The Ever Changing IBM Z Mainframe Disaster Recovery Requirement

With a 50+ year longevity, of course the IBM Z Mainframe Disaster Recovery (DR) requirement and associated processes have changed and evolved accordingly.  Initially, the primary focus would have been HDA (Head Disk Assembly) related, recovering data due to hardware (E.g. 23nn, 33nn DASD) failures.  It seems incredulous in the 21st Century to consider the downtime and data loss with such an event, but these failures were commonplace into the early 1980’s.  Disk drive (DASD) reliability increased with the 3380 device in the 1980’s and the introduction of the 3990-03 Dual Copy capability in the late 1980’s eradicated the potential consequences of a physical HDA failure.

The significant cost of storage and CPU resources dictated that many organizations had to rely upon 3rd party service providers for DR resource provision.  Often this dictated a classification of business applications, differentiating between Mission Critical or not, where DR backup and recovery processes would be application based.  Even the largest of organizations that could afford to duplicate CPU resource, would have to rely upon the Ford Transit Access Method (FTAM), shipping physical tape from one location to another and performing proactive or more likely reactive data restore activities.  A modicum of database log-shipping over SNA networks automated this process for Mission Critical data, but successful DR provision was still a major consideration.

Even with the Dual Copy function, this meant DASD storage resources had to be doubled for contingency purposes.  Therefore this dictated only the upper echelons of the business world (I.E. Financial Organizations, Telecommunications Suppliers, Airlines, Etc.) could afford the duplication of investment required for self-sufficient DR capability.  Put simply, a duplication of IBM Mainframe CPU, Network and Storage resources was required…

The 1990’s heralded a significant evolution in generic IT technology, including IBM Mainframe.  The adoption of RAID technology for IBM Mainframe Count Key Data (CKD) provided an affordable solution for all IBM Mainframe users, where RAID-5(+) implementations became commonplace.  The emergence of ESCON/FICON channel connectivity provided the extended distance requirement to complement the emerging Parallel SYSPLEX technology, allowing IBM Mainframe servers and related storage to be geographically dispersed.  This allowed a greater number of IBM Mainframe customers to provision their own in-house DR capability, but many still relied upon physical tape shipment to a 3rd party DR services provider.

The final significant storage technology evolution was the Virtual Tape Library (VTL) structure, introduced in the mid-1990’s.  This technology simplified capacity optimization for physical tape media, while reducing the number of physical drives required to satisfy the tape workload.  These VTL structures would also benefit from SYSPLEX implementations, but for many IBM Mainframe users, physical tape shipment might still be required.  Even though the IBM Mainframe had supported IP connectivity since the early 1990’s, using this network capability to ship significant amounts of data was dependent upon public network infrastructures becoming faster and more affordable.  In the mid-2000’s, transporting IBM Mainframe backup data via extended network carriers, beyond the limit of FICON technologies became more commonplace, once again, changing the face of DR approaches.

More recently, the need for Grid configurations of 2, 3 or more locations has become the utopia for the Global 1000 type business organization.  Numerous copies of synchronized Mission Critical if not all IBM Z Mainframe data are now maintained, reducing the Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO) DR criteria to several Minutes or less.

As with anything in life, learning from the lessons of history is always a good thing and for each and every high profile IBM Z Mainframe user (E.g. 5000+ MSU), there are many more smaller users, who face the same DR challenges.  Just as various technology races (E.g. Space, Motor Sport, Energy, et al) eventually deliver affordable benefit to a wider population, the same applies for the IBM Z Mainframe community.  The commonality is the challenges faced, where over the years, DR focus has either been application or entire business based, influenced by the technologies available to the IBM Mainframe user, typically dictated by cost.  However, the recent digital data explosion generates a common challenge for all IT users alike, whether large or small.  Quite simply, to remain competitive and generate new business opportunities from that priceless and unique resource, namely business data, organizations must embrace the DevOps philosophy.

