Optimize Your System z ROI with z Operational Insights (zOI)

Hopefully all System z users are aware of the Monthly Licence Charge (MLC) pricing mechanisms, where a recurring charge applies each month.  This charge includes product usage rights and IBM product support.  If only it was that simple!  We then encounter the “Alphabet Soup” of acronyms, related to the various and arguably too numerous MLC pricing mechanism options.  Some might say that 13 is an unlucky number and in this case, a System z pricing specialist would need to know and understand each of the 13 pricing mechanisms in depth, safeguarding the lowest software pricing for their organization!  Perhaps we could apply the unlucky word to such a resource.  In alphabetical order, the 13 MLC pricing options are AWLC, AEWLC, CMLC, EWLC, MWLC, MzNALC, PSLC, SALC, S/390 Usage Pricing, ULC, WLC, zELC and zNALC!  These mechanisms are commercial considerations, but what about the technical perspective?

Of course, System z Mainframe CPU resource usage is measured in MSU metrics, where the usage of Sub-Capacity allows System z Mainframe users to submit SCRT reports, incorporating Monthly License Charges (MLC) and IPLA software maintenance, namely Subscription and Support (S&S).  We then must consider the Rolling 4-Hour Average (R4HA) and how best to optimize MSU accordingly.  At this juncture, we then need to consider how we measure the R4HA itself, in terms of performance tuning, so we can minimize the R4HA MSU usage, to optimize cost, without impacting Production if not overall system performance.

Finally, we then have to consider that WLC has a ~17-year longevity, having been announced in October 2000 and in that time IBM have also introduced hardware features to assist in MSU optimization.  These hardware features include zIIP, zAAP, IFL, while there are other influencing factors, such as HyperDispatch, WLM, Relative Nest Intensity (RNI), naming but a few!  The Alphabet Soup continues…

In summary, since the introduction of WLC in Q4 2000, the challenge for the System z user is significant.  They must collect the requisite instrumentation data, perform predictive modelling and fully comprehend the impact of the current 13 MLC pricing mechanisms and their interaction with the ever-evolving System z CPU chip!  In the absence of such a simple to use reporting capability from IBM, there are a plethora of 3rd party ISV solutions, which generally are overly complex and require numerous products, more often than not, from several ISV’s.  These software solutions process the instrumentation data, generating the requisite metrics that allows an informed decision making process.

Bottom Line: This is way too complex and are there any Green Shoots of an alternative option?  Are there any easy-to-use data analytics based options for reducing MSU usage and optimizing CPU resources, which can then be incorporated into any WLC/MLC pricing considerations?

In February 2016 IBM launched their z Operational Insights (zOI) offering, as a new open beta cloud-based service that analyses your System z monitoring data.  The zOI objective is to simplify the identification of System z inefficiencies, while identifying savings options with associated implementation recommendations. At this juncture, zOI still has a free edition available, but as of September 2016, it also has a full paid version with additional functionality.

Currently zOI is limited to the CICS subsystem, incorporating the following functions:

  • CICS Abend Analysis Report: Highlights the top 10 types of abend and the top 10 most abend transactions for your CICS workload from a frequency viewpoint. The resulting output classifies which CICS transactions might abend and as a consequence, waste processor time.  Of course, the System z Mainframe user will have to fix the underlying reason for the CICS abend!
  • CICS Java Offload Report: Highlights any transaction processing workload eligible for IBM z Systems Integrated Information Processor (zIIP) offload. The resulting output delivers three categories for consideration.  #1; % of existing workload that is eligible for offload, but ran on a General Purpose CP.  #2; % of workload being offloaded to zIIP.  #3; % of workload that cannot be transferred to a zIIP.
  • CICS Threadsafe Report: Highlights threadsafe eligible CICS transactions, calculating the switch count from the CICS Quasi Reentrant Task Control Block (QR TCB) per transaction and associated CPU cost. The resulting output identifies potential CPU savings by making programs threadsafe, with the associated CICS subsystem changes.
  • CICS Region CPU Constraint: Highlights CPU constrained regions. CPU constrained CICS regions have reduced performance, lower throughput and slower transaction response, impacting business performance (I.E. SLA, KPI).  From a high-level viewpoint, the resulting output classifies CICS Region performance to identify whether they’re LPAR or QR constrained, while suggesting possible remedial actions.

Clearly the potential of zOI is encouraging, being an easy-to-use solution that analyses instrumentation data, classifies the best options from a quick win basis, while providing recommendations for implementation.  Having been a recent user of this new technology myself, I would encourage each and every System z Mainframe user to try this no risk IBM z Operational Insights (zOI) software offering.

