The IBM Mainframe: A Closed & Difficult To Commission Platform?

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

All too often in life we are led to believe that some things are just too difficult to achieve.  Sometimes we believe them, but hopefully, more often than not, the human spirit wins and we try to achieve the allegedly impossible.  Some might call it reverse psychology; I learned this myself as a 17 year old, having a serious leg injury having been knocked off my motor cycle, where the surgeon said “you will never walk without a limp or play sport again”.  Luckily, I thought differently and worked very hard to prove the surgeon wrong.  The surgeon wasn’t wrong, he was just far more experienced than myself and this was his way of telling me to do the hard work…

In the last several decades or so, there will be many instances of scenarios where people have stated that the IBM Mainframe is just too difficult to operate; too expensive to even consider and in general, just the preserve of an aging workforce, which will inevitably become extinct, just like the dinosaurs.  Of course, such a viewpoint isn’t necessarily balanced and pragmatic and the IBM Mainframe community, supplier and customers alike have safeguarded the longevity and strategic importance of this platform.

Having worked with the IBM Mainframe platform for ~35 years, one of the most inspiring and can do scenarios I have encountered was articulated at the recent SHARE Winter 2016 conference.  In a session named, I Just Bought an IBM z890 – Now What?, Connor Krukosky a student from Cecil Community College articulates how he commissioned a used z890 in his home environment for $340.60!  The several hundred dollars cost is impressive, but the most impressive aspect of this story is the can do attitude of Connor and the community spirit of those who assisted them.

In a timeframe where very young students can learn programming with low cost platforms such as the Raspberry Pi and The BBC micro:bit, isn’t it great that we can see a young adult student find a seemingly obsolete Mainframe platform via an on-line auction site and then find a way of commissioning that platform once again?

As always, where there is a will there is a way, and if you look closely enough at this scenario, even if you don’t know anything about the IBM Mainframe platform, you might just learn that even an IBM Mainframe first released in 2004 can be considered as an “open system” and with a “can do attitude”, can be implemented with little or no experience.

As for Connor Krukosky, good luck young man and great job!  I hope you find a great job in your chosen field and if it’s working with the System z platform, we welcome you to our open and proud community.

z/OS Workload Manager (WLM): Balancing Cost & Performance

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

A sophisticated mechanism is required to orchestrate the allocation of System z resources (E.g. CPU, Memory, I/O) to multiple z/OS workloads, requiring differing business processing priorities. Put very simply, a mechanism is required to translate business processing requirements (I.E. SLA) into an automated and equitable z/OS performance manager. Such a mechanism will safeguard the highest possible throughput, while delivering the best possible system responsiveness. Ideally, such a mechanism will assist in delivering this optimal performance, for the lowest cost; for z/OS, primarily Workload License Charges (WLC) related. Of course, the Workload Management (WLM) z/OS Operating System component delivers this functionality.

A rhetorical question for all z/OS Performance Managers and z/OS MLC Cost Managers would be “how much importance does your organization place on WLM and how proactively do you manage this seemingly pivotal z/OS component”? In essence, this seems like a ridiculous question, yet there is evidence that suggests many organizations, both customer and ISV alike, don’t necessarily consider WLM to be a fundamental or high priority performance management discipline. Let’s consider several reasons why WLM is a fundamental component in balancing cost and performance for each and every z/OS environment:

  • CPU (MSU) Resource Capping: Whatever the capping method (I.E. Absolute, Hard, Soft), WLM is a controlling mechanism, typically in conjunction with PR/SM, determining when capping is initiated, how it is managed and when it is terminated. Therefore from a dispassionate viewpoint, any 3rd party ISV product that performs MSU optimization via soft capping mechanisms should ideally consider the same CPU (E.g. SMF Type 70, 72, 99) instrumentation data as WLM. Some solutions don’t offer this granularity (E.g. AutoSoftCapping, iCap).
  • MLC R4HA Cost Management: WLM is the fundamental mechanism for controlling this #1 System z software TCO component; namely WLM collects 48 consecutive metric CPU MSU resource usage every 5 Minutes, commonly known as the Rolling 4 Hour Average (R4HA). In an ideal world, an optimally managed workload that generates a “valid monthly peak”, will fully utilize this “already paid for” available CPU MSU resource for the remainder of the MLC eligible month (I.E. Start of the 2nd day in a calendar month, to the end of the 1st day in the next calendar month). More recently, Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP) allows an organization to move workloads between System z server (I.E. CPC) structures, without cost consideration for cumulative R4HA peaks. Similarly, Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) reporting will be simplified with WLM service definitions in z/OS 2.2. Therefore it seems prudent that real-time WLM management, both in terms of real-time reporting and pro-active decision making makes sense.
  • System z Server CPU Management: As System z server CPU chips evolve (E.g. CPU Chip Cache Hierarchy and Relative Nest Intensity), there are complementary changes to the z/OS Operating System management components. For example, HiperDispatch Mode delivers CPU resource usage benefit, considering CPU chip cache resources, intelligently allocating workload to as few logical processors as possible. It therefore follows that prioritization of workloads via WLM policy definitions becomes increasingly important. In this instance one might consider that CPU MF (SMF Type 113) and WLM Topology (SMF Type 99) are complementary reporting techniques for System z server design and management.

Since its announcement in September 1994 (I.E. MVS/ESA Version 5), WLM has evolved to become a fully-rounded and highly capable z/OS System Resources Manager (SRM), simply translating business prioritization policies into dynamic function, optimizing System z CPU, Memory and I/O resources. More recently, WLM continues to simplify the management of CPU chip cache hierarchy resources, while reporting abilities gain in strength, with topology reporting and the promise of simplified MWP reporting. Moreover, WLM resource management becomes more granular and seemingly the realm of possibility exists to “micro manage” System z performance, as and if required. Conversely, WLM provides the opportunity to simplify System z performance management, with intelligent workload differentiation (I.E. Subsystem Enclave, Batch, JES, USS, et al).

