Tag Archives: MQ

Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z: A Viable R4HA Alternative?

Posted on by

In a previous blog entry, I discussed the pros and cons of IBM Z Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC): A Viable R4HA Alternative.  Recently on 14 May 2019 IBM announced Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z, introducing two comprehensive alternatives to the Rolling 4 Hour Average (R4HA) based pricing model, for both new and existing workloads, with a General Availability (GA) date of 21 June 2019.

To digress a little, for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, June 21 is considered as the Summer Solstice, where the date might vary, one day before or after, namely June 20-22.  You can then further complicate things with confusing Midsummer’s Day with the Summer Solstice and Astronomical versus Meteorological seasons, but whatever, it’s a significant timeframe, with many traditions throughout Europe.  Once again, Midsummer’s Day can be any date between June 19 and June 24.  Having considered my previous review of SCLC and now the Tailored Fit Pricing announcement, I was reminded of a quotation from A Midsummer Night’s Dream by William Shakespeare, “so quick bright things come to confusion”…

The primary driver for Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z is to help mitigate unpredictable costs whilst continuing to deliver optimal business outcomes in the world of Digital Transformation & Hybrid Cloud.  Depending on the type of workload activity in your organisation, a tailored pricing model may be far more competitive when compared to pay-as-you-go schemes that have been typical on many x86 based cloud implementations.  Combining technology with cost competitive commercial models delivered through Tailored Fit Pricing strongly challenges the mindset that IT growth must be done on a public cloud in order to make economic sense.  Put another way, this is the IBM Marketing stance to compete with the ever-growing presence of the major 3 Public Cloud providers, namely Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud, totalling ~60% of Public Cloud customer spend.

In essence a significant portion of The Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z announcement is a brand renaming activity, where the Container Pricing for IBM Z name changes to Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z.  The IBM Application Development and Test Solution and the IBM New Application Solution that were previously introduced under the Container Pricing for IBM Z name, are now offered under the Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z name.  Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z pricing introduces two new pricing solutions for IBM Z software running on the z/OS platform.  The Enterprise Consumption and Enterprise Capacity Solutions are both tailored to your environment and offer flexible deployment options:

  • Enterprise Consumption Solution: a tailored usage-based pricing model where compute power is measured on a per MSU basis.  MSU consumption is aggregated hourly, providing a measurement system better aligned with actual system utilization, when compared with R4HA.  Software charges are based on the total annual MSU usage, assisting users with seasonal workload pattern variations.  A total MSU used charging mechanism is designed to remove MSU capping, optimizing SLA and response time metrics accordingly.
  • Enterprise Capacity Solution: a tailored full-capacity licensing model, offering the maximum level of cost predictability.  Charges are based on the overall size of the physical hardware environment.  Charges are calculated based on the estimated mix of workloads running, while providing the flexibility to vary actual usage across workloads. Charges include increased capacity for development and test environments and reduced pricing for all types of workload growth.  An overall size charging mechanism is designed to remove MSU capping, optimizing SLA and response time metrics accordingly.

The high-level benefits associated with the Enterprise Consumption and Enterprise Capacity solutions can be summarized as:

  • Licensing models that eradicate cost control capping activities, enabling clients to fully exploit the CPU capacity installed
  • Increased CPU capacity for Development and Test (DevTest) environments, enabling clients to dramatically increase DevTest activities, without cost consideration
  • Optimized and potential lower pricing for all types of workload growth, without requiring additional IBM approvals, or additional tagging and tracking

Enterprise Solution License Charges (ESLC) are a new type of Monthly License Charge (MLC) pricing methodology for Enterprise Solutions, tailored for each individual and specific client environment and related requirements.  It was forever thus, whatever the pricing mechanism, the ubiquitous z/OS, CICS, Db2, MQ, IMS, WAS software products are the major considerations for MLC pricing mechanisms.  The Key prerequisites for Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z are IBM z14 Models M01-M05 or z14 Model ZR1, running the z/OS 2.2 and higher Operating System.