Let’s consider the frequency of performing DR tests.  If you’re a smaller IBM Z Mainframe user, relying upon a 3rd party DR service provider, your DR test frequency might be 1-2 tests per year.  Conversely if you’re a large IBM z Mainframe user, deploying a Grid configuration, you might consider that your business no longer has the requirement for periodic DR tests?  This would be a dangerous thought pattern, because it was forever thus, SYSPLEX and Grid configurations only safeguard from physical hardware scenarios, whereas a logical error will proliferate throughout all data copies, whether, 2, 3 or more…

Similarly, when considering the frequency of Business Application changes, for the archetypal IBM Z Mainframe user, this might have been Monthly or Quarterly, perhaps with imposed change freezes due to significant seasonal or business peaks.  However, in an IT ecosystem where the IBM Z Mainframe is just another interconnected node on the network, the requirement for a significantly increased frequency of Business Application changes arguably becomes mandatory.  Therefore, once again, if we consider our frequency of DR tests, how many per year do we perform?  In all likelihood, this becomes the wrong question!  A better statement might be, “we perform an automated DR test as part of our Business Application changes”.  In theory, the adoption of DevOps either increases the frequency of scheduled Business Application changes, or organization embraces an “on demand” type approach…

We must then consider which IT Group performs the DR test?  In theory, it’s many groups, dictated by their technical expertise, whether Server, Storage, Network, Database, Transaction or Operations based.  Once again, if embracing DevOps, the Application Development teams need to be able to write and test code, while the Operations teams need to implement and manage the associated business services.  In such a model, there has to be a fundamental mind change, where technical Subject Matter Experts (SME) design and implement technical processes, which simplify the activities associated with DevOps.  From a DR viewpoint, this dictates that the DevOps process should facilitate a robust DR test, for each and every Business Application change.  Whether an organization is the largest or smallest of IBM Z Mainframe user is somewhat arbitrary, performing an entire system-wide DR test for an isolated Business Application change is not required.  Conversely, performing a meaningful Business Application test during the DevOps code test and acceptance process makes perfect sense.

Performing a meaningful Business Application DR test as part of the DevOps process is a consistent requirement, whether an organization is the largest or smallest IBM Z Mainframe user.  Although their hardware resource might differ significantly, where the largest IBM Z Mainframe user would typically deploy a high-end VTL (I.E. IBM TS77n0, EMC DLm 8n00, Oracle VSM, et al), the requirement to perform a seamless, agile and timely Business Application DR test remains the same.

If we recognize that the IBM Z Mainframe is typically deployed as the System Of Record (SOR) data server, today’s 21st century Business Application incorporates interoperability with Distributed Systems (E.g. Wintel, UNIX, Linux, et al) platforms.  In theory, this is a consideration, as mostly, IBM Z Mainframe data resides in proprietary 3390 DASD subsystems, while Distributed Systems data typically resides in IP (NFS, NAS) and/or FC (SAN) filesystems.  However, the IBM Z Mainframe has leveraged from Distributed Systems technology advancements, where typical VTL Grid configurations utilize proprietary IP connected disk arrays for VTL data.  Ultimately a VTL structure will contain the “just in case” copy of Business Application backup data, the very data copy required for a meaningful DR test.  Wouldn’t it be advantageous if the IBM Z Mainframe backup resided on the same IP or FC Disk Array as Distributed Systems backups?

Ultimately the high-end VTL (I.E. IBM TS77n0, EMC DLm 8n00, Oracle VSM, et al) solutions are designed for the upper echelons of the business and IBM Z Mainframe world.  Their capacity, performance and resilience capability is significant, and by definition, so is the associated cost.  How easy or difficult might it be to perform a seamless, agile and timely Business Application DR test via such a high-end VTL?  Are there alternative options that any IBM Z Mainframe user can consider, regardless of their size, whether large or small?

The advances in FICON connectivity, x86/POWER servers and Distributed Systems disk arrays has allowed for such technologies to be packaged in a cost efficient and small footprint IBM Z VTL appliance.  Their ability to connect to the IBM Z server via FICON connectivity, provide full IBM Z tape emulation and connect to ubiquitous IP and FC Distributed Systems disk arrays, positions them for strategic use by any IBM Z Mainframe user for DevOps DR testing.  Primarily one consistent copy of enterprise wide Business Application data would reside on the same disk array, simplifying the process of recovering Point-In-Time backup data for DR testing.