Quite simply, IBM are providing the instrumentation and tools for the 21st Century System z Performance and Software Cost Subject Matter Expert (SME) to deliver optimal performance for minimal cost. However, it is incumbent for each and every System z user to optimize software TCO, proactively implementing new processes and leveraging from System z functions accordingly.

Returning to that earlier rhetorical question about the importance of WLM; seemingly its importance is without doubt, primarily because of its instrumentation and management abilities of increasingly cache rich System z CPU chips and its fundamental role in controlling CPU MSU resource, vis-à-vis the R4HA.

Although IBM will provide the System z user with function to optimize system performance and cost, for obvious commercial reasons IBM will not reduce the base cost of System z MLC software. However, recent MLC pricing announcements, namely Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP), Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) and Collocated Application Pricing (zCAP) provide tangible options to reduce System z MLC TCO. Therefore the System z user might need to consider how they can access real-time WLM performance metrics, intelligently combining this instrumentation data with function to intelligently optimize CPU MSU resource, managing the R4HA accordingly.

Workload X-Ray (WLXR) from zIT Consulting simplifies WLM performance reporting, enabling users to drill down into the root cause of performance variances in a very fast and easy way. WLXR assists in root cause problem determination by zooming in, starting from a high level overview, going right down to detailed Service Class performance information, such as the Performance Index (PI), showing potential bottleneck situations during peak time. Any system overhead considerations are limited, as WLXR delivers meaningful real time information on a “need to know” basis.

A fundamental design objective for WLXR is data reduction, only delivering the important information required for timely and professional workload management. Straight to the point information instead of data overload, sometimes from a plethora of data sources (E.g. SMF, System Monitors, et al). WLXR incorporates the following easy-to-use functions:

  • Simplified Data Collection & Storage: Minimal system overhead TCP/IP based agents periodically (E.g. 5, 15, 60 Minutes) collect CPU (Type 70) and WLM (Type 72) data. Performance data is stored centrally in near real-time, building a historical repository with intelligent analytics for meaningful information presentation.
  • Intelligent GUI Based Information Presentation: Meaningful decision based reports and graphs detailing CPU (E.g. MSU, R4HA, Weight) and WLM (E.g. Service Class, Performance Index, Response Time, Transaction Workflow) resource usage. A drill-down design provides a granularity of data presentation, for Management Summary to 3rd Level Technical Diagnostics use.
  • Corporate Identity Branding: A modular template design, allowing for easy corporate identity branding, with flexibility to easily add additional reports, as and if required.

Without doubt, WLM is a significant z/OS System Resources Management function, simplifying the translation of business workload requirements (I.E. Service Level Agreement) into timely and proactive allocation of major System z hardware resources (I.E. CPU, Memory, I/O). This management of System z resources has been forever thus for 20+ years, while WLM has always offered “software cost control” functionality, working with the various and evolving CPU capping techniques. What might not be so obvious, is that there is a WLM orientated price versus performance correlation, which has become more evident in the last 5 years or so. Whether Absolute Capping, HiperDispatch, Mobile Workload Pricing, Country Multiplex Pricing or evolving Soft Capping techniques, the need for System z users to integrate z/OS MLC pricing considerations alongside WLM performance based management is evident.

Historically there was not a clear and identified need for a z/OS Performance/Capacity Manager to consider MLC costs in their System z server designs. However, there is a clear and present danger that this historic modus operandi continues and there will only be one financial winner, namely IBM, with unnecessarily high MLC charges. Each and every System z user, whether large or small, can safeguard the longevity of their IBM Mainframe platform by recognizing and deploying proactive and current System z MLC cost management processes.

All too often it seems that capping can be envisaged as punitive, degrading system performance to reduce System z MLC costs. Such a notion needs to be consigned to history, with a focussed perspective on MSU optimization, where the valuable and granular MSU resource is allocated to the workload that requires such CPU resource, with near real-time performance profiling. If we perceive MSU optimization to be R4HA based and that IBM are increasing WLM function to assist this objective, CPU capping can be a benefit that does not adversely impact performance. As previously stated, once a valid R4HA peak has occurred, that high MSU watermark is available for the remainder of the MLC billing period. Similarly at a more granular level, once a workload has peaked and its MSU usage declines, the available MSU can be redirected to other workloads. With the introduction of Country Multiplex Pricing, System z users no longer need to concern themselves about creating a higher R4HA peak, when moving workloads between System z servers.

Quite simply, from the two most important perspectives, performance and cost optimization, WLM provides the majority of functionality to assist System z users get the best performance for the lowest cost. Analytics based products like Workload X-Ray (WLXR) assist this endeavour, analysing WLM data in near real-time from a performance and MLC cost perspective. It therefore follows that if this important information is also available for sophisticated MSU optimization solutions, which consider WLM performance (E.g. zDynaCap, zPrice Manager), then proactive performance and cost management follows. It’s hard to envisage how a fully-rounded MSU optimization decision can be implemented in near real-time, from an MSU optimization solution that does not consider WLM performance metrics…

IMS: The First Commercial Database Management Subsystem

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

If we could put a man on the Moon, could we also create a computer program to track the millions of rocket parts it takes? In 1966, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contractor North American Aviation (AKA Rockwell International) asked IBM that question. In response, IBM launched the world’s first commercial database management system in 1968, called the Information Control System and Data Language/Interface (ICS/DL/I). In 1969, it was renamed Information Management System (IMS).