The evolution for all System z performance analysis software solutions is to build on the comprehensive analysis solutions that have evolved in the last ~20+ years, while incorporating intelligent analytics, to classify data in terms of “Biggest Impact”, identifying “Potential Savings”, evolving MIPS measurement, to BIPS (Biggest Impact Potential Savings) improvements!

IBM have also introduced a framework of IT Operations Analytics Solutions for z Systems.  This suite of interconnected products includes zOI, IBM Operations Analytics for z Systems, IBM Common Data Provider for z/OS and IBM Advanced Workload Analysis Reporter (IBM zAware).  Of course, if we lived in a perfect world, without a ~20 year MLC and WLC longevity, this might be the foundation for all of our System z CPU resource usage analysis.  Clearly this is not the case for the majority of System z Mainframe customers, but zOI does offer something different, with zero impact, both from a system impact and existing software interoperability viewpoint.

Bottom Line: Optimize Your System z ROI via zOI, Evolving From MIPS Measurement to BIPS Improvements!

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?

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

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…

System z MLC Pricing Increases: Look After The Pennies…

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.

z13 WLC Software Pricing Updates: Are You Ready?

Along with the z13 hardware announcement were several very obvious WLC pricing announcements, but more importantly, two hidden Statements Of Direction (SOD) or pre-announcements.

I guess we can all remember the “zSeries Technology Dividend” where put simply, when upgrading zSeries servers, users would benefit from a ~10%+ software price versus performance benefit.  Does anybody still remember the IBM Mainframe Charter from 2003?  That was the document that first referenced this price/performance benefit, which became known as the “technology dividend”.  Specifically, this document stated:

IBM lowered MSU values incorporated in the z990 microcode by approximately 10 percent, resulting in IBM software savings for IBM zSeries software products with MSU-based pricing.  These reduced MSUs do not indicate a change in machine performance. Superior performance and technology within the z990 has allowed IBM to provide improved software prices for key IBM zSeries operating system and middleware software products.

Put really simply, for z990, z9 and z10 server upgrades, IBM delivered this ~10% benefit with faster CPU chips.  Therefore, no noticeable impact on Software Pricing, Capacity Planning or Performance Measurement processes.  However, with the z196/z114, this ~10% benefit could no longer be delivered by CPU chip hardware speed enhancements.  To compensate, IBM introduced the Advanced Workload License Charges (AWLC) pricing regime.  AWLC is an evolution of the Variable (VWLC) pricing regime, lowering per MSU costs for WLC eligible products (E.g. z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS, WebSphere/MQ, et al).  Hence delivering the ~10% price/performance benefit when upgrading from a z10 to a z196 or z114 (AEWLC) server.

Of course, when upgrading to the zEC12 or zBC12, further refinement of AWLC pricing was required, to deliver this the ~10% price/performance benefit.  Hence, IBM introduced the AWLC Technology Transition Offerings (TTO), lowering AWLC prices for zXC12 and now z13 zSeries servers.

For z13, IBM announced the following z13 AWLC Technology Transition Offerings:

  • Technology Update Pricing for the IBM z13 (TU3): When stand-alone z13 servers are priced with AWLC, or when all the servers in an aggregated Sysplex or Complex are z13 servers priced with AWLC, these servers receive a reduction to AWLC pricing which is called.  Quantity of z13 Full Capacity MSUs for a stand-alone server, or the sum of Full Capacity MSUs in an actively coupled Parallel Sysplex or Loosely Coupled Complex made up entirely of z13 servers.  AWLC discounts range from 4% (4-45 MSU) to 14% (5477+ MSU).
  • AWLC Sysplex Transition Charges (TC2): When two or more machines exist in an aggregated Sysplex or Complex & at z13, zEC12, or zBC12 server & at least one is a z196 or z114 server, with no older technology machines included, they will receive a reduction to AWLC pricing across the aggregated Sysplex or Complex. This reduction provides a portion of the benefit related to the Technology Update Pricing for AWLC (TU1) based upon the proportion of zEC12 or zBC12 server capacity in the Sysplex or Complex.  AWLC discounts range from 0.5% (0-20% z13/zXC12 MSU) to 4.5% (81%-<100% z13/zXC12 MSU).
  • AWLC Sysplex Transition Charges (TC3): When two or more machines exist in an aggregated Sysplex or Complex & at least one is a z13 server & at least one is a zEC12 or zBC12 server, with no older technology machines included, they will receive a reduction to AWLC pricing across the aggregated Sysplex or Complex. This reduction provides a portion of the benefit related to the IBM z13 TU3 offering, based on the total Full Capacity MSU of all z13, zEC12, & zBC12 Machines in the Sysplex or Complex.  AWLC discounts range from 2.8% (4-45 MSU) to 9.8% (5477+ MSU).