On the one hand, for the smaller IBM Z user, such an IBM Z VTL appliance (E.g. Optica zVT) could for the first time, allow them to simplify their DR processes with a 3rd party DR supplier.  They could electronically vault their IBM Z Mainframe backup data to their 3rd party DR supplier and activate a totally automated DR invocation, as and when required.  On the other hand, moreover for DevOps processes, the provision of an isolated LPAR, would allow the smaller IBM Z Mainframe user to perform a meaningful Business Application DR test, in-house, without impacting Production services.  Once again, simplifying the Business Application DR test process applies to the largest of IBM Z Mainframe users, and leveraging from such an IBM Z VTL appliance, would simplify things, without impacting their Grid configuration supporting their Mission critical workloads.

In conclusion, there has always been commonality in DR processes for the smallest and largest of IBM Z Mainframe users, where the only tangible difference would have been budget related, where the largest IBM Z Mainframe user could and in fact needed to invest in the latest and greatest.  As always, sometimes there are requirements that apply to all, regardless of size and budget.  Seemingly DevOps is such a requirement, and the need to perform on-demand seamless, agile and timely Business Application DR tests is mandatory for all.  From an enterprise wide viewpoint, perhaps a modicum of investment in an affordable IBM Z VTL appliance might be the last time an IBM Z Mainframe user needs to revisit their DR testing processes!

System z DevOps & Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Integration: Evolution or Revolution?

From an IT viewpoint, seemingly the 2010’s decade will be dominated by the digital data explosion, primarily fuelled by Cloud, Mobile and Social Media data sources, while intelligent and timely if not real-time Analytics are required to process this vast and ever-growing data source.  Who could have imagined just a decade ago that the Mobile Phone, specifically Smartphone would be the de facto computing device, although some might say, only for a certain age demographic?  I’m not so sure, I encounter real-life and day-to-day evidence that a Smartphone or tablet can also empower the older generation to simplify their computer usage and access.  From a business perspective, Smartphones have allowed geographically dispersed citizens gain access to Banking facilities for the first time; Cloud allows countless opportunities for data sharing and number crunching for collaborative scientific, health, education and anything else a human being might conceive activities.  The realm of opportunity exists…

When thinking of the bigger picture, we somehow have to find a workable and seamless balance that will integrate the dawn of business computing from the 1960’s to these rapidly moving 21st Century requirements.  When considering which came first, the data or the application, I always think the answer is really simple; the data came first, but I have been wrong before!  What is without doubt, the initial requirement for a business application was to automate data processing and the associated medium-term waterfall (E.g. n-nn Months) application development process is now outdated.  As of 2017, today’s application needs to leverage from this vast and rich digital data source, to identify and leverage new business opportunities, increasingly unplanned and therefore rapid application delivery is required.  For example, previously I wrote about this subject matter in the zAPI: System z Deployment Into The API Economy blog entry.

From an IT perspective, one of the greatest achievements in the 21st Century is collaboration, whether technology based, leveraging from a truly interconnected (E.g. Internet Protocol/IP) heterogeneous computing environment, or personnel based, with IT teams collaborating in a more open and timely manner, primarily via DevOps.  This might be a better chicken and egg analogy; which came first, the data explosion or an IT ecosystem that allowed such a digital data explosion?

There are a plethora of modern-day application development tools that separate the underlying target deployment server from the actual application developer.  Put another way, today’s application developer ideally works from a GUI display via an Eclipse-based Integrated Development Environment (IDE) interface, creating code using rapid and agile development techniques.  From an IBM System z perspective, these platforms include Compuware Topaz Workbench, IBM Developer for z Systems (IDz AKA RDz) and Micro Focus Enterprise Developer, naming but a few.  Therefore when considering the DevOps framework, these excellent Eclipse-based IDE products provide solutions for the Dev part of the equation; but what about the Ops part?