The IMS architecture has always comprised two functions. Firstly, the database system supporting a hierarchical, tree-like structure data model (AKA IMS/DB). Secondly transaction processing software for handling complex, high-volume transactions, such as order entry, inventory management, payroll and claims processing, airline or hotel reservations, financial applications, and other transaction-oriented applications (AKA IMS/DC or IMS TM).

A unique feature of IMS is its queued system architecture, being a process that receives all transactions as they arrive and holds them until they can be processed. This allows for intelligent and commercial application processing; for example, when an airline agent enters a transaction, the automated transaction manager takes care of updating IMS, so another ticket agent doesn’t sell the same seat.

Some might say that the “business world relies on IMS” as 75+% of top Fortune 1000 companies use IMS to process more than 50 billion transactions a day, managing 15+ Million Gigabytes of mission critical business data.

From my own viewpoint, I have always enjoyed working with IMS and its arguably trail blazing functions, including but not limited to; Checkpoint Restart, Fast Path, Write Ahead Data Set (WADS), Batch Message Processing (BMP), Database Recovery Control (DBRC), et al. Whether System z or Distributed Platform product solutions or not, IMS has introduced many functions that have enhanced and optimized application processing throughout the decades. Is IMS still relevant today?

Industry analysts claim that IMS is the lowest cost transaction and hierarchical database management system for mission critical OLTP. With a TPS (Transactions Per Second) benchmark topping 117,000, IMS delivers industrial strength capabilities for managing and distributing data. IMS delivers mission critical levels of availability, performance, security and scalability. Expansive integration capabilities enable mobile and cloud applications based on IMS assets, enhanced analytics, new application development, SOA exploitation, and more.

In 2013 Gartner stated “by 2016, 40 percent of mobile application development projects will leverage cloud back-end services, causing development leaders to lose control of the pace and path of cloud adoption within their enterprises”. In this timeframe Gartner also stated “hybrid apps, which offer a balance between HTML5-based web apps and native apps, will be used in more than 50 percent of mobile apps by 2016”. Additionally, “While mobile becomes a requirement for everything, there is no single device that will meet all needs. By the end of 2013, mobile phones will overtake PCs as the most common web access device worldwide and by 2016, PC shipments will be less than 50 percent of combined PC and tablet shipments”.

As the original and ground breaking “System Of Record”, combined with industry leading OLTP performance, why wouldn’t a CIO in 2016 consider IMS as the foundation for big data and even cloud based mission critical business applications? With easy and rapid application development via solutions such as RDz and mobile application integration via z/OS Connect, accessing IMS assets has never been easier. Whatever the industry vertical, IMS has facilitated “rocket science and the man on the moon race” since day #1 in the late 1960’s, while leveraging from the unparalleled System z platform for the best scalability and performance attributes in a single footprint. A modicum of lateral thinking should consider IMS as a Service, as well as IaaS and XaaS, for resolving today’s challenges of mobile applications generating unparalleled number of transactions and associated big data requiring analytics to process rapidly evolving business requirements…

How to Connect Mobile Workloads to System z

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

Despite potential security concerns, primarily data encryption and multiple-factor authentication related, mobile transactions continue to increase their share of the market, accounting for up to half of online transactions. Mobile payments now account for 30%+ of all global online transactions as of Q3 2015, continuing the upward trend experienced for the last several years. Although there are global differences in mobile transaction adoption, all global locations are experiencing rapid growth in mobile transaction adoption. Furthermore, as a general rule of thumb, seemingly ~66% of mobile transactions originate from a smartphone, a ~2:1 ratio when compared with tablet devices. Therefore it seems highly probable that smartphone originated mobile transactions will become the de facto standard for online transactions…

For System z users, the majority of their TCO continues to be IBM MLC software related and seemingly the realm of possibility exists for retail operations to reduce IBM MLC TCO as a result of modernizing their business for this mobile transaction phenomenon. Recognizing the security, scalability and transaction ability of the System z platform, why wouldn’t it be the ideal platform for mobile transactions? Furthermore, deploying mobile workloads that can take advantage of modern low cost System z pricing metrics, namely System z Collocated Application Pricing (zCAP) and Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) for z/OS, could substantially reduce IBM MLC TCO. In theory, existing legacy applications might become somewhat static in nature, as mobile transactions replace existing traditional transaction mechanisms. Therefore the cost per business transaction reduces, potentially significantly.

So, just how easy is it to connect mobile transactions to the System z platform?

z/OS Connect is a software function engineered to leverage from the Liberty Profile for z/OS, acting as an enabler of connectivity between the mobile environment (client) and the System z platform (host). Put another way, z/OS Connect exposes System z assets for mobile and cloud workloads. Quite simply z/OS Connect delivers JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) and REST (REpresentational State Transfer) functionality to leverage from existing z/OS subsystems (E.g. CICS, IMS, Batch, et al). These traditional System z transaction systems (E.g. CICS, IMS) often integrated with DB2, are repositories for vast amounts of business transactions and data. There is no incremental cost for z/OS Connect usage, being packaged with WebSphere Application Server (WAS), CICS and IMS software products.

z/OS Connect provides a discovery function allowing developers to query services that have been configured for a z/OS Connect instance. A single z/OS Connect REST call returns a list of all configured services and another REST call will return the details of a given service. Importantly, developers only need to know the REST API service and associated JSON requirements to achieve this mobile device to System z interoperability; they do not need to know the underlying CICS or IMS subsystem. z/OS Connect incorporates a data conversion function that maps JSON to the host (I.E. CICS or IMS) data format requirement. Put really simply, when a request is received, z/OS Connect converts the data for CICS or IMS subsystem processing and when a response is produced, z/OS Connect converts the data back to JSON.