For new Mission Critical workloads and existing or new Development and Test (DevTest) workloads, Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z is clearly a great fit.  The restriction of z14 hardware is a little disappointing, where Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC) included support for the z13 and z13s server.  I’m guessing that IBM are relying upon a significant z14 field upgrade programme in the next few years, largely based upon the Pervasive Encryption (PE) functionality.  However, for those customers that have run the IBM Z platform for decades and might have invested in cost optimization activities, including but not limited to capping, the jump to these new Enterprise Solution License Charges (ESLC) might take a while…

We could review this isolated announcement to the nth degree, but I’m not sure how productive that might be.  For sure, there is always devil in the detail, but sometimes we need to consider the big picture…

As a baby boomer myself, I see my role as passing on my knowledge to the next generations, although still wanting and striving to learn each and every day.  At this time of year, where the weather is better and roads drier, I drive my classic car a lot more and I enjoy the ability to tune the engine with my ears, hands, eyes and a strobe; getting my hands dirty!  I wonder whether the future of the IBM Z platform ecosystem is somewhat analogous to that of the combustion engine.  Several decades ago, electronics and Engine Management Systems became common place for combustion engines and now the ubiquitous laptop is plugged into the engine bay, to retrieve codes to diagnose and in theory repair faults.  For the consumer, arguably a good thing from a vehicle reliability viewpoint, but from a mechanical engineer viewpoint, have these folks become deskilled?  If you truly want your modern vehicle fixed, you will probably need a baby boomer to do this, one that doesn’t rely on a laptop, but their experience.  Although a sweeping generalisation, as there are always exceptions to any rule, the same applies to the IBM Z environment, where it was forever thus, compute power (MSU/MIPS) optimization relies upon a tune, tune, tune approach.

Whether R4HA or Full Capacity based, software cost charges will only be truly optimized if the system and ultimately application code is tuned.  A possible potential downside of not paying close attention to MSU usage, especially when considering these Enterprise Solution License Charges, is a potential isolated activity to “fix” IBM Z software costs forevermore, based upon a high MSU baseline.  Just as the combustion engine management systems simplify fault or diagnostic data collection, they don’t necessarily highlight that the vehicle owner left their cargo carrier on the vehicle roof, harming fuel efficiency.  A crude analogy for sure, but experience counts for a lot.  We have all probably encountered the Old Engineer & The Hammer story before and ultimately it’s incumbent upon us all, to safeguard that we don’t enable a rapid “death of expertise”.  Once the skills are lost, they’re lost.  Whether iStrobe from Compuware, TurboTune from Critical Path Software Inc. or the myriad of other System Monitor options, engage the experienced engineer and safeguard MSU optimization.  At this point, deploy the latest IBM Z pricing mechanism, namely Tailored Fit Pricing for IBM Z, and you will have truly optimized software costs…

IBM Z Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC): A Viable R4HA Alternative?

Posted on by

In the same timeframe as the recent IBM z14 and LinuxONE Enhanced Driver Maintenance (GA2) hardware announcements, there were modifications to the Container Pricing for IBM Z mechanism, namely Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC) and the Application Development and Test Solution.  Neither of these new pricing models are dependent on the IBM z14 GA2 hardware announcement, but do require the latest IBM z13, IBM z13s, IBM z14 or IBM z14 ZR1 servers and z/OS V2.2 and upwards for collocated workloads and z/OS V2.1 and upwards for separate LPAR workloads.

For many years, IBM themselves have attempted to introduce new sub-capacity software pricing models to encourage new workloads to the IBM Z server and associated z/OS operating system.  Some iterations include z Systems New Application License Charges (zNALC), Integrated Workload Pricing (IWP) and z Systems Collocated Application Pricing (zCAP), naming but a few.  The latest iteration appears to be Container Pricing for IBM Z, announced in July 2017, with three options, namely the aforementioned Application Development and Test Solution, the New Application Solution and Payments Pricing Solution.  This recent October 2018 announcement adapts the New Application Solution option, classifying it as the Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC) mechanism.  For the purposes of this blog, we will concentrate on the SCLC mechanism, although the potential benefits of the Application Development and Test Solution for non-Production workloads should not be under estimated…