In a collaborative world, where we all work together, from an Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) perspective, IT Operations are a key part of application delivery and management.  Put simply, once code has been created, it needs to be packaged (E.g. Compile, Link-Edit, et al), tested (E.g. Unit, Integration, System, Acceptance, Regression, et al) and implemented in a Production environment.  We now must consider the very important discipline of Source Code Management (SCM), where from a System z Mainframe perspective, common solutions are CA Endevor SCM, Compuware ISPW, IBM SCLM, Micro Focus ChangeMan ZMF, et al.  Once again, from a DevOps perspective, we somehow have to find a workable and seamless balance that will integrate the dawn of business computing from the 1960’s to these rapidly moving 21st Century requirements.  As previously discussed the Dev part of the DevOps framework is well-covered and straightforward, but perhaps the Ops part requires some more considered thought…

Recently Compuware have acquired ISPW (January 2016) to supplement their Topaz Workbench and Micro Focus acquired ChangeMan ZMF (May 2016) to complement their Micro Focus Enterprise Developer solution.  IBM IDz offers out-of-the-box integration for the IBM Rational Team Concert, CA Endevor SCM and IBM SCLM tools.  Clearly there is a significant difference between Source Code Management (SCM) for Distributed Systems when compared with the System z Mainframe, but today’s 21st century business application will inevitably involve interconnected platforms and so a consistent and seamless SCM process is required for accurate and timely application delivery.  In all likelihood a System z Mainframe user has been using their SCM solution for several decades, evolving processes around this solution, which was never designed for Distributed Systems SCM.  Hence the major System z Application Development ISV’s have acquired SCM products to supplement their core capability, but is it really that simple?  The simple answer is no!

Traditionally, for Application Development activities we deployed the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC), limited to software development phases, including requirements, design, coding, testing, configuration, project management and change management.  Modern software development processes require real-time collaboration, access to centralized data repository, cross-tool and cross-project visibility, proactive project monitoring and reporting, to rapidly develop and deliver quality software.  This requirement is typically classified as Application Lifecycle Management (ALM).

The first iteration of ALM, namely ALM 1.0 was wholly unsuccessful.  Application Development teams were encouraged to consider the value of point solutions for task management, planning testing, requirements, release management, and other functions.  Therefore ALM 1.0 became just a set of tools, where the all too common question for the Application Development team was “what other tool can we use”!

ALM 2.0 or ALM 2.0+ can be considered as Integrated Application Lifecycle Management or Integrated ALM, where all the tools and their users are synchronized with each other throughout the application development stages.  This integration ensures that every team member knows the Who, What, When, and Why of any changes made during the development process, eradicating arduous, repetitive, manual and error prone activities.  The most important lesson for the DevOps team in a customer environment is to concentrate on the human perspective.  They should ask “how do we want our teams to work together and collaborate” as opposed to asking an Application Development ISV team, “what ALM tools do you have”.  Inevitably the focus will be ISV based, as opposed to customer based.  As per the recent Compuware and Micro Focus SCM acquisition history demonstrates, these tools by definition, were never fully integrated from their original inception…

If the customer DevOps teams collaborate and formulate how they want to work together, an ALM evolution can take place in a timely manner, maintaining investment in previous technologies, as and if required.  Conversely, a revolutionary approach is the most likely outcome for the System z Mainframe user, if looking to the ISV for a “turn-key” ALM solution.  By definition, an end-to-end and turn-key ALM solution from one ISV is not possible and in fact, not desirable!  Put another way, as a System z user, do you really want to write off several decades investment in an SCM solution, for another competitive solution, which will still require many other tools to provide the Integrated ALM capability you require?  As always, balance and compromise is the way forward…

If the ubiquitous System z Application Development ISV were to develop their first software product today, it would inevitably be a DevOps and ALM 2.0+ compatible product, allowing for full integration with all other Application Development tools, whether System z Mainframe or Distributed Systems orientated.  Of course that is not the reality.  It seems somewhat disingenuous that the System z Application Development ISV would ask a potential customer to write-off their several decades investment in a SCM technology, when said ISV has just acquired such a technology!  Once again, this is why the customer based Application Development teams must decide how they want to collaborate and what ALM and DevOps tools they want to use.