From a security viewpoint, standard or bespoke code can be used for control before and after a request is processed, identified as an interceptor. For Security, the calling user identity can be checked against defined roles, determining if they have authority to use z/OS Connect or the configured service. On z/OS the security interface is SAF, supplemented by an External Security Manager (ESM), namely ACF2, RACF or TopSecret. For Audit, request information can be logged via SMF for later analysis. Information about each request is logged, including timestamp, bytes processed, response time and USERID.

To summarize, z/OS Connect is designed to simplify the integration of mobile systems and z/OS assets. Delivering a consistent front-end interface for mobile systems via REST and JSON, z/OS Connect seamlessly integrates with WAS, CICS and IMS subsystems for data processing. In theory, a developer could code a mobile workload application, with no knowledge of the System z platform.

In conclusion, it seems we have to accept the adoption of the smartphone device for processing an ever increasing amount of online transactions. The realm of possibility exists that online transactions (click) will continue to displace traditional and legacy (brick) transactions. Therefore as businesses evolve to accommodate mobile transactions, they should strive to reduce their IBM MLC TCO accordingly, delivering JSON and REST applications that can leverage from optimal cost z/OS MLC software, primarily via the zCAP and MWP pricing mechanisms. z/OS Connect is one such option that simplifies the timely delivery of mobile workload applications.

System z MLC Pricing Increases: Look After The Pennies…

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

Recently IBM announced ~4% price increases in z/OS Monthly License Charges (MLC) for selected Operating System and Middleware software programs and associated features. Specifically, price increases will apply to the VWLC, AWLC, EWLC, AEWLC, PSLC, FWLC and TWLC pricing metrics. Notably, SDSF price increases will be ~20% with Advanced Function Printing (AFP) product price increases of ~13-24%. In a global economy where inflation rates for The USA and Western Europe are close to 0%, one must draw one’s own conclusions accordingly. Lets’ not forget that product version changes typically have an associated price increase. From a contractual viewpoint, IBM only have to provide 90 days advance notice for such price changes, in this instance, IBM provided 150+ days advanced notice.

Price increases are inevitable and as always, it’s better to be proactive as opposed to reactive to such changes. As always, the old proverbs always make good sense and in this instance, “look after the Pennies and the Pounds will look after themselves”! This periodic IBM price increase is inevitable, but is not the underlying issue for controlling System z software costs. For many years, since 1994 to be precise, when IBM introduced Parallel Sysplex License Charges (PSLC), the need for IBM Mainframe users to minimize MSU usage has been of high if not critical importance. Nothing has changed in this 20+ year period and even though IBM might have introduced Sub-Capacity and specialty engines to minimize chargeable MSU usage, has each and every System z user optimized their MSU usage? Ideally this would not be a rhetorical question, rather being a “Golden Rule”, where despite organic CPU capacity increases of ~10% per annum, a System z environment could maintain near static IBM MLC software costs.

I have written several blog entries and presented on this subject matter over the years, for example:

The simple bottom line is that System z MLC software accounts for ~20-35% of the overall System z TCO, typically being the #1 expenditure item. For that reason alone, it’s incumbent for each and every System z user to safeguard they have the technical and commercial skills in place to manage this cost item, not as an afterthought, but inbuilt into each and every System z process, from application design, through to that often neglected afterthought, application tuning.

Many System z organizations might try to differentiate between a nuance of System and Application tuning, but such a “not my problem” type attitude is not acceptable and will be imposing a significant financial burden on each and every organization.

A dispassionate and pragmatic approach is required for optimizing System z CPU usage. In this timeframe, let’s examine the ~20% SDSF price increase. IBM will quite rightly state that in conjunction with their z/OS 2.2 release, there are significant SDSF product function advancements, including zIIP offload, REXX interoperability and increased information delivery. However are such function improvements over and above the norm and not expected as a Business As Usual (BAU) product improvements, which should be included in the Service & Support (S&S) or Monthly License Charges (MLC) paid for software?

In October 2013 I wrote a blog entry; Mainframe ISV Software: Is Continuous Product Improvement Always Evident? The underlying message was that an ISV should deliver the best product they can, for each and every release, without necessarily increasing software costs. In this particular instance, the product was an SDSF equivalent, namely (E)JES, which many years ago delivered all of the function incorporated in SDSF for z/OS 2.2, but for a fraction of the cost…

As of 1 November 2015, IBM will start billing cycles for Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP), which requires the October 2015 version of SCRT, namely V23R10. A Multiplex is defined as a collection of all System z servers in one country, measured as one System z server for software sub-capacity reporting. Sub-Capacity program utilization peaks across the Multiplex will be measured, as opposed to separate peaks by System z servers. CMP also provides the flexibility to move and run workloads anywhere with the elimination of Sysplex aggregation pricing rules.

Migrating to CMP is focussed on CPU capacity growth and flexibility going forward. Therefore System z users should not expect price reductions for their existing workloads upon CMP deployment. Indeed there are CMP deployment considerations. A CMP MSU baseline (base) needs to be established, where this MSU Base and associated MLC Base Factor is established for each sub-capacity MLC product and each applicable feature code. These MSU and MLC bases represent the previous 3 Month averages reported by SCRT before commencing CMP. Quite simply, to gain the most from CMP, the System z user must safeguard that their R4HA for each and every MLC product is optimized, before setting the CMP baseline, otherwise CMP related cost savings going forward are likely to be null.