These AWLC software pricing announcements are Business As Usual (BAU) and to be expected, but if we dig slightly deeper into the z13 announcements, we will find two other pre-announcements of interest!

Since introducing sub-capacity and WLC pricing regimes, IBM have continually evolved zSeries software sub-capacity pricing mechanisms, with zNALC, AWLC, IWP and more recently MWP offerings.  From a generic viewpoint, with the exception of zNALC, a niche new workload price offering, these pricing announcements did not challenge the “status quo”, where aggregated MSU and large LPAR structures were the ideal.  So why might the upcoming z13 (E.g. Q2 2015) pricing announcements be of note?  Primarily because they challenge the notion of having separate structural entities (I.E. Sysplex Coupled zSeries Servers & LPARS) for existing and new workloads.

Country Multiplex Pricing (CMP): A major evolution, essentially eliminating prior Sysplex pricing rules, requiring that systems be interconnected and/or sharing the same data in order to be eligible for aggregation of MLC software pricing charges.  A Multiplex is defined as the collection of all z Systems within a country.  Therefore, sub-capacity usage will be measured & reported as a single machine, regardless of the connectivity or data sharing configurations.  A new sub-capacity reporting tool is being implemented & clients should expect a transition period as the new pricing model is implemented.  This should allow flexibility to move & run work anywhere, eradicating multiple workload peaks when workloads move between machines.  Ultimately the cost of growth is reduced with one price per product based on MLC capacity growth anywhere in the country.CMP should facilitate for flexible deployment and movement of business workloads between all zSeries Servers located within a country, without impacting MLC billing.  For the avoidance of doubt, this will assist the customer in safeguarding they don’t encounter duplicate MLC peaks as a result of moving an LPAR workload from one zSeries Server to another.  It also removes all Sysplex aggregation considerations, Single Version Charging (SVC) time limits and Cross Systems Waivers (CSW).  Most notably, the cost per MSU for additional capacity will be optimized, being based upon total Multiplex MSU capacity.

IBM Collocated Application Pricing (ICAP): Previously, new applications (zNALC) required a separate LPAR to avoid increases in other MLC software charges.  ICAP facilitates new eligible applications be charged as if they are running in a dedicated environment.  Technically they are integrated with other (non-eligible) workloads.  Software supporting the new application will not impact the charges for other MLC software collocated in the same LPAR.  ICAP appears as an evolution of the Mobile Workload Pricing (MWP) for z/OS pricing mechanism.  ICAP will use an enhanced MWRT, implemented as a z/OS application.  ICAP applies to z13, zXC12, z196/z114 servers.  IBM anticipates that ICAP will deliver zNALC type price benefit, discounting ~50% of ICAP eligible software MSU.

Seemingly IBM have learned from the lessons of IWP, where at first glance, software discounts were attractive, but not at the cost of a separate LPAR.  From a reporting viewpoint, there are similarities to Mobile Workload Pricing for z/OS (MWP), but most notably, pricing is largely zNALC based.  Therefore collocating new workloads in the same LPAR as existing workloads, but with the best price performance of any pricing regime, except zNALC, which is a niche and special edition software pricing metric.

In conclusion, CMP and ICAP are notable WLC pricing regime updates, because they do challenge the status quo of MSU aggregation via Sysplex coupled servers and the ability to collocate new and existing workloads in the same LPAR.  On the one hand, simplified pricing considerations from a granular per MSU cost viewpoint.  However, to optimize price versus performance, arguably the savvy Data Centre will now require a higher level of workload management, safeguarding optimum MSU capacity usage and associated performance.

zPrice Manager is an evolution of the typical soft-capping approach, which can be IBM function based, namely Defined Capacity (DC) or Group Capacity Limit (GCL), or ISV product based.  ISV products typically allow MSU management with dynamic MSU capacity resource management between LPAR, LPAR Group & CPC structures, ideally with Workload Manager (WLM) interaction.  If plug & play simple MSU management is required, these traditional IBM or 3rd party ISV approaches will still work with CMP and ICAP, but will they maximize WLC TCO?