Seemingly a pragmatic solution is required, hence the ALM 2.0+ initiative.  If an ISV could develop an all-encompassing DevOps and ALM 2.0+ end-to-end Application Development solution for all IT platforms, they would probably become one of the most popular and biggest ISV’s in a short time period.  However, this still overlooks the existing tools that customer IT organizations have used for many years.  Hence, the pragmatic way forward is to build an open DevOps and ALM 2.0+ solution that will integrate with all other Application Development lifecycle tools, whether market place available, or not!  HPE Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) and Quality Centre (QC) is one such approach for Distributed Systems, but what about the System z Mainframe?

IKAN ALM is an ALM 2.0+ and DevOps architected solution that is vendor and platform agnostic.  Put another way, IKAN ALM can operate in single or multiple-vendor mode.  In all likelihood, single vendor mode is unlikely, as there are many efficient Application Development tools in the marketplace.  However, the single most compelling feature of IKAN ALM is its open framework and interoperability with other ALM technologies.  As previously stated, we might consider source code development as the Dev side of the DevOps framework.  IKAN ALM will interface with these technologies, while its core functionality concentrates on the Ops side of the DevOps framework.  Therefore from an Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) viewpoint, the IKAN ALM solution starts where versioning systems end, with an objective of optimizing the entire software engineering process.

IKAN ALM offers a uniquely integrated web-based Application Lifecycle Management platform for both Agile and traditional software development teams.  It combines Continuous Integration and Lifecycle Management, offering a single point of control, delivering support for build and deploy processes, approval processes, release management and software lifecycles.  From a pragmatic and common-sense viewpoint, typically organizations want to continue working with their preferred tools in their preferred environment.  Being ALM 2.0+ compliant, IKAN ALM fully integrates with any versioning tool and any issue tracking tool, providing ALM reports across repositories.  Therefore IKAN ALM offers an evolutionary approach, allowing an organization to leverage from timely ALM benefits, without risk and without the need for displacing any existing technologies.  Over time, should the organization wish to displace older legacy ALM software products, they could so, leveraging from the stand-alone or multiple vendor flexibility of the IKAN ALM solution.

IKAN ALM incorporates ready to use solutions and processes for multiple environments.  These solutions include ALM 2.0+ compliant processes and the necessary scripts to automate the integration with a specific environment, including but not limited to CA Endevor (SCM), CollabNet, HPE ALM/Quality Centre (QC), Oracle Warehouse Builder (OWB), SAP, et al.

The IKAN ALM central server is an open framework web application responsible for User Authentication and Authorization, User Interface Processing, Distributed Version Repository Management and Scheduling Code Builds.  The IKAN ALM agents perform the application build and install functions.

The data repository is an open central database where all administrative data and the audit trail history are stored.  IKAN ALM communicates with the repository using standard JDBC interfaces.  The required JDBC drivers are installed along with the product.  The repository can reside in any RDBMS system, including IBM DB2/UDB, Informix, Microsoft SQL Server, MySQL, Oracle, et al.

Source code is always stored in a Version Control Repository.  IKAN ALM integrates with all the typical versioning systems including Apache Subversion, CVS, Git, Microsoft Visual SourceSafe (VSS), IBM Rational ClearCase (UCM & LT), Serena PVCS Version Manager, et al.  The choice of IDE often drives the choice of the Version Control System (VCS), where organizations can have more than one operational VCS.  IKAN ALM is a solution that provides a unique process control over all versioning systems present in the organization.  IKAN ALM stores each build result within its central server filesystem, labelling the source accordingly in the associated versioning system, guaranteeing a correct source-build relationship.

IKAN ALM safeguards Authentication & Authorization interacting with the organizations security deployment (E.g. Active Directory, LDAP, Kerberos, et al) via the Java Authentication and Authorization Service (JAAS) interface.

IKAN ALM audits any changes (E.g. Who, What, Why, When, Approver, et al), orchestrating the various components and phases of Application Lifecycle Management, delivering an automated workflow to drive a continuous flow of activity throughout the development lifecycle, efficiently coordinating and optimizing application development changes.