From a very high-level management viewpoint, we must observe that IBM are a commercial organization, and although IBM provide mechanisms for controlling cost going forward, only the System z user can optimize System z MLC cost for their organization. Arguably with CMP, Soft-Capping isn’t a consideration, it’s mandatory.

Put very simply, each and every System z user can safeguard that they look after the Pennies (Cents) and the Pounds (Euros, Dollars) will look after themselves by paying careful attention to System z MLC software costs. Setting a baseline of System z MLC costs is mandatory, whether for the first time, or to set a new baseline for CMP deployment. Maintaining or lowering this System z MLC cost baseline should or arguably must be the objective going forward, even when considering 10% organic CPU growth, each and every year. System z decision-makers and managers must commit to such an objective and safeguard the provision of adequately skilled personnel to optimize such a considerable TCO cost line item (I.E. MLC @ ~20-35% of System z TCO). In an ecosystem with technical resources including DBA, Systems Programmer, Capacity Planner, Application Personnel, Performance Tuning, et al, why wouldn’t there be a specialist Software Cost Manager?

Let’s consider how even an inexperienced System z user can maintain a baseline of System z MLC costs, even with organic CPU capacity growth of 10% per annum:

  • System z Server Upgrade: Higher specification CPU chips or Technology Transition Offering (TTO) pricing metrics deliver 10%+ cost per MSU benefits.
  • System z Specialty Engines: Over time, more and more application workload can be offloaded to zIIP processors, with no sub-capacity MLC software charges.
  • System z Software Version Upgrades: Major subsystems such as CICS, DB2, IMS, MQSeries and WebSphere deliver opportunity to lower cost per MSU; safeguard such function exploitation.
  • Application Tuning: Whether SQL, COBOL, Java, et al, or the overall I/O subsystem, safeguard that latest programming techniques and I/O subsystem functions are exploited.
  • New Application Deployment: As and when possible, deploy new or convert existing workloads to benefit from the optimal MLC pricing metric; previously zNALC, nowadays zCAP.
  • Technical & Commercial Skills Currency: Safeguard personnel have the latest System z software pricing knowledge, ideally from an independent 3rd party such as Watson & Walker.

In conclusion, as householders we have the opportunity to optimize our cost expenditure, choosing and switching between various major cost items such as financial, utility and vehicle products. As System z users, we don’t have that option, only IBM provide System z servers and associated base architecture, namely the most expensive MLC software products, z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS and WebSphere/MQ. However, just as we manage our domestic budgets, reducing power usage, optimizing vehicle TCO and getting more bang from our buck for financial products various, we can and must deliver this same due diligence for our System z MLC TCO. With industry averages of ~$500-$1000 per MSU for z/OS MLC software and associated annual expenditure measured in many millions, why wouldn’t any System z user look to deliver 10%+ cost per MSU optimization, year-on-year for their organization?

Clearly the cost of doing nothing in this instance, is significant, measured in magnitudes of millions, each and every year. Hence for System z MLC TCO optimization, looking after the Pennies is more than worthwhile, while the associated benefit of the Pounds, Euros or Dollars looking after themselves is arguably priceless.

System z: Optimizing DASD I/O Subsystem Performance

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

Historically there was a very simple synergy between the IBM S/370 Mainframe and its supporting disk I/O (DASD) subsystem, allowing for Mainframe host to physical and logical disk device (I.E. 3390) connectivity. The analysis and tuning of this I/O subsystem has always been and continues to be supported by the SMF Type 7n records via IBM RMF and the BMC CMF alternative. However, over the years, major advances in DASD subsystems and the System z Mainframe server have delivered many layers of technology resources (E.g. Cache, Memory, FICON Channels, RAID Storage, Proprietary Microcode, et al) and this has introduced complexities into highlighting DASD I/O subsystem performance problems.

The focus of technology based metrics (E.g. I/O Rate Response Time, I/O MB/S Bandwidth, et al) have also been complemented with more meaningful business focussed Service Level Agreements (SLA). Therefore today’s System z I/O Performance Analyst must gather and act upon proactive meaningful information from the ever-increasing amounts of performance data available. Put another way, too much data can deliver not enough information! As previously stated, it was forever thus, RMF and CMF have always collected the requisite performance data available and arguably no other data source is required (E.g. OMEGAMON/TMON/SYSVIEW Performance Monitor, SAS/MXG/MICS/WPS Performance Database). RMF/CMF is the ideal data source for thorough and timely System z I/O performance management, where intelligent analytics and expert knowledge are required to present this “Golden Record”.

However, today’s System z Support Teams need simple and timely presentation of the data, highlighting potential challenges, graphically presented for their Management, allowing for simple tracking of SLA agreements and technology changes (I.E. Software/Hardware Upgrades).

Additionally, Workload Manager (WLM) can control non-paging queued DASD I/O requests, based upon device busy conditional processing. Therefore the z/OS system can manage I/O priorities in a Sysplex, based on WLM service class goals. WLM dynamically adjusts the I/O priority based on service class goal performance and whether a DASD device can influence the overall performance objectives. For obvious reasons, this WLM function does not micro-manage I/O priorities, only changing a service class period’s I/O priority infrequently. WLM is deployed by many System z users to assist in the automated management of system resources (E.g. CPU, Memory, I/O, et al), based upon Service Level goals.

