Re: How many cost a cpu second?
A couple other thoughts: 1. Mainframe-only chargeback regimes are deadly. If you actually look at the total IT budget, all things mainframe-related typically consume a rather small fraction of the total IT budget. If you have chargebacks, and if they don't reflect that reality, then you're already in trouble. Yes, I know that z/OS has SMF which provides wonderful data that accountants can easily misuse -- and yes, I know other systems don't have anything like SMF built in. So go get system accounting software for those other systems if you're going to have chargebacks -- and add the cost of implementing and maintaining that software to those other systems' chargebacks! 2. Average costs versus marginal costs. If you simply take the total expense and divide that up into chargebacks, you've got a problem. That'll cause very bad behavior as users try to flee what they see as high costs (average costs) which really truly aren't (they're actually marginal costs). One better way (albeit not perfect) is to charge an unavoidable, universal "membership fee" (per employee, for example) plus a variable rate, with the variable rate equal to true marginal costs. That's similar to your electric bill -- a "connection fee" plus a charge per kilowatt hour. Bonus points for peak and non-peak pricing. Non-peak could even be zero. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Transferring stuff from Mainframe to a RDz/UT clone of itself
To add a couple comments, NFS could be part of the loop. It's more convenient than FTP, I think. Moreover, SCLM (which is part of z/OS) with an appropriate exit seems like a good idea, with better organization and control (and therefore better mistake avoidance) for the sort of stuff you'd be doing with RDz. For any network transmissions think about whether intercept is possible. IPSec or a secure file transfer could be prudent, even on an "internal" network. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: It's feeding time in Jurassic Park . . .
Radoslaw Skorupka writes: >zBX can run only ONE version of Windows: 64-bit edition of 2008 >Enterprise (or so). No, that's not correct. IBM currently supports any of the Microsoft Windows Server 2008 SP2 or R2 64-bit X86 editions, not only "Enterprise." Datacenter Edition is recommended due to Microsoft's licensing practices, but it is not required. As for 32-bit installation, you might pursue that complaint with Microsoft. Microsoft removed the option to install 32-bit Windows Server from Windows Server 2008 R2, introduced almost three years ago. (The zBX arrived well after that.) If you really wish to run an older 32-bit operating system you can virtualize it: install your chosen hypervisor on a supported operating system, then run the older operating system within that. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: XPAF replacement
Ituriel do Nascimento Neto wrote: >We are XPAF users and XEROX told us that this product is no longer >supported in Latin America. That's odd. Xerox posted some XPAF updates this very week, and I think XPAF 5.0 debuted only last year. What printers (and models) must you continue supporting? -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: It's feeding time in Jurassic Park . . .
George Henke writes: >Also, we have CITRIX. >Can that be moved the the zBx? Sure. It's the same IBM HX5 blade running the same Microsoft Windows operating system. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Xerox LCDS to Postscript/PDF converters
Here are a couple more examples of Xerox LCDS to PDF transformation products for z/OS: PRO Meta to PDF http://www.comp-research.com/transformations.htm CRT METACODE Series http://www.crteurope.com/knowledge-series/metacode-series-part-2-xerox-metacode/djde/lcds-to-pdf-and-pdf/a-conversion.html Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: It's feeding time in Jurassic Park . . .
One point I'd like to highlight is that a zBX is *not* simply another blade server chassis. One of the key reasons it's not the same is the zEnterprise Unified Resource Manager (URM). For example, URM is able to coordinate resource allocations and provisioning dynamically across multiple operating systems, in effect extending some of z/OS's Workload Manager (WLM) capabilities out into the blades. That's unique. More information available here: http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/hardware/zenterprise/unifiedresourcemanager.html Another point... Yes, you *could* replicate some of the functions of a zBX by building something else out of various parts. In practice, that's hard. (George highlighted a common problem among many: networking run amok.) In principle you could also write and maintain your own operating systems, relational databases, transaction managers, service management tools, etc., but in practice you'd probably do it rather badly, and it would necessarily require more labor than buying something complete and ready-to-go. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: It's feeding time in Jurassic Park . . .