In an environment with ever increasing mandatory regulatory compliance requirements, IKAN ALM simplifies the processes for delivering such compliance.  As per the IKAN ALM Build, Deploy, Lifecycle and Approval Management framework, compliance for industry standard regulations (E.g. CMM, ITIL, Sarbanes-Oxley, Six Sigma, et al) is delivered via a reliable, repeatable and auditable process throughout the development life cycle.

Clearly any IT organization can benefit from a fully integrated ALM 2.0+ solution, by enforcing and safeguarding the ALM process is repeatable, reliable and documented.  Regardless of the development team headcount size, ALM releases key people from repetitive and less interesting tasks, allowing them to focus on delivering today’s Analytics based, Cloud, Mobile and Social applications.  A fully integrated ALM 2.0+ solution such as IKAN ALM allows for simplified legacy environment modernization, while simultaneously allowing for experimentation and improvement of all environments alike, both legacy and new.

In conclusion, savvy organizations will safeguard that their Application Development and Operations teams collaborate as per the DevOps framework and decide how they want to implement processes for their environment and more importantly, their business.  This focus should avoid any notion of asking the ubiquitous Application Development ISV, “which tools we should use”!  Similarly, recognizing the integration foundation of ALM 2.0+ will eliminate any notion to displace existing technologies and processes, unless absolutely required.  The need for agile, rapid and quality source code development and delivery is obvious, as is the related solution, which is inevitably pragmatic, evolutionary and multiple vendor tool based.

zAPI: System z Deployment Into The API Economy

Having been in the IT industry for 35+ years, I have always fully embraced and learned new technologies, to find strategic solutions for business challenges.  Obviously, starting in 1980, my heritage is IBM Mainframe, supplemented by UNIX, Wintel and Linux along the way.  Each and every platform has its merits, and during this 35+ year period, I have attended many conferences, for all platforms.  What I have noticed during this period is the attendance of many IBM Mainframe CIO, CTO or Chief Architect individuals at non-IBM Mainframe conferences, but very few, if any, equivalent Distributed Systems personnel at IBM Mainframe conferences.

I’m always surprised and disappointed to hear about organizations talking about decommissioning the IBM Mainframe platform, with tenuous reasons, based on Distributed Systems FUD messaging, as opposed to their own business requirements.  Thankfully these scenarios are decreasing over the years.  Presumably if an organization decides to migrate from one Distributed Systems platform to another or perhaps the Cloud, they do at least attend the relevant platform conferences to make an informed decision.

Over the last 25 years or so, IBM themselves compete with differing divisions and options, whether UNIX (AIX), System z and in recent years, Linux on z Systems, most notably with the LinuxONE launch at LinuxCon 2015.  One would hope that the world’s key IT decision makers might attend LinuxCon with an open mind and learn more about the System z Mainframe?

A ridiculous notion might be that one server platform technology can satisfy a 21st Century organizations IT infrastructure for their mission critical services.  Clearly that has not been the case since the advent of Client Server and today’s emerging Digital business requires an infrastructure of multiple layers, where the underlying server technology is somewhat arbitrary, and arguably a commodity resource.  Conversely the underlying data and associated applications differentiate one business from another, delivering business value and competitive edge.

Let’s take some time to consider this IT architecture design, which very quickly dismisses any notion that one server technology delivers all business requirements:

Such an architecture diagram does not impose any technology decisions.  Conversely it explores the “data journey” from access or creation, via Systems of Engagement (SoE) to eventual storage within Systems of Record (SOR) data repositories (I.E. Database).  Some might say it was forever thus, with the exception of the Multi-Channel SDK’s & API’s layer, where the savvy organizations will embrace DevOps, Hybrid Cloud and connectivity (I.E. API, SDK) solutions, seamlessly integrating modern agile applications, with that most valuable business asset, Systems of Record (SoR) data.

Today’s Application Developer doesn’t need to concern themselves as to the platform used for their DevOps application processes, the Transaction Server or indeed the Database Server.  Sure, several decades ago, maybe even a decade ago, application code was deeply associated if not confined to a specific CPU server architecture.  Clearly that is no longer the case.  Any organization that still thinks in this legacy manner, is behind the times, and this is unfortunate.  Associating such outdated thinking with the System z Mainframe is arguably careless, and not a reason for dismissing an incumbent System z platform, or not considering a System z platform in the future.