From a DASD subsystem technology viewpoint, there is no longer an obvious one-one direct connection between the Mainframe host and DASD device. An increasing number of technological advances, both microcode and hardware (E.g. Memory, Fibre Channel, Function Assist Processing, et al) have diminished the requirement for data access directly from the physical device. Put another way, in today’s world of System z servers with multiple cache level CPU chips (I.E. Relative Nest Intensity), massive and multiple processor memory resources (I.E. z13 @ 10 TB Memory), high bandwidth Fibre Channel (I.E. FICON, zHPF) subsystem and a hierarchy of DASD memory (I.E. SSD/Flash, Cache), it’s not uncommon to consider an I/O that requires physical device access as a problem! Finally and most importantly, from a DASD subsystem viewpoint, each of the recognized System z DASD providers, EMC (Symmetrix VMAX), HDS (VSP G1000) and IBM (DS8870) have highly proprietary DASD subsystems that provide z/OS plug compatibility, but deliver overall I/O performance using their own unique architecture and internal algorithms.

Of course, an over configured hardware environment will deliver a poor TCO, while an under configured environment will manifest in SLA issues and bad user experiences, where the middle-ground always delivers the optimal environment. Resource optimization always demands proactive day-to-day management, from an internal and indeed external communication viewpoint. With the highly proprietary design features of the IHV DASD subsystems, whether EMC, HDS or IBM, having the right information and identifying the precise problem, simplifies the communication process with the IHV. Such communication might highlight a resource under provision (E.g. Memory Capacity), a subsystem setting tweak requirement, either host or subsystem based, or indeed a hardware failure. In today’s world, these issues need to be fixed in minutes or hours, not days or weeks.

Therefore, where does today’s System z I/O Performance Analyst start to collect the required information to safeguard that their DASD subsystem is optimized, both from a capacity and performance viewpoint?

A simplistic viewpoint of an I/O health-check should consider the following:

  • Service Level Agreements (SLA): Are overall objectives being delivered or missed?
  • User Experience: Are users (customers) complaining of poor service or response times?
  • I/O Metric Performance: Are there obvious signs of abnormal performance statistics?

Several decades ago, an overall I/O health check might have been a periodic (E.g. Weekly or longer) activity, whereas today it’s undoubtedly a Business As Usual (BAU) and 24*7 activity. Therefore a fully automated solution is required, built upon the tried and tested System z performance fundamentals, namely RMF or CMF. The ideal solution will perform analytics based data reduction, presenting the right information, at the right time, allowing for intelligent business based communication, both internally, to customers and end users from an SLA viewpoint, and externally, with IHV DASD suppliers, safeguarding optimal performance and TCO.

EADM (Easy Analyze DASD Mainframe) is a solution from Technical Storage that performs automated performance analysis of the z/OS I/O subsystem, delivering predictive analytics for better storage capacity planning and performance measurement. The Technical Storage EADM architects have in excess of 40 years IBM Mainframe experience, specializing in the I/O subsystem, and so it’s no surprise that EADM delivers expert and timely knowledge via an easy-to-use solution.

EADM is an easy-to-install and easy-to-use plug-and-play solution that has no proprietary considerations, requiring no additional System z resource (E.g. CPU, Memory, DASD, et al) requirements. Installed on Microsoft server platforms, EADM is easily virtualized via VMware, Hyper-V, et al, requiring no target database for performance data storage. EADM performs a daily health check of the entire System z disk subsystem. EADM works around the clock, delivering customized and automatic user friendly GUI type reports. For today’s System z technician, the open and IP architecture base of EADM allows for secure remote access via Mobile, Tablet or Laptop devices, as and when required.

Operations and performance teams are alerted as soon as performance variances occur, typically in minutes, assisting in the identification of underlying root problems, causing changes in system behaviour. Incorporating intelligent and meaningful I/O performance indicators, with drill-down and zoom-in ability, storage technicians can determine if the problem is temporary, permanent, local or global. By simplifying the data reduction process (E.g. RMF/CMF data from numerous LPAR/Sysplex environments), EADM safeguards that the internal technical team can efficiently manage their ever increasingly complex and large DASD environment, for intelligent and timely communications with internal business teams and external suppliers alike.

EADM simplifies the System z I/O subsystem capacity and performance management process, delivering expert reports and timely historical analysis, for example:

  • Automatic daily (24 Hour) analysis of Sysplex wide workload (On-Line TP & Batch) I/O response times
  • Systematic intelligent alerts of early performance variances with exact occurrence time indicators
  • Identification of I/O performance hot-spots with DASD volume and data set level granularity
  • Performance trending at DFSMS Storage Group, Subsystem LCU and DASD volume level
  • DR (E.g. PPRC) simulations to prevent data loss and forecast Data Centre failover scenarios
  • I/O subsystem WLM indicators to determine exactly what impacts performance objectives
  • Full FICON channels and zHPF analysis, incorporating typical I/O throughput indicators
  • HyperPAV and associated LCU indicators to easily balance volumes, optimizing PAV alias allocation
  • Performance monitoring and balancing via intelligent LCU, SSID and I/O analytics
  • DASD capacity usage via DCOLLECT data, comparing assigned vs. allocated vs. actual disk utilization
  • EADM supports entry-level several LPAR and complex multiple CPC/LPAR System z configurations

A well provisioned and performing System z I/O subsystem is of vital importance for safeguarding today’s ever increasing storage requirements of mission critical business applications. A poorly performing I/O subsystem will generate unnecessary and extra CPU overhead, with potential and tangible TCO impact, in conjunction with potential business impact. Although the advances of the System z server and underlying DASD I/O subsystem can compensate for many application code or data placement issues, the fundamental concepts of analysing and tuning the I/O subsystem remain.