The simple answer is no, because CMP allows the movement of workloads between zSeries Servers.  Therefore if WLC product (I.E. z/OS, CICS, DB2, IMS, WebSphere/MQ) pricing is to be country wide, and optimum WLM performance is to be maintained, a low level granularity of MSU management is required.

zPrice Manager from zIT Consulting allows this level of WLC software product management, with a High Level REXX programmatic interface, and the ability to store real life MSU profile data as callable REXX variables.  Similar benefits apply to ICAP workloads, where different WLM policies might be required for the same WLC product, deployed on the same collocated workload LPAR.  Therefore the savvy data centre will safeguard they optimize MSU TCO via MWP and/or ICAP pricing regimes, without impacting business application performance.

In conclusion, the typical z13 AWLC software pricing updates are Business As Usual (BAU) and can be implemented, as and when required and without consideration.  Conversely, CMP and ICAP can deliver significant future benefit and should be considered in zSeries Server capacity planning forecasts.

Bottom Line Recommendation: Each and every zSeries Server user, whether large or small, should initiate contact with their IBM account teams, for CMP and ICAP briefings, allowing them to consider how they might benefit from these new WLC software pricing regimes.

IFL – A Cost Efficient zSeries Platform?

In September 2000, IBM introduced the Integrated Facility for Linux (IFL) processor, a specialty engine for and some might say dedicated to running the Linux Operating System.  At the time of this announcement, companion software named S/390 Virtual Image Facility for Linux was introduced to assist in the rapid deployment of IFL configurations, especially for non-Mainframe personnel.  However, this product was quickly discontinued, in favour of the standard z/VM Operating System, which is not difficult to learn and can accommodate hundreds if not thousands of zLinux images.

Today, the IFL is still a processor dedicated to Linux workloads on IBM System z servers.  The IFL is supported by z/VM virtualization and the Linux operating system.  The IFL cannot run other IBM operating systems.  The competitively priced IFL processor is a CPU capacity enabler, exclusively for Linux workloads.  Linux deployment (I.E. SUSE & Red Hat) on IFL’s can reduce expenses in the areas of operational efforts, energy, floor space and especially software.

The IFL provides the following functions and benefits:

  • The IBM Enterprise Linux Server is a dedicated System z Linux server, comprised of only IFL processors
  • No additional IBM software charges for traditional (E.g. z/OS, CICS, DB2, WebSphere, et al) environment
  • Performance improvement for Linux workloads with each successive generation of IFL and System z technology
  • Linux workload on the IFL does not result in increased IBM software charges for traditional System z operating systems and middleware
  • Same functionality as a General Purpose processor on a System z server
  • HiperSockets can be used for communication between Linux images, or Linux and other operating system images on the same System z system
  • z/VM virtualization and most IBM Linux middleware products, plus most vendor software products are priced per processor (core) according to the System z IBM International Program License Agreement (IPLA).  IPLA products have a one-time-charge (OTC) and an annual (optional) maintenance charge, called Subscription & Support
  • Supported by the current z/VM virtualization and IBM Wave for z/VM software versions
  • Always a full capacity processor, independent of the capacity of the other processors in the server
  • Orderable as a System z hardware feature. The number of orderable IFL features varies by the server model and configuration
  • Designed to operate asynchronously with other General Purpose processors
  • Managed by PR/SM in logical partition with dedicated or shared processors. The implementation of an IFL requires a Logical Partition (LPAR) definition, where following normal LPAR activation procedure, LPAR defined with an IFL cannot be shared with a general purpose processor.

There will always be the debate as to which processor and associated server type (E.g. x86, POWER, SPARC) is the most cost efficient, but there is no doubt that the ability to accommodate hundreds if not thousands of zLinux instances in one zServer environmental (E.g. Power, Cooling, Floor Space, et al) friendly footprint, with software pricing per core is worthy of consideration.

Adoption for zLinux has been steady and especially in the emerging territories where it’s not unusual for zSeries deployments to be totally zLinux (I.E. IBM Enterprise Linux Server) based.  Moreover, the majority of large and traditional IBM Mainframe users (I.E. z/OS) have installed at least one IFL, if only to evaluate the z/VM and zLinux offering.  Many have deployed the IFL and associated zLinux solution for business requirements.

Therefore, if one of the major cost benefit features of IFL is optimized software costs; can the IFL processor be considered for other workloads, originating from the traditional zSeries (I.E. z/OS) environments?

Proximal Systems Corporation (PSC) is a company with a solution that transparently offloads data processing from IBM Mainframes to Distributed Systems, with an objective of reducing software cost, while maintaining or improving performance.  The company name is derived from the concept of bringing disparate computing systems into close proximity, functionally speaking, providing totally seamless and transparent interoperability.  The result is a unified computing complex within which various tasks can be easily migrated between systems to their most cost efficient operating environment, while still being able to interoperate as if they were all hosted together on the same system.