"Migration" isn't really the word I'd use for moving Microsoft
Windows-based applications to the zBX. ("Moving" is a better word.) It's
fundamentally the same process as replacing an X86 server with another,
because that's what it is. Note that the new X86 environment on zBX is
virtualized, and it's also based on today's X86 cores rather than
yesterday's (or before yesterday's), so it's extremely likely you'll be
reducing core counts in making that move. You'll want to plan accordingly.
It's also a managed environment, so that could be new (in a good way).
As for Solaris to Linux on z, that too is a very well traveled path. Some
sample documentation:
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg247186.pdf
http://www.ibm.com/systems/migratetoibm/oracle/solaristolinuxtoolkit.html
If you're moving some standard piece(s) of middleware -- WebSphere
Application Server, Oracle Database, etc. -- then it's unlikely to be a
challenging exercise for the workload itself. You'll mainly be focused on
the operational aspects, which are a bit different but only a bit. The
toolkit (above) gets more relevant if you're moving custom C/C++
applications -- and those would need to be recompiled. Note that a phased
approach is generally possible and a good idea. Or, in other words, do the
easy things first since that'll demonstrate you've got the environment set
up correctly and the operational aspects ironed out.
Note that OpenSolaris for System z is still available "as is":
http://distribution.sinenomine.net/opensolaris
If you've got something particularly tricky to migrate then that could be
part of your strategy as a stopgap.
Yes, you can upgrade either a z114 or a z196 to include a zBX (one to four
frames).
I'm not sure I understand the "SYSPLEXed" question. Could you rephrase
that?
If you're asking what happens to the zBX in the extremely rare event its
parent z114 (or z196) is offline (when does that ever happen?), the answer
is "not much." It continues to run.
As for the other major scenario, what most people do with zBX-based
applications -- Microsoft Windows, in your case -- is they still use
software-based clustering as/if available across two or more different
physical blades in different chassis. That sort of availability engineering
doesn't fundamentally change, although you do pick up some management and
server/network pre-fabrication benefits that can contribute to better
availability. But if you're running a single instance of an application and
it falls over, there will be a service interruption as it is restarted --
no great surprise.
Timothy Sipples
Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Modernizing the BCP code ?
John McKown writes: >The chances of us getting a current machine depends quite a bit >on the US Supreme Court's decision on "Obamacare", especially the >80:20 rule. Which has destroyed our profitability. We basically >cannot run the company on only 20% of our policy income. Apologies in advance for the digression. First of all, I suspect there are many readers on this list who would be delighted to collect 20% of revenue in overhead and profit. Anybody who works for a supermarket company, for example, would be thrilled with that percentage. Anybody in the financial industry as well. (Vanguard, for example, charges 0.2% to manage its typical mutual fund.) No, what's really going on in your industry is that the bigger medical insurance companies wanted several things in the new legislation, and they got them all. They wanted government fines imposed on individuals who did not buy their product. They did not want the government itself, which is much more efficient in this area (and in some others), to provide even the option of public insurance. And they themselves wanted the 20% "limit" on overhead. Why? Because if you're big, that limit automatically gives you an advantage. The bigger you are, ceteris paribus, the more efficient you will be at processing/denying claims, because the fixed costs of doing business are less significant relative to your higher volumes. So that's what's really going on, that the bigger insurance companies in your own industry are trying to squeeze out your company and deter market entry. (And don't blame the President. The new law is straight out of The Heritage Foundation's policy book and virtually identical to then-Governor Mitt Romney's system in Massachusetts.) I can assure you that "all" of those bigger companies have mainframes, and they use them. It probably doesn't help that