From a big picture viewpoint, z/OS, CICS, Db2, IMS and MQ are the most expensive IBM Z software products and of course, IBM Mainframe users have designed their environments to reduce software costs accordingly, initially with sub-capacity and then Workload Licence Charging (WLC) and the associated Rolling 4 Hour Average (R4HA).  Arguably CPU MSU management is a specialized capacity and performance management discipline in itself, with several 3rd party ISV options for optimized soft-capping (I.E. AutoSoftCapping, iCap, zDynaCap/Dynamic Capacity Intelligence).  IBM thinks that this MSU management discipline has thwarted new workloads being added to the IBM Z ecosystem, unless there was a mandatory requirement for CICS, Db2, IMS or MQ.  Hence this recent approach of adding new and qualified workloads, outside of the traditional R4HA mechanism.  These things take time and with a few tweaks and repairs, maybe the realm of possibility exists and perhaps the Solution Consumption License Charges (SCLC) is a viable and eminently usable option?

SCLC offers a new pricing metric when calculating MLC software costs for qualified Container Pricing workloads.  SCLC is based on actual MSU consumption, as opposed to the traditional R4HA WLC metric.  SCLC delivers a pure and consistent metered usage model, where the MSU resource used is charged at the same flat rate, regardless of hourly workload peaks, delivering pricing predictability.  Therefore, SCLC directly reflects the total workload cost, regardless of consumption, on a predictable “pay for what you use” basis.  This is particularly beneficial for volatile workloads, which can significantly impact WLC costs associated with the R4HA.  There are two variations of SCLC for qualified and IBM verified New Applications (NewApp):

  • The SCLC pay-as-you-go option offers a low priced, per-MSU model for software programs within the NewApp Solution, with no minimum financial commitment.
  • The SCLC-committed MSU option offers a saving of 20% over the pay-as-you-go price points, with a monthly minimum MSU commitment of just 25,000 MSUs.

SCLC costs are calculated and charged per MSU on an hourly basis, aggregated over an entire (SCRT) month.  For example, if a NewApp solution utilized 50 MSU in hour #1, 100 MSU in hour #2 and 50 MSU in hour #3, the total chargeable MSU for the 3-hour period would be 200 MSU.  Hourly periods continue to be calculated this way over the entire month, providing a true, usage-based cost model.  We previously reviewed Container Pricing in a previous blog entry from August 2017.  At first glance, the opportunity for a predictable workload cost seems evident, but what about the monthly MSU commitment of 25,000 MSU?

Let’s try and break this down at the simplest level, using the SCLC hourly MSU base metric.  In a fixed 24-hour day and an arbitrary 30-day month, there would be 720 single MSU hours.  To qualify for the 25,000 MSU commitment, the hourly workload would need to average ~35 MSU (~300 MIPS) in size.  For the medium and large sized business, generating a 35 MSU workload isn’t a consideration, but probably is for the smaller IBM Mainframe user.  The monthly commitment also becomes somewhat of a challenge, as a calendar month is 28/29 days, once per year, 30 days, four times per year and 31 days, seven times per year.  This doesn’t really impact the R4HA, but for a pay per MSU usage model, the number of MSU hours per month does matter.  One must draw one’s own conclusions, but it’s clearly easier to exceed the 25,000 MSU threshold in a 31-day month, when compared with a 30, 29 or 28 day month!  From a dispassionate viewpoint, I can’t see any reason why the 20% discount can’t be applied when the 25,000 MSU threshold is exceeded, without a financial commitment form the customer.  This would be a truly win-win situation for the customer and IBM, as the customer doesn’t have to concern themselves about exceeding the arbitrary 25,000 MSU threshold and IBM have delivered a usable and attractive pricing mechanism for the desired New Application workload.

The definition of a New Application workload is forever thus, based upon a qualified and verified workload by IBM, assigned a Solution ID for SCRT classification purposes, integrating CICS, Db2, MQ, IMS or z/OS software.  Therefore existing workloads, potentially classified as legacy will not qualify for this New Application status, but any application re-engineering activities should consider this lower price per MSU approach.  New technologies such as blockchain could easily transform a legacy application and benefit from New Application pricing, while the implementation of DevOps could easily transform non-Production workloads into benefiting from the Application Development and Test Solution Container Pricing mechanism.