The PSC Proxy Coupling Technology allows for a CPU orientated task to be offloaded from one system to another by means of an associated proxy task, which has an identical interface as the task to be offloaded, but delegates the majority of the processing to an offloaded task on another system.  The primary objective of this function are for the cost savings and/or performance improvements that might be delivered by migrating tasks to systems that are able to execute those tasks more efficiently.

The fact that the proxy task maintains the same interface as the application being replaced is crucial; as many past Mainframe migration projects have failed due to insurmountable interoperability problems between the Mainframe and Distributed Systems servers (I.E. Windows, Linux, UNIX, et al).  Proxy Coupling Technology offers a solution to this long-standing challenge.  In theory, this allows for the transparent offload of a traditional z/OS workload (E.g. Sort) from General Purpose (GP) processors, to a less expensive (E.g. IFL) alternative…

In the first instance, the Proxy Coupling Technology offloads General Purpose CPU workload associated with the z/OS sort (I.E. CA Sort, DFSORT, Syncsort) function, to another platform (E.g. IFL).  For IFL based implementations, HyperScokets are utilized to transfer data at memory speeds from the z/OS task to zLinux on the IFL, where the sort operation completes, while the resulting z/OS task and associated data are maintained, as per normal.  From an IFL viewpoint, Ahlsort software performs the sort operation, being a sort solution that maintains compatibility with the majority of z/OS sort function (I.E. Control Card Syntax).  Therefore, this is a transparent implementation, where the only consideration is how much CPU capacity is required for the offload function (E.g. IFL, x86).  The benefits are reduced z/OS MSU usage for the sort function, which can be quite significant, as most business data (E.g. Database Offloads, Customer Orientated, et al) is sorted on a daily if not more frequent basis.

Just as IBM introduced the zAAP on zIIP capability, which allowed some customers to more easily justify a specialty engine (I.E. zIIP), combining workloads to exploit the full capability of the specialty engine; in theory the same ethos applies with the Proxy Coupling Technology.  For the avoidance of doubt, workloads that can be processed on an IFL, such as z/OS sort tasks, can assist in delivering higher Return On Investment (ROI) levels for the IFL, for example:

  • Reduced z/OS WLC MSU usage (I.E. Sort function offload) and associated software costs savings
  • IFL processors run at Full Speed and do not add to traditional workload (I.E. z/OS) software costs
  • Utilize any spare IFL CPU resource not used, releasing General Purpose CPU resource for other work

In conclusion, the Proxy Coupling Technology offers a proposition that is similar to the IBM philosophy of reducing z/OS software costs via specialty engines.  Seemingly to date, primarily only the zIIP and zAAP specialty engines were available to optimize CPU usage for z/OS workloads.  Offloading CPU cycles and thus MSU workload to IFL makes sense, utilizing a cost efficient and indeed a full power CPU engine, where for cost reasons, maybe the majority of z/OS customers don’t deploy the “highest” derivative of General Purpose CPU engine available to them.  On the face of it, the realm of possibility exists for other workloads to benefit from z/OS to IFL CPU offload, following sort, which seems to make sense as the first workload to utilize this solution.

zIIP Into The Future: Mainframe Specialty Engines Evolution

Sometimes we might lose sight that change can be evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary and this certainly applies to IBM Mainframe specialty engines, for example:

  • 1997: Internal Coupling Facility (ICF)
  • 2000: Integrated Facility for Linux (IFL)
  • 2004: System z Application Assist Processor (zAAP)
  • 2006: System z Integrated Information Processor (zIIP)

To assist with lower IBM software pricing, arguably the ICF offering became the de facto standard for a Mainframe user to be considered “actively coupled”.  Therefore deploying two or more eligible IBM Mainframes, physically attached via coupling links to a common Coupling Facility (I.E. ICF).

The Integrated Facility for Linux (IFL) is a processor dedicated to Linux workloads on IBM System z servers.  The IFL is supported by the z/VM virtualization software and the Linux operating system.  Most customers have at least dabbled into this technology, while some are using this technology extensively, primarily for distributed server consolidation.

Somehow the zAAP specialty engine has become the “black sheep” of the family where the current zEC12 and zBC12 are planned to be the last System z servers to offer support for zAAP specialty engine processors.

As of z/OS V1.11, functionality was delivered enabling zAAP eligible workloads to run on zIIP engines.  This function allowed both zIIP & zAAP-eligible workloads to process on zIIP.  This capability was ideal for customers with insufficient zAAP or zIIP eligible workload to justify a specialty engine.  Whereas the combined eligible workloads increase the ROI metrics for zIIP deployment.  The zAAP specialty engine is primarily targeted for web-based applications and SOA-based technologies, namely Java and XML.