your management has apparently chosen an IT strategy that is not known for fostering and supporting efficient growth. The costs of that IT strategy tend to grow more aggressively, more linearly, compared to the IT strategies in place at most of your competitors. During the big banking merger wave in the U.S., you could actually see this phenomenon at work. (I observed it, at least. I don't know if anyone else noticed.) In simple terms, the "mainframe" banks gobbled up the "non-mainframe" banks. Coincidence? Probably not. Anyway, I only speak for myself, and sometimes not even that much. :-) ---- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: PCOM Question (IBM Personal Communcations aka 3270)
I know a little something about the history of that URL "hot spots" feature, which has been available for many years now. Yours truly opened the "marketing requirement" for that feature way back in February, 2001, inspired by a particular iSeries customer in Texas. The marketing requirement that I wrote says: URL "Hot Spots" in the title, with those quotation marks. That was my attempt to signal that I wasn't sure what to call the new feature, but the name stuck.(*) URL hot spots were announced with Host On-Demand Version 7 (Host Access Client Package Version 3) which became available in September, 2002. I don't think the feature made it into any of the HOD Version 6 updates, though. URL hot spots are a very natural fit for Host On-Demand, but they're also quite useful in Personal Communications. PComm picked up the feature fairly quickly, as I recall, but I can't immediately find an announcement for it. Maybe it was with Version 5.7 in 2003. (*) Which reminds me of another story. Sometime around 1998, a particular marketing team solicited feedback on a proposed name for a new software product release. Their proposed name was "IBM PC DOS Version 7.0 (Year 2000 Ready)." I thought that was pretty silly, so I suggested "IBM PC DOS 2000." And so it was. I made some other suggestions, too -- in particular that PC DOS 2000 should include more bundled applications. (By that time PC DOS shipped on CD, and you could create boot diskettes from that if necessary. There was plenty of available space on the CD.) I suggested the then-current release of Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, some sort of word processor (probably from Lotus), IBM Japan's very clever Web browser for DOS, the IBM DOS LAN Requester (primarily for its memory-efficient TCP/IP network stack to support the browser), Personal Communications for DOS, and IBM Japan's remote desktop control client called Desktop On-Call. That combination would have been a good fit for PC DOS's target market at the time, which was increasingly focused on point of sale and "fixed function" PCs. But unfortunately those extra applications didn't end up in the package. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Host on Demand Installation
No, there is no minimum MSU requirement for Host On-Demand installation. Note that running the Host On-Demand Service Manager is technically optional. That's if you use the Deployment Wizard to create an appropriately customized HOD start page, which is my preferred way. The Service Manager is the most demanding part of HOD on the server side, but even that is quite lightweight. If you don't run the Service Manager then the only server side task is HTTP serving, which is extremely lightweight, particularly if you're using the HOD "cached client." I see little or no point in using HTTPS to deliver HOD to Web clients, so don't bother with that -- stick with HTTP for your HOD Web server. However, TN3270E with TLS/SSL encryption is highly recommended for security reasons, and that's regardless of client. Obviously do take advantage of hardware crypto support there (CPACF and/or CryptoExpress). ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backlevel IPCS issue at z/OS 1.13
Just ask IBM first, officially, that's all. I did not post my (unofficial) thoughts as merely an academic, theoretical exercise. In particular, I'm aware of one customer that grabbed Language Environment from OS/390, ran it on z/OS, and... well, that wasn't (isn't) free. And yes, it's occasionally possible that a vendor's licensing terms and conditions don't cover every "reasonable" use case. That's what communication and clarification help solve. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: A stupid idea? Using "twitter" like service for z/SO, et al., event notification.