In conclusion, MSU management is a very important discipline for any IBM Z user and any lower cost MSU that can be eliminated from the R4HA metric delivers improved TCO.  As always, the actual IBM Z Mainframe user themselves are ideally placed to interact and collaborate with IBM and perhaps tweak these Container Pricing models to make them eminently viable for all parties concerned, strengthening the IBM Z ecosystem and value proposition accordingly.

z Systems Software & Applications Currency: MQ Continuous & as a Service Delivery Models

Posted on by

In a rapidly-moving technology environment where DevOps is driving innovation for the rapid delivery of applications, are there any innovations for the related z Systems infrastructure (E.g. z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS, MQ, WebSphere AS) that can deliver faster software and indeed firmware updates?

In April 2016, IBM announced MQ V9.0, delivering new and enhanced capabilities facilitating a Continuous Delivery and support model.  The traditional Long Term Support release offers the ubiquitous collection of aggregated fix-packs, applied to the delivered MQ V9.0 function.  The new Continuous Delivery release delivers both fixes and new functional enhancements as a set of modification-level updates, facilitating more rapid access to functional enhancements.

Form a terminology viewpoint, the Continuous Delivery (CD) support model, introduces new function and enhancements, made available by incremental updates within the same version and release.  Additionally, there will also be a Long Term Support (LTS) release available for deployments that require traditional medium-long term security and defect fixes only.  Some might classify such LTS fixes as Service Pack or Level Set patching.  The Continuous Delivery (CD) support approach delivers regular updates with a short-term periodic frequency for customers wanting to exploit the latest features and capabilities of MQ, without waiting for the next long term support release cycle.  In terms of timeframe, although there is no fixed time period associated with a CD or LTS release, typically CD is every few months, while LTS releases are every two years or so.  In actual IBM announcement terms, the latest MQ release was V9.0.3 in May 2017, meaning four MQ V9.0.n release activities in a ~13 Month period, approximately quarterly…

The benefits of this CD support model are obvious, for those organizations who consider themselves to be leading-edge or “amongst the first”, they can leverage from new function ASAP, with a modicum of confidence that the code has a good level of stability.  Those customers with a more cautious approach, can continue their ~2 year software upgrade cycle, applying the LTS release.  As always with software maintenance, there has never been a perfect approach.  Inevitably there will by High Impact or PERvasive (HIPER) and PTF-in Error (PE) PTF requirements, as software function stability is forever evolving.  Therefore, arguably those sites leveraging from the latest function have always been running from a Continuous Delivery software maintenance model; they just didn’t know when and how often!

Of all the major IBM z Systems subsystems to introduce this new software support model first, clearly the role of MQ dictates that for many reasons, primarily middleware and interoperability based, MQ needs a Continuous Delivery (CD) model.

At this stage, let’s remind ourselves of the important role that MQ plays in our IT infrastructures.  IBM MQ is a robust messaging middleware solution, simplifying and accelerating the integration of diverse applications and business data, typically distributed over multiple platforms and geographies.  MQ facilitates the assured, secure and reliable exchange of information between applications, systems, services, and files.  This exchange of information is achieved through the sending and receiving of message data through queues and topics, simplifying the creation and maintenance of business applications.  MQ delivers a universal messaging solution incorporating a broad set of offerings, satisfying enterprise requirements, in addition to providing 21st century connectivity for Mobile and the Internet of Things (IoT) devices.

Because of the centralized role that MQ plays, its pivotal role of interconnectivity might be hampered by the DevOps requirement of rapid application delivery, for both planned and unplanned business requirements.  Therefore even before the concept of MQ Continuous Delivery (CD) was announced in April 2016, there was already talk of MQ as a Service (MQaaS).