So for z/OS type workloads, we must “zIIP Into The Future”…

Sometimes we need to look at the big picture, where the IBM organization is comprised of many business units, including the Mainframe business unit.  The Mainframe business unit itself contains many groups, including, but not limited to, the Hardware and Software groups.

As we all know, z/OS software TCO is significant and so this translates into higher revenues for the IBM Mainframe software group; but what about the IBM Mainframe hardware group?  Perhaps the specialty engines, primarily in the form of zIIP will generate revenue stream for this business unit.  Along with the introduction of zBC12 & zEC12 servers, IBM increased the zIIP to General Purpose (CP) engines ratio to 2:1; meaning you can have 2 zIIP specialty engines with the same capacity as an associated CP engine.  Previously the maximum ratio allowed was 1:1 (Specialty:CP).

What workloads are zIIP eligible?  Over time and since 2006 the amount of workload that is zIIP eligible has increased, primarily due to software development and upgrade efforts of IBM and the 3rd party ISV community:

  • DB2 for z/OS exploits the zIIP capability for portions of eligible data serving, pureXML and utility workloads
  • Other 3rd party DBMS solutions, including ADABAS & IDMS offload workload to zIIP
  • Most Systems Management tools (E.g. OMEGAMON, MAINVIEW, RMF, SYSVIEW, et al)
  • z/OS XML System Services for eligible XML validating and non-validating workloads
  • Other z/OS functions including /OS Communications Server, Global Mirror, CIM Server, et al

What are the benefits of deploying a zIIP specialty engine?

  • Lower acquisition and maintenance costs, when compared with general CP
  • zIIP engines run at full rated CP speed
  • Offload work (CPU) from General Purpose (CP) engines
  • No cost for Sub-Capacity eligible IBM software (I.E. WLC)

So, one must draw one’s own conclusions, but seemingly the deployment of zIIP engines is a “no brainer”!

Hmmm, once again, evolution is a good thing and the zIIP engine has an 8 year history and its predecessor zAAP, a 10 year history.  This ~10 year period has allowed for user experiences and IBM function developments to evolve a more stable and rounded offering and as previously stated, a product for the IBM Mainframe Hardware group to focus upon.

From a customer viewpoint, zIIP deployment requires a Capacity Planning evolution, which should be reasonably straightforward.  The big difference is the CP to zIIP offload consideration and some of the lessons learned include:

  • Software costs – Multiple-Processors; CP to zIIP Offload Rate; zIIP utilization
  • Hardware costs – Installed Books (total MSU/MIPS capacity); Additional LPAR(s)
  • Peak CPU utilization – Safeguard that zIIP exploitation reduces peak CPU usage
  • CPU per Transaction – Slight increase in CPU (not necessarily elapsed time) as workload switches from CP to zIIP
  • zIIP utilization – Early experiences indicate ~50% zIIP engine busy is a good number

In conclusion, zIIP deployment has been gradual and evolutionary, but many factors indicate that zIIP is here to stay and it is the future.  Seemingly from an IBM viewpoint, with benefit for the Mainframe Hardware Group in terms of the eradication of the zAAP engine, the increase in CP:zIIP ratio to 2:1 and the associated customer benefits of Sub-Capacity software pricing.  From a customer viewpoint, ignoring these pointers might not be wise, as z/OS software costs are significant and CPU resource requirements keep increasing.  Adding extra zIIP CPU capacity reduces hardware and associated software costs and so this is the “no brainer” observation that can’t be ignored for much longer…

IBM Mainframe Capacity Planning & Software Cost Control Interaction?

The cost of IBM Mainframe software is an extensive subject matter that is multi-faceted and can generate much discussion. The importance of optimizing Mainframe software costs is without doubt, as it is the most significant Mainframe TCO component, having increased from ~25-50%+ of overall expenditure in the last decade or so. Conversely Mainframe server hardware costs have largely stabilized at ~15-25% of TCO in the same time period. However, Mainframe Capacity Planning activities have evolved over the last several decades or so, where hardware costs were the primary concern and the number of IBM Mainframe software pricing mechanisms was limited. Of course, in the last decade or so, IBM Mainframe software pricing mechanisms have evolved, with a plethora of acronyms, ESSO, ELA, IPLA, OIO, PSLC, WLC, VWLC, AWLC, IWP, naming but a few!

