particular state or states


楴eed猠so⁢e
wo牫敤n.

儺n
Anyone⁩ p汥len瑩tg⁷楴i⁗楮iow猠䍯mmun楣慴楯i⁆ unda瑩tn?⁁:

䥎⁡nd⁋v⁷o牫rng
on⁩琬⁢u琠no琠wo牫敤u琠ye琮

儺n
tha琠楳⁴
he status of Get Ack Notification? A: Still trying to fix it. It’s usable, but has
p牯r汥l献s
m牯r汥l⁧e瑳two牳攠瑨eo牥⁡牥u琠瑨e牥⸠
Use it until it doesn’t work anymore.

儺⁗hen⁷e⁵獥⁩琬⁷e⁧e琠da瑡⁢a捫⁴o′00S⸠⁁⁰u牧e⁣ u汤l捡u獥⁡⁰牯r汥l⸠
A㨠⁐u牧e⁩猠
one⁹ea爠r牯r⁲ 捥楰i⸠⁑ueue猠s牥⁢y⁅q䥎⹒f捯mend⁰u汬楮i⁳ a汬umbe爬ax業um
㄰〮



5.
Action Items

(add rows as necessary)

Action

Assigned to

Due Date

Write up and post transcript of call

Terry Garber

9
/3
0
/2012


Continue work on t
ransaction time variance

Xan Ostro

11/5
/2012


6. Next Meeting

Date:

A
s needed

Time:


Location:


Agenda:



Meeting Minutes guidelines:



Post Minutes in a place available to all stakeholders (e.g, SharePoint site or shared drive)



Send Minutes via e
mail to all stakeholders. Include Action Items in body of the email.



Review Action Items for completion during the next meeting.