As per any major z Systems subsystem, traditionally IBM MQ was managed by a centralized messaging middleware team, collaborating with their Application, Database and Systems Management colleagues.  As per the DevOps methodology, this predictable and centralized approach, does no lend itself to rapid and agile Application Development.  Quite simply an environment management decentralization process is required, to satisfy the ever-increasing speed and diversity of application design and delivery requests.  By definition, MQ seamlessly interfaces with so many technologies, including but not limited to, Amazon Web Services, Docker, Google Cloud Platform, IBM Bluemix, JBoss, JRE, Microsoft Azure, Oracle Fusion Middleware, OpenStack, Salesforce, Spark, Ubuntu, et al.

The notional concept of MQ as a Service (MQaaS), delivers a capability to implement self-service portals, allowing Application Developers and their interconnected Line of Business (LOB) personnel to drive changes to the messaging ecosystem.  These changes might range from the creation or deletion of a messaging queue to the provision of a highly available and scalable topology for a new business application.  The DevOps and Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) philosophy dictates that the traditional centralized messaging middleware team must evolve, reducing human activity, by automating their best practices.  Therefore MQaaS can increase the speed at which the infrastructure team can deliver new MQ infrastructure to their Application Development community, while safeguarding the associated business requirements.

MQ provides a range of control commands and MQ Script Commands (MQSC) to support the creation and management of MQ resources using scripts.  Programmatic resource access is achievable via MQ Programmable Command Format (PCF) messages, once access to a queue manager has been established.  Therefore MQ administrators can create workflows that drive these processes, delivering a self-service interface.  Automation frameworks, such as UrbanCode Deploy (UCD), Chef and Puppet functions can be used to orchestrate administrative operations for MQ, to create and manage entire application or server environments.  Virtual machines, Docker containers, PureApplication System and the MQ Appliance itself can be used alongside automation frameworks to create a flexible and scalable ecosystem, for delivering the MQaaS infrastructure.

Integrating the MQ as a Service concept within your DevOps and Application Lifecycle Management process delivers the following benefits:

  • Development Agility: Devolving traditional MQ administration activities to Application and Line of Business personnel, allows them to directly provision or update the associated messaging resources. This optimizes the overall process, while DevOps processes facilitates the requisite IT organization communication.
  • Process Standardization: Enabling a self-service interface to Application and Line of Business personnel delivers a single entry point for messaging configuration changes. This common interface will leverage from consistent routines and workflows to deploy the necessary changes, enforcing standards and consistency.
  • Personnel Optimization: Self-service interfaces used by Application and Line of Business personnel allow them to focus on core application requirements, primarily messaging and Quality of Service (QoS) related. In such an environment, the background process of performing the change is arbitrary, timely change implementation is the most important factor.
  • Environment Interoperability: An intelligent and automated self-service interface allows for dynamic provisioning of systems and messaging resources for development and testing purposes. This automation can simplify the promotion of changes throughout the testing lifecycle (E.g. Development, Test, Quality Assurance, Production, et al).  As and when required, such automation can provide capacity-on-demand type changes, dynamically scaling an application, as and when required, to satisfy ever-changing and unpredictable business requirements.

In conclusion, DevOps is an all-encompassing framework and one must draw one’s own conclusions as to whether software update frequency timescales will reduce for major subsystems such as CICS, DB2, IMS and even the underlying Operating System itself, namely z/OS.  Conversely, the one major z Systems subsystem with so many interoperability touch points, namely MQ, is the obvious choice for applying DevOps techniques to underlying subsystem software.  For MQ, the use of a Continuous Delivery (CD) software support model safeguards that the latest new function and bug fix capability is delivered in a timely manner for those organizations striving for an agile environment.  Similarly, the consideration of devolving traditional MQ systems administration activities, via intelligent, automated and self-service processes to key Application and Line of Business personnel makes sense, evolving a pseudo MQaaS capability.

Are You Ready For z Systems Workload Pricing for Cloud (zWPC) for z/OS?