Can each and every IBM Mainframe user clearly articulate their Mainframe Capacity Planning and Software Cost Control policies, and which person in their organization performs these very important roles? Put another way, not forgetting Software Asset Management (SAM), should there be a Software Cost Control specialist for IBM Mainframe Data Centres…

If we consider the traditional Mainframe Capacity Planning role, put very simply, this process typically produces a 3-5 year rolling plan, based upon historical data and future capacity requirements. These requirements can then be modelled with the underlying hardware (E.g. z10, z114/z196, zEC12) server, identifying resource requirements accordingly, namely number of General Processors (GPs), Specialty Engines (E.g. zIIP, zAAP, IFL), Memory, Channels, et al. Previously, up until ~2005, customer requirements would be articulated to IBM, cross-referenced with LSPR (Large System Performance Reference) and an optimum hardware configuration derived. Since ~2005, IBM made their zPCR (Processor Capacity Reference) tool Generally Available, allowing the Mainframe customer to “more accurately” capacity plan for IBM zSeries servers.

Other enhancements to more accurately determine the ideal zSeries server include sizing based on actual customer usage data generated by the CPU MF facility introduced with the z10 server. CPU MF delivers a refinement when compared with LSPR, refining the zPCR process with real life customer usage data, compared to the standard simulated LSPR workloads.

In summary, the Mainframe Capacity Planning process has evolved to include new tools and data to refine the process, but primarily, the process remains the same, size the hardware based upon historical data and future business requirements. However, what about Mainframe software usage and therefore cost interaction?

Each and every IBM Mainframe user relies heavily on the IBM Operating System (I.E. z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE, zLinux, et al) and primary subsystems (I.E. CICS, DB2, MQ, IMS, et al). Some Mainframe users might deploy alternative database and transaction processing (TP) solutions, but a significant amount of Mainframe software cost is for IBM software products. In the late-1990’s, IBM introduced their PSLC (Parallel Sysplex License Charges), which offered lower aggregate (MSU) pricing for major IBM software products, based upon an eligible configuration (E.g. Resource Sharing). This pricing mechanism had no impact on software cost control, in fact quite the opposite; it was a significant cost benefit to implement PSLC!

In 2000 IBM announced Workload License Charges (WLC), which allowed users to pay for software based upon the workload size, as opposed to the capacity of the machine; thus the first signs of sub-capacity pricing. In 2001, the ability to deploy IBM eligible software on a “pay for what you use” basis was possible, as per the Variable Workload License Charge (VWLC) mechanism. Put very simply, a Rolling 4 Hour Average (R4HA) MSU metric applies for eligible IBM software products, where software is charged based upon the peak MSU usage during a calendar month. The Mainframe user pays for VWLC software based upon the R4HA or Defined Capacity (Sub-Capacity vis-à-vis Soft Capping), whichever is lowest.

From this point forward, and for the avoidance of doubt, for the last 10 years or so, there has been a mandatory requirement to consider the impact of IBM WLC software costs, when performing the Mainframe Capacity Planning activity. One must draw one’s own conclusions as to whether each and every Mainframe user has the skills to know the intricacies of the various software (E.g. IPLA, OIO, PSLC, WLC, et al) pricing models, when upgrading their zSeries server.

With the IBM Mainframe Charter in 2003, IBM stated that they would deliver a ~10% technology dividend benefit, loosely meaning that for each new Mainframe technology model (I.E. z9, z10), a lower MSU rating of 10% applied for the for the same system capacity level, when compared with the previous technology. Put another way, a potential ~10% software cost reduction for executing the same workload on a newer technology IBM Mainframe; so encouraging users to upgrade. However, the ~10% software cost reduction is subjective, because a higher installed MSU capacity dictates lower per MSU software costs…

With the introduction of the z196 and z114 Mainframe servers the technology dividend was delivered in the form of a new software license charge, AWLC (Advanced Workload License Charges), where lower software costs only applied if this new pricing model was deployed. A similar story for the zEC12 server, the AWLC pricing model is required to benefit from the lower software costs! If these software pricing evolutions were not enough, in 2011 IBM introduced the Integrated Workload Pricing (IWP) mechanism, offering potential for lower software pricing based upon workload type, namely a WebSphere eligible workload. Finally, and as previously alluded to, as MSU capacity increases, the related cost per MSU for software decreases, so there are many IBM software pricing mechanisms to consider when adding Mainframe CPU capacity. So once again, who is the IBM Mainframe Software Cost Control specialist in your organization?