Not at all a stupid idea, John. There are many shops that already do that sort of thing and many ways to do it. As an aside, there are some organizations that handle "third shift" support from some part of the world where/when it's first shift. That can be done within the company itself (typically if it's a global multi-national sort of company) or on a contract basis. That's been true for decades, and not just in IT. To pick a random combination, between Los Angeles, Sydney, and London you can have continuous support coverage, and it's never an "unreasonable" hour of the night. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Backlevel IPCS issue at z/OS 1.13
Ron MacRae writes: >I've got a REXX exec that sets up an IPCS environment for z/OS levels >other than my current release With this REXX exec I can select a >version of IPCS modules/panels/ for every release of z/OS from 2.10 >up to 1.13. Bearing in mind that I do not speak for IBM, I'd like to caution you on something here. It's one critically important distinction between what's technically possible and what's actually permissible, at least financially speaking. The "2.10" you mention is not z/OS, it's OS/390 (V2R10). That's a different product, also licensed. As background, when IBM introduced z/OS almost 12 years ago IBM also introduced sub-capacity licensing for z/OS and for practically all IBM software products for z/OS, including CICS, IMS, DB2, MQ, and many others. However, there are a very few prerequisites that customers are required to implement before enjoying sub-capacity licensing. One highly relevant and very well publicized requirement is that you must stop running all OS/390 on your machine(s). That was (and is) part of the deal. OK, by now you see the potential problem. If you're running OS/390 V2R10's IPCS, you haven't stopped running OS/390 on your machine. Which means you wouldn't be eligible for sub-capacity licensing. Be very, very careful here, folks. There are only a few simple rules. Follow them, please. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Good source for relationship of opcodes, models, MACHINE() and ARCH()
A suggestion: if there are some volunteers to collect and organize the information, how about putting it on Wikipedia where it can be maintained and publicly accessed easily going forward, together with links to other references? Wikipedia is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org Perhaps the article should be entitled something like "IBM mainframe models" with appropriate redirect aliases and links from existing, related articles. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Simulating Smaller Processor
Ken Hansen writes: >My company wants to downgrade its processor Just to understand the motivation, is that because the company has full capacity licensed software? ---- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: What is the justification for not using Trusted Key Entry (TKE) workstation?
Radoslaw Skorupka writes: >It's ridiculous to require TCP/IP network to configure network adapter. I didn't understand this particular sentence. What else would you use? Appletalk? The HMC, yes, that makes sense, though probably in addition to (rather than instead of) a TCP/IP option. ---- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Actually it is more typically 2% (Was Re: IBM announces 6% price increase for z/OS)
I assume that your analysis is based on a sample scenario which does not include any zNALC LPARs, correct? If you have any zNALC LPARs then that would heavily bias the calculation downward, one would presume. Also, is it correct to say that your calculation is based on a total IBM software number rather than on a total software number (IBM plus non-IBM)? That's a corollary to the observation that "the more products, the lower the percentage," probably. For perspective, this is the only z/OS price increase in history, and it comes amidst a very long list of z/OS price decreases. Also for comparison, the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI), i.e. the annual inflation rate, is 2.9% at last report. If U.S. z/OS pricing had merely kept pace with U.S. inflation it should have increased over 31% by now rather than decreased by a lot. Said another way, you (the globally average IT worker) are getting progressively more expensive than z/OS. Let's hope we're all worth it...and better than average. :-) -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: QMF Replacement ???
I assume you're asking primarily for price reasons. There are three things I'd recommend doing first before getting lost in the well: 1. Evaluate whether you can consolidate your QMF workloads onto a smaller number of your DB2 machines, especially if QMF can/would represent a comparatively large share of that machine's (or those machines') total DB2 workload. Consider also whether you can softcap that LPAR (or those LPARs). Your QMF charges are based on the peak 4 hour rolling average of DB2 MSUs consumed per month per machine where QMF is licensed. You should weigh possible consolidation against DB2 peak behavior. Specifically, if QMF 4HRA peaks are non-coincident with the non-QMF DB2 peaks, then exercise a little extra caution. Note also that Solution Edition, zNALC, and DB2 Value Unit Edition LPARs are typically measured separately and thus wouldn't count toward your QMF 4HRA calculation. 2. Run! (do not walk!) and buy one IBM DB2 Analytics Accelerator (after a bit of due diligence, of course -- but only a bit), plug it in, and turn it on. QMF workloads are strong candidates for acceleration with DB2 AA. You will be amazed. Don't have a z196 or z114 yet? Run and get one of those too even if only to plug in a DB2 AA. 3. Upgrade to DB2 10 if you haven't already. The vast majority of DB2 customers see a worthwhile performance improvement. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: zSeries Manpower Sizing