Therefore the savvy and proactive System z customer will safeguard that they find a solution to deliver optimal DASD I/O performance. Without doubt, such an analysis could be performed by a highly-skilled individual, but today’s 21st Century world demands a hybrid of technical and commercial skills. Therefore a solution that incorporates the diagnostic knowledge of the most highly trained technician, performs intelligent analytics on a plethora of Sysplex wide performance data sources and presents the information required, is one that will deliver benefit each and every day. EADM is an example of such a solution, delivering demonstrable System z TCO optimization benefits, while safeguarding a short-term ROI, with simple deployment and resource utilization attributes.

System z Meets Open Source Linux

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

Recently IBM launched their LinuxONE offering, packaged in the most powerful and secure enterprise server, namely System z, designed for the new application economy and hybrid cloud era. Although IBM has provided Linux support for the Mainframe server since 2000, this LinuxONE packaging promises a unified portfolio of hardware, software and services solutions for mission-critical Linux applications.

To supplement the existing SUSE and Red Hat support, Ubuntu is included, along with Open Source enablement, including Apache Spark, Chef, Docker, MariaDB, MongoDB, Node.js and PostgreSQL, endeavouring to provide clients with choice and flexibility for hybrid cloud deployments.

From a big picture viewpoint, LinuxONE can be summarised as:

  • Linux Your Way: Choose the Linux environment and tools for your organization
  • Linux Without Limits: Benefit from Enterprise Class Linux support
  • Linux Without Risk: Safeguard business applications with the secure and resilient System z Server

The LinuxONE Systems are classified as Emperor and Rockhopper, loosely classified as High-End and Entry-Level System z servers. LinuxONE Emperor delivers ultimate flexibility, scalability, performance and security trust for mission-critical applications. Scalability is as per the latest z13 server, allowing growth to handle the most demanding workloads. LinuxONE Rockhopper delivers the entry point into the LinuxONE family, offering all the same great capabilities and value, with the flexibility of a smaller package.

LinuxONE includes a choice of hypervisors and management tools, namely KVM for LinuxONE and/or IBM z/VM. This virtualization capability claims support for up to 8000 virtual servers (several thousand containers) in a single System z server footprint, allowing for parallel processing of Test, Development and Production environments. Additionally, new servers and containers can be initialized and running in minutes, with automated resource provisioning and reallocation in seconds.

From a performance viewpoint, System z metrics apply; fast CPU processors, significant I/O capability and 10 TB Memory, all delivering consistent and predictable sub-second response times for thousands of users. A reported capability of 30 Billion RESTful web transaction per day, with ~500,000 database read/write operations per second.

The LinuxONE offering is also a key component of the IBM Cloud, Analytics, Mobile & Security (CAMS) framework:

  • Cloud: An agile and trusted cloud infrastructure to meet new business demands with greater efficiency and lower costs for IT service delivery. Example cloud usage includes Database, Enterprise Systems of Record and Hybrid Platform cloud platforms.
  • Analytics: Flexible, resilient, high performance business and operational analytics for Business Intelligence, Big Data Insights and Operational Analytics for intelligent and continuous business availability.
  • Mobile: Build a premier mobile solution for your business to deliver the best possible experience for your clients, employees and partners alike. Facilitate agile development and deployment of mobile applications, with secure end-to-end mobile transactions, personalized via integrated data analytics.
  • Security: System z has been associated with the highest EAL5+ Common Criteria certification for many years, safeguarding mission-critical data from cradle-to-grave. Security functions such as full data encryption, cryptographic processors and end-to-end security, combined with the unmatched reliability and availability of the System z server, safeguarding mission-critical data and services are fully protected and available.

Finally and a key point, LinuxONE promises TCO optimization with pricing your way. A straightforward menu of pricing options include:

  • A fixed monthly cost usage model for hardware and software resources
  • A per core software pricing model, with 30 days notice for cancellation or resource change
  • A 36 month rental option, with buy/replace/return options at contract end

In theory, LinuxONE could be perceived as just a tweak of existing System z Linux options, including the most recent z13 server, Ubuntu and Open Source support. What has changed are user requirements, the requirement for flexible and agile computing, where Cloud, Analytics, Mobile and Security dominate many CIO agendas.

It is my hope that each and every CIO, System z literate or not, at least considers the LinuxONE platform for their mission-critical enterprise workload, as from a simplistic viewpoint, LinuxONE is just another ubiquitous black server box; or is it…

How Can We Energize Our Emerging zCommunity?

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

No doubt we have all experienced that most things in life and business are cyclical, hence the terms déjà vu, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, et al…

For System z, with the glass half-full, there are encouraging signs of pragmatic and collaborative executive leadership from the supplier ecosystem; for example, BMC, Compuware and IBM collaborating on a Standard Software Product Install Methodology For All Vendors. With the glass half-empty, even though there are proven statistics to demonstrate the penetration of System z in global large organizations, there are still some misplaced legacy perceptions associated with System z, from significant executive leaders.

Just as the IBM Mainframe automated business processes more than several decades ago, introducing IT into the business workplace forever more, we’re currently undergoing another IT revolution. Quite simply, an exponential growth in data, typically associated with Cloud, Analytic, Mobile & Social technologies. With this in mind, we should always be mindful that an IT solution should solve a business challenge and/or provide value for a business requirement. Therefore, the business themselves are best placed to articulate the framework and ultimate size and shape of solutions delivered by the vendor community.

The IBM Mainframe environment has always benefitted from User Groups that conceptually represent the customer, articulating requirements to IBM for future IBM Mainframe enhancement. For the avoidance of doubt, SHARE in The USA, celebrating its 60th anniversary in 2015, with SHARE Europe, the forerunner to GSE, being founded in 1959. These groups are the ideal forums for collecting and articulating user requirements to IBM, for IBM Mainframe and current System z evolution. Without doubt, there has been a resurgence in support for SHARE USA and GSE events in the last decade or so, but from a dispassionate viewpoint, how many IBM Mainframe customers are members of these User Groups?