Posted on by

Recently IBM announced the z Systems Workload Pricing for Cloud (zWPC) for z/OS pricing mechanism, which can minimize the impact of new Public Cloud workload transactions on Sub-Capacity license charges.  Such benefits will be delivered where higher Public Cloud workload transaction volumes may cause a spike in machine utilization.  Of course, if this looks familiar and you have that feeling of déjà vu, this is a very similar mechanism to Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP)…

Put simply, zWPC applies to any organization that has implemented Sub-Capacity pricing via the basic AWLC or AEWLC pricing mechanisms, for the usual MLC software suspects, namely z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS, MQ and WebSphere Application Server (WAS).  An eligible transaction is one classified as Public Cloud originated, connecting to a z/OS hosted transactional service and/or data source via a REST or SOAP web service.  Public Cloud workloads are defined as transactions processed by named Public Cloud applications transactions identified as originating from a recognized Public Cloud offering, including but not limited to, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, IBM Bluemix, et al.

As per MWP, SCRT calculates the R4HA for Public Cloud transaction GP MSU resource usage, subtracting 60% of those values from the traditional Sub-Capacity software eligible MSU metric, with LPAR granularity, for each and every reporting hour.  The software program values for the same hour are aggregated for all Sub-Capacity eligible LPARs, deriving an adjusted Sub-Capacity value for each reporting hour.  Therefore SCRT determines the billable MSU peak for a given MLC software program on a CPC using the adjusted MSU values.  As per MWP, this will only be of benefit, if the Public Cloud originated transactions generate a spike in the current R4HA.

One of the major challenges for implementing MWP was identifying those transactions eligible for consideration.  Very quickly IBM identified this challenge and offered a WorkLoad Manager (WLM) based solution, to simplify reporting for all concerned.  This WLM SPE (OA47042), introduced a new transaction level attribute in WLM classification, allowing for identification of mobile transactions and associated processor consumption.  These Reporting Attributes were classified as NONE, MOBILE, CATEGORYA and CATEGORYB.  Obviously IBM made allowances for future workload classifications, hence it would seem Public Cloud will supplement Mobile transactions.

In a previous z/OS Workload Manager (WLM): Balancing Cost & Performance blog post, we considered the merits of WLM for optimizing z/OS software costs, while maintaining optimal performance.  One must draw one’s own conclusions, but there seemed to be a strong case for WLM reporting to be included in the z/OS MLC Cost Manager toolkit.  The introduction of zWPC, being analogous to MWP, where reporting can be simplified with supplied and supported WLM function, indicates that intelligent and proactive WLM reporting makes sense.  Certainly for 3rd party Soft-Capping solutions, the ability to identify MWP and zWPC eligible transactions in real-time, proactively implementing MSU optimization activities seems mandatory.

The Workload X-Ray (WLXR) solution from zIT Consulting delivers this WLM reporting function, seamlessly integrating with their zDynaCap and zPrice Manager MSU optimization solutions.  Of course, there is always the possibility to create your own bespoke reports to extract the relevant information from SMF records and subsystem diagnostic data, for input to the SCRT process.  However, such a home-grown process will only work on a monthly reporting basis and not integrate with any Soft-Capping MSU management, which will ultimately control z/OS MLC costs.

In conclusion, from a big picture viewpoint, in the last 2 years or so, IBM have introduced several new Sub-Capacity pricing mechanisms to help System z Mainframe users optimize z/OS MLC costs, namely Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP), Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP) and now z Systems Workload Pricing for Cloud (zWPC).  In theory, at least one of these new pricing mechanisms should deliver benefit to the committed System z user, deploying this server for strategic and Mission Critical workloads.  With the undoubted strategic importance associated with Analytics, Blockchain, Cloud, DevOps, Mobile, Social, et al, the landscape for System z workloads is rapidly evolving and potentially impacting those sacrosanct legacy Mission Critical workloads.  Seemingly the realm of possibility exists that Cloud and Mobile originated transactions will dominate access to System z Mainframe System Of Record (SOR) data repositories, which generates a requirement to optimize associated MLC costs accordingly.  Of course, for some System z users, such Cloud and Mobile access might not be on today’s to-do list, but inevitably it’s on the horizon, and so why not implement the instrumentation ability ASAP!