Bart Grijn writes: >There are large shops that run large mainframes, but they likely run >other platforms as well and a large part of the manpower will be >shared across platforms. That's an excellent point. There's a common accounting measurement (FTEs = Full-Time Equivalents) used to tally up labor effort when you have particular individuals working on multiple projects and to provide a level of abstraction in measurements. That said, a lot of organizations, if they calculate FTEs, do it badly. For example, I've seen many cases where the "mainframe team" ends up with problem determination responsibility for non-specific IT issues. They might be counted as mainframe FTEs, but they spend much or most of their time providing network support, desktop support, etc. If FTE calculations were based on problem outcomes and root causes rather than who happened to take the call, that'd probably be useful. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: z/OS Feeding SolarWinds
Sounds interesting, Jim. So you just need to emit some SNMP for SolarWinds (Orion, specifically), correct? You could take the "roll your own" approach. There's a fairly good introduction to SNMP here, to get acquainted: http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27007146 There's also some pretty good information if you search the IBM-MAIN archives for SNMP. That said, it'd probably be easier to let your current monitoring tools do the lifting, if possible, since presumably those work. What sort of monitoring tools do you have on z/OS, if any? Tivoli NetView, for example? Also, let's brainstorm a bit on what statistics/metrics would be both "cool" and useful. There are lots of possibilities. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: zSeries Manpower Sizing
George Henke observes: >The feedback I have gotten so far, based on a few private replies, is about >8 - 12 people per CEC. Maybe, but that doesn't mean when you double the number of CECs you would double the number of people, or vice versa. That is, you can't extrapolate linearly in either direction, as our meat computers subconsciously often do. For example, let's suppose you were a "big" shop in the year 2002 and you were running 10 z900 machines, each configured as 213 models with a PCI of 2888 each. So you had 28880 PCIs total, plus some coupling facility engines. Then assume you experienced 8% per year compound growth in capacity (with transaction volume growth, etc. -- holding the application set constant for this example) so that after a decade you'd end up with approximately 62350 PCIs (28880*1.08^10). Well, that capacity would fit on a mere two CECs today: a pair of z196s, perhaps at capacity setting 742 each (31675 PCIs each). An ~80% reduction in floor space, which unfortunately probably got more than filled with more expensive and less reliable infrastructure. And actually, in practice, when you take 10 footprints down to 2 you tend to pick up some nice virtualization benefits, so that's probably too many PCIs, never mind possible zIIP and other benefits. So in that decade would you have also taken a staff of 100 people (10 per CEC) and reduced it to 20 people? That would be an order of magnitude jump in staff productivity per PCI over 10 years. That seems extreme. Perhaps you wouldn't have 100 people (if you started with 100), but I don't think you'd have as few as 20 either, ceteris paribus. I don't think there's any serious disagreement that the mainframe has led the way in providing huge productivity improvements just about any way you measure it. As a generalization, you mainframers are extraordinarily productive, both in comparison to your predecessors and in comparison to your non-mainframe peers. (Keep up the good work -- and more, please.) There are some analysts who have looked at this stuff and who concur with the sort of trends and characteristics I describe above. Mainframes are characterized by very strong scale economies. There are at least two ways to take advantage of that: be big(ger) -- more transactions, more volume, more batch with the same or similar application set -- and be broader -- more applications sharing the same mainframe infrastructure. That doesn't mean you can't do fine financially and otherwise running a single application at low volumes, but you can do even better bigger and/or broader. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Dedicated vs. Shared CPs