As previously referenced, the executive leadership of major System z Mainframe vendors are demonstrating a willingness to collaborate. Perhaps now is an ideal time for the System z Mainframe customer to articulate their requirements to the major System z Mainframe vendors?

My admiration for those volunteers that contribute their time, knowledge and passion to User Groups such as SHARE and GSE is without doubt. I’m also positive that these User Groups would welcome the opportunity to represent a larger number of System z end users, which would no doubt generate more end user presentations at conferences, supplemented by generic and business orientated user requirements for System z ecosystem vendors to consider. This can only happen if the end users of the IBM System z Mainframe platform embrace this opportunity to shape the future of the System z Mainframe, as it rapidly evolves, both in technological advancement and an emerging willingness for collaboration from vendors.

Having worked with IBM Mainframes for over 30 years, I’m no longer surprised about the quality and professionalism of personnel I encounter at user sites. A granularity of knowledge can sometimes be applied, with all-rounders demonstrating savvy technical and commercial knowledge at small capacity installations and Subject Matter Experts (SME), typically in larger capacity installations, demonstrating level 3 diagnostic capability. In an ideal world, the executive leadership at these System z Mainframe user sites should also participate in a forum of like-minded peers, allowing them to embrace and value the System z platform. There are certainly such Senior Management streams at SHARE and GSE events, but once again, if the System z end user isn’t a User Group member and/or doesn’t attend these events…

In our real life domestic environments, we can lobby our local government official (Member Of Congress/Parliament, MC/MP, et al), allowing for generic or specific representation for all people alike. In theory, in an evolving IT world, there is no reason why a System z Mainframe user can’t lobby a vendor for a user requirement. As always, no one of us, is as good as all of us! Therefore just as System z Mainframe vendors are collaborating, as and when practicable, now is the time for the System z Mainframe end users to collaborate, no matter how large or small, for the benefit of all. Given that the forums for collaboration already exist, for example SHARE USA and GSE, System z end users can easily leverage from these User Groups, to generate a coherent and notable voice.

Wouldn’t it be fantastic if 80%+ of System z Mainframe end users were User Group (E.g. SHARE, GSE) members and several of their technicians and one senior manager attended their local annual conference? The cost, minimal, the value, arguably priceless!

From my own viewpoint, I have recent real-life experience of engaging a major System z vendor, with a commercial user requirement collected from tens of smaller capacity Mainframe users, where said submission is being considered. This is perhaps a brave new world…

DevOps: What Does It Mean For System z?

Posted on by
Social Media Sharing

A recent buzzword in the IT industry is DevOps, being a term for eradicating any gap between the IT disciplines and/or processes of Development and Operations. In simplistic terms, Development is the full application code lifecycle, while Operations is the management and ultimate delivery of IT business services, typically Production orientated. However, what does this mean for the System z environment?

From a big picture viewpoint, the typical mission critical business application comprises many layers, including System z and other Distributed Systems platforms. Even though there are many solutions and “dashboard” type approaches for Operations to manage the IT service, there will always be differences when managing IT platforms, whether System z, Wintel, UNIX, Linux, et al.

Additionally, there may be some interpretation as to what DevOps is and should be from an ISV viewpoint. If you’re an ISV with a rich history in performance management, your viewpoint of DevOps will be identifying and resolving performance problems, because you believe a performance problem will manifest itself in a Production Operations environment, but is ideally fixed in the Applications environment. Conversely, if you’re an ISV with a software portfolio incorporating many Application Development solutions, your viewpoint will be streamlining the Applications Development lifecycle for all platforms, expediting the delivery of Production changes, simplifying the burden on associated Operations Change and Problem Management processes.

Clearly the System z environment has matured over many years and application code portfolios have been managed by SCM tools such as CA Endevor SCM, Serena ChangeMan, ISPW, et al. Even the acronym SCM has various interpretations, whether Source Code Management, Software Configuration Management or some other term.

Recently agile workstation solutions that simplify the application development process have evolved, for example IBM RDz (Rational Developer for z Systems), Compuware Workbench, typically incorporating Eclipse function, allowing for a common framework of multiplatform application code development.

By definition, System z means zero downtime and as such, due diligence, continuity and no/minimal impact regression have been built into each and every change process for many years. Therefore from a Systems Programming viewpoint, any heterogeneous DevOps technical frameworks that might emerge will have little relevance to existing System z processes. However these System z oriented change processes could and no doubt should be recognized by the DevOps framework, extending the System z approach to all platforms.

Whatever your viewpoint and whatever System z tooling your organization deploys for end-to-end Application Lifecycle Management, including Development and Operations, you should not lose sight that an objective of DevOps is to bring together the various IT departments that are impacted by Production Service changes. Therefore if only from a simple communication and collaboration viewpoint, even the most mature and maybe bigoted System z professional should embrace DevOps.

In conclusion, DevOps is an evolving framework that will facilitate quality controlled continuous application delivery for multiple platform business solutions, typically including the Systems z platform. By definition, DevOps encompasses many IT processes, Development and Operations as a minimum, where each and every organization probably has their own interpretation of where interdependent Systems Management functions interact; for example, Performance Management, Change Management, Problem Management and even Capacity Planning. The savvy organization will embrace DevOps as a framework, review their existing software function tooling and in all likelihood, deploy a best-of-breed approach when facilitating continuous application delivery for heterogeneous platforms. It is unlikely that one ISV will provide a fully inclusive best-of-breed software portfolio for DevOps, hence the universal, open and platform independent approach of Eclipse.