For sure, each and every IBM Mainframe user will engage their IBM account team as and when they plan a Mainframe upgrade process, but how much “customer thinking is outsourced to IBM” during this process? Wouldn’t it be good if there was an internal “checks & balances” or due diligence activity that could verify and refine the Mainframe Capacity Plan with IBM software cost control intelligence?

Having travelled and worked in Europe for 20+ years, I know my peers, colleagues and friends that I have encountered can concur with my next observation. The English and Americans might come up with a good idea and perhaps product, the French are most likely to test that product to destruction and identify numerous new features, while the Germans will write the ultimate technical manual…

zCost Management are a French company that specializes in cost optimization services and solutions for the IBM Mainframe. From an IBM Mainframe Capacity Planning & Software Cost Control Interaction viewpoint, they have developed their CCP-Tool (Capacity and Cost Planning) software solution. This software product bridges the gap between Mainframe Capacity Planning for hardware and the impact on associated IBM software (E.g. WLC, IPLA, et al) costs.

CCP-Tool facilitates medium-term (E.g. 3-5 year) Mainframe Capacity Planning by controlling Monthly License Charges (MLC) evolution, generating cost control policies, optimizing zSeries (E.g. PR/SM) resource sharing, delivering financial management via IBM Mainframe software cost control activity. CCP-Tool integrates with existing data and activities, using SMF Type 70 & 89 records, defining events (I.E. Capacity Requirements, Workload Moves) in the plan, simulating many options, delivering your final capacity plan and periodically (I.E. Quarterly) reviewing and revising the plan. Most importantly, CCP-Tool deploys many algorithms and techniques aligned to IBM software pricing mechanisms, especially WLC and R4HA related.

Therefore CCP-Tool delivers a financial management framework via a medium-term Capacity Plan with associated software cost control and zSeries (E.g. PR/SM) resource policies. This enables a balanced viewpoint of future Data Centre cost configurations from both a hardware and related IBM Mainframe software viewpoint. Moreover, for those IBM Mainframe users that don’t necessarily have the skills to perform this level of Mainframe cost control, CCP-Tool delivers a low cost solution to empower the Mainframe customer to engage IBM on an equal footing, at least from a reporting viewpoint. Similarly, for those Mainframe users with good IBM Mainframe software cost control skills, CCP-Tool offers a “checks & balances” viewpoint, delivering that all important due diligence sanity check! Quite simply, CCP-Tool simplifies the process of reconciling the optimal configuration both from an IBM Mainframe hardware and related software viewpoint.

Without doubt, if a Mainframe user still deploys a hardware centric viewpoint of the capacity planning activity, without considering the numerous intricacies of IBM Mainframe software pricing, in most cases, this could be a significant cost oversight. Put very simply, a low-end IBM Mainframe user of ~150 MSU (1,000 MIPS) might spend ~£1,000,000 per annum, just for a minimal configuration of z/OS, CICS, COBOL and DB2 software, so one must draw one’s own conclusions regarding the potential cost savings, when deploying the optimal zSeries hardware and associated IBM software configuration. I paraphrase Oscar Wilde:

“The definition of a cynic is someone that knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing!”

So, let’s reprise. You have performed your Mainframe Capacity Planning activity, considered historical SMF data for CPU usage, maybe including the R4HA metric, factored in additional new and growth business requirements, refined the capacity plan by using the zPCR tool, perhaps with data input from CPU MF and you now have identified your optimum zSeries Mainframe server?

Maybe you should think again, because the numerous IBM MLC software pricing mechanisms could impact your tried and tested Mainframe CPU hardware planning process. Firstly, for MLC software, the unit cost per MSU reduces, as the installed MSU capacity increases. In simple terms, this encourages the use of “large container” processing entities, LPARs and CPCs. Other AWLC and IWP related considerations further encourages the use of major subsystems (E.g. CICS, DB2, WebSphere, IMS) in larger MSU capacity LPARs and CPCs to benefit from the lowest unit cost per MSU. Additionally, do you really need to run all software on all processing entities? For example, programming languages (E.g. COBOL, PL/I, HLASM, et al) are not necessarily required in all environments (E.g. Test, Development, Production, et al). It is not uncommon for compile and link-edit functions to be processed in Development environments only, while only run-time libraries are required for Production. These “what if” scenarios generated by the numerous IBM MLC software pricing mechanisms must be considered, ideally by an internal resource, with the requisite skills and experience.

Today, who is performing this Mainframe Software Cost Control in your organization? Is it an internal resource with the requisite skills, an independent 3rd party, IBM or nobody? One must draw one’s own conclusions as to whether any of these parties who could perform this vital activity has a vested interest or not, and thus a potential conflict of interests…