Barbara Nitz writes: >And coming from a z9 presumably to a z196, chances are very >good that you would loose physical cps to keep money down. It's not clear yet which z9 the original poster has. Moving from a z9 BC to a z114, no. There are more capacity models in the z114 and more configurable engines available but with the same capacity starting points, so there's more choice, not less. Moreover, a z114 could be an appropriate upgrade from a smaller z9 EC. It's very possible a z114 could provide *more* engines with the same overall PCI. Moving from a z9 EC to a z196, maybe, but there's still more overall flexibility. The z9 EC only permits up to the first eight engines as sub-capacity engines, while the z196 supports up to 15 sub-capacity engines. There's also a double MSU "technology dividend" in that move. (Yes, there's a technology dividend from z10 EC to z196, too -- a bit in MSU terms plus AWLC.) And presumably the original poster would be moving to AWLC on the z196, meaning sub-capacity licensing would be available, if he doesn't already have that. "Money" is overwhelmingly correlated with peak utilization, not capacity -- and with a very curvaceous curve past the base investment. If the original poster has a 6xx or 7xx z9 EC, then it's possible that they could move to a z196 with more engines in a 4xx or perhaps 5xx configuration. For example, if they've got a z9 EC 703 (1607 PCI, 229 MSUs), they could move to a z114 Y03 (1788 PCI), W04 (1595), X04 (1941), V05 (1723). They could also move to a z196 408 (1667) or 503 (1642). Every one of those options except the X04 would have fewer MSUs than the z9 EC 703. And every one of those options would have AWLC or AEWLC in addition to the MSU change. Note that both the z114 and z196 support HiperDispatch. The best thing to do is to sit down with a system architect or specialist to determine the right fit for the workloads. But, to net it out, reducing the number of engines is an unlikely *requirement*, even for money reasons. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Z/architecture I/O questions
Rob Schramm writes: >If you upgrade to z10 / z114, you can use GCL (group capacity limits). It >allows for better flexibility without having to "hard cap". Though there are many excellent reasons to upgrade to a z114 or z196, LPAR group capacity limits (group "softcaps") are available on z9 or later hardware running z/OS 1.8 or later. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM Doing Some Restructuring?
It's not mainframe v. non-mainframe. Rational Team Concert is available for z/OS, and you can even use it via ISPF if you choose. Isn't choice a wonderful thing? I think so. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: TLS, AT-TLS, Encryption Requirements
Hal Merritt writes: >IMHO, the biggest single challenge is certificate management. Certificates >have a pretty steep learning curve. As with any encryption solution, the >actual encryption is trivial but the key (certificate) management is a killer. It's exactly the same conceptual learning curve you'd have for enabling HTTPS in an arbitrary Web server, and an awful lot of IT workers manage that. Frankly what most people do is to go buy an SSL/TLS server certificate signed by one of the well-known certificate authorities (in the desired file format) then simply go install it. Meaning, they probably don't understand what they're doing, they just do it. If you want to understand how TLS and SSL work, yes, you'll need a little more time. :-) ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Turning on additional CPs
I hate to ask the "simple" (possibly overlooked) question, but is it possible you moved from a configuration with 3 CPs to a configuration with 4 CPs but with more of a sub-capacity setting? That's certainly possible, at least on a System z10 BC. For example, if you started with a 2098-D03 capacity configuration and moved to a C04, you would be moving from a configuration with a PCI (Processor Capacity Index) of 121 up to a PCI of 130 -- a greater than 7% increase. In other words, in the IBM Large Systems Performance Reference (LSPR) tables, you would be moving to a higher performance system, with greater throughput for typical measured LSPR workloads. However, the "uni" speed of each engine would be reduced, so you would expect to see somewhat elongated execution time for single threaded workloads relative to the previous configuration. So that's another thing to check: did you increase overall "MIPS" but decrease per-engine "MIPS"? On the z9 BC, z10 BC, and z114 models that's very easy to check: just look at the letter in the capacity setting. If the letter didn't change, then you should only see SMP effect. If the letter is lower (D to C, for example), then you probably are experiencing what I am describing. I suppose I should also ask the simple question of whether that additional CP is properly activated, defined, and actually available to your z/OS LPAR (s) for dispatch, but maybe that's been covered by now. :-) Keep in mind that z/OS Workload Manager (WLM) is boss, subject to capacity limits of course. If you have a job that's running longer, but it's still meeting or beating the WLM goal, then z/OS considers that perfectly fine because it's doing exactly what you told it to do. It could very well be that more overall work is getting done faster thanks to the additional engine, and WLM made the correct adjustments based on your settings. (For example, work that was getting deferred is now getting executed, and that particular work is putting some greater stress on the caches and/or on I/O.) If you aren't happy with the results, consider adjusting WLM settings. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: gcc on z/OS (was: CPP (C++) file on z/OS)