Arguably the greatest strengths of today’s System z IBM Mainframe, currently packaged as the z13 or LinuxONE, are as a Database Server (E.g. DB2), Transaction Server (E.g. CICS, WebSphere Application Server) and Security Server (E.g. ACF2, RACF, Top Secret).  From a LinuxONE viewpoint, it’s just another server, capable of processing all of the latest strategic Open Source and Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) Cloud, Database and Application solutions, while benefitting from the unparalleled System z Quality of Service (QoS) attributes.

However, for those organizations already deploying a System z Mainframe, its greatest perceived issue is TCO.  Without doubt the convoluted and intricate Workload Licence Charges (WLC) are unnecessarily complicated and perceived as being very expensive.  Optimizing these costs requires a modicum of expertise, safeguarding that the best contractual conditions are negotiated.  However, I encounter the same complexities with Distributed Systems platforms, where software license costs can spiral out of control for significant CPU capacity deployments.  Whatever platform is deployed, System z Mainframe or Distributed System, unless the business has the requisite skills in place, technical and commercial, to safeguard the lowest cost possible, commercial ISV suppliers will take advantage of such an oversight.

I’m not advocating any server technology, System z Mainframe, Distributed System or Cloud, as each resource has its merits, depending on the business requirement.  However, today’s 21st Century organization must enable new business channels by leveraging from and arguably enable new business channels by monetizing their Systems of Record (SoR) enterprise data.

Today, organizations need to consider an API Economy, where they expose their internal digital business assets or services in the form of Web API services to external 3rd party partners and consumers, with an overall objective of unlocking increased business value via the creation of new assets.  Such an API Economy will require integration of Transaction and Data resources, specifically:

  • Centrally manage the consumption of enterprise wide business logic, for both Systems of Record (SoR) & Systems of Engagement (SoE)
  • Extend business (E.g. Product, Brand) reach from Systems of Record (SoR), incorporation Systems of Engagement (SoE)

Previously I wrote about How to Connect Mobile Workloads to System z, detailing the conceptual steps required to expose existing SoR data assets with SoE transaction services, via z/OS Connect.  For a fully integrated end-to-end integrated solution, we must also consider the Application Programming Interfaces (API), being the digital glue that seamlessly links applications, services and systems together.

IBM API Connect is a solution that manages the API lifecycle for both On-Premises and Cloud environments.  IBM API Connect delivers capabilities to Create, Run, Manage & Secure API resources and Microservices.  It also enables you to rapidly deploy and simplify API administration, across the organization.

API Connect can be deployed On-Premises via Linux on z Systems, in the cloud (E.g. Bluemix), as well as all other popular Distributed Systems.  Once again, the main message is that the chosen server is arbitrary, System z Mainframe, Distributed System or Cloud.  The server should be considered as a commodity resource, leveraging from existing business logic (I.E. SoE) and data (I.E. SoR), while evolving existing Application Lifecycle Management (E.g. Agile, API Economy, DevOps) is the key.

My final observation is the Mainframe Baby Boomer (E.g. Born ~1960) versus the Millennial (E.g. Born ~1995) technical personnel resource.  Without doubt, there are significant differences in their approach to application programming, but only one resource, namely the Baby Boomer knows the business really well.  I think these folks have the ability to learn another 21st Century programming language, as well as COBOL, but perhaps their best attribute is an analytical role, especially for the integration of SoE and SoR layers.  Working very closely with Millennial technical resources, delivering the new Application (I.E. App, API) resources, the Mainframe Baby Boomer still has something valuable to offer in their final employment years.  For the avoidance of doubt, still delivering value from an analytical viewpoint, while transferring their skills and knowledge to their successors, namely the Millennial.

In conclusion, dismissing any server technology for Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt (FUD) reasons, is an unproductive and ridiculous notion.  More importantly, what might your business lose in opportunity, spending several years or more, migrating from one platform to another, while your competitors are embracing the Digital Age with an API Economy approach, delivering more value from their existing business SoE (transactions) and SoR (data) assets?

DevOps: What Does It Mean For System z?

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.