Paul Gilmartin writes: >Exactly; I mean per installation. The putative personal z/OS >makes each customer a systems programmer. You can run >a Linux/OS X/Windows system without a systems programmer; >not likely z/OS. (But note that when IBM makes steps in that >direction, many contributors to this list feel job security >threatened.) I disagree. There are systems programmers for Windows, Linux, UNIX, and other operating systems. They may or may not be called system(s) programmers, and they may or may not have other jobs in addition, but the jobs exist. In huge numbers to support merely large numbers, which is a problem if you care about productivity. Heck, I'm the systems programmer for my iPhone. I manage network connections, install/remove/update applications, perform backups (and occasional restores), periodically update the operating system, etc., etc. I don't have the title, and I do that work part time, but I still do the job. Don't confuse the fact that some (not all) IT organizations with mainframes choose to have well-organized, well-structured, dedicated IT staffs with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. That's an optional feature (and advantage) facilitated by the platform, not a bug. By the way, people-per-installation is not particularly relevant. People-per-business outcome is much more relevant. If it takes 1,000 instances of operating system Y to deliver substantially the same business outcome as 2 instances of operating system Z, who cares that it takes only twice the number of people per installation of Z? ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Simple iinventory control products?
Rational Asset Analyzer for z/OS is quite excellent: http://www.ibm.com/software/rational/products/raa/systemz/ I think you were asking about more than just JCL inspection. RAA does that but also much more. There's a trial of RAA available so you can take it for a spin. Just click on the "Trial" link from the above Web page. If you're in a particular hurry, take a look at the step-by-step illustrated RAA trial guide here (watch the wrap): http://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/dw/rational/emz/Using_Rational_Asset_Analyzer_to_Inventory_and_Analyze_your_zOS_applications.pdf Somewhat relatedly (but just beyond your specific question) there are tools that can inspect and inventory your software products, release levels, etc. Tivoli Asset Discovery for z/OS is an excellent example: http://www.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/asset-discovery-zos/ Also somewhat relatedly if your major concern is application deployment -- and making sure all the pieces, parts, and configurations are correct and complete every time -- then you might consider a tool that's directly focused on deployment. As an example, for CICS that list would include CICS Configuration Manager, CICS Deployment Assistant, and/or CICS Explorer. The last one is available to all CICS Transaction Server customers at no additional charge. Do note that every z/OS customer receives the base IBM Software Configuration and Library Manager (SCLM) as part of z/OS at no additional charge. More information here: http://www.ibm.com/software/awdtools/sclmsuite/sclm/ There are some optional add-ons to base SCLM if desired. Hope that helps. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe Testing
There are many, many testing tools relevant to mainframes. Could you elaborate on what you mean by mainframe "system" testing? -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: CPP (C++) file on z/OS
IBM does not charge for z/OS access in the "Master the Mainframe" contests: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/university/contest The North American contest is typically held during the North American autumn each year. There have been (and will be) other "Master the Mainframe" contests in other parts of the world. Some universities also offer no charge access, although it may depend on your affiliation(s) and/or residence. Here's one in Germany, to pick a random example: http://jedi.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/de/access.html Of course I do not represent the University of Leipzig. I've never been to Leipzig either. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: The Trainer's Friend announces - no price increase
Steve Comstock writes: >We are using the same pricing we used in 2002. :-) We aren't, thank goodness. We slashed z/OS prices repeatedly then increased some of them this year, once, a bit, far less than we slashed them. Although I do like your training services and think they're fairly priced. Reminder: My views are my own. The facts, however, are the facts. ---- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM announces 6% price increase for z/OS
Prices for just about *everything* in Europe are higher than in the U.S. One factor is VAT (Value Added Tax), but it's not the only factor. The U.K. has a 20% VAT rate, for example, and that's certainly not the highest in Europe. Sales tax rates in the U.S. range from 0% in a few states to around half the U.K. rate in a few cities, particularly those with recently built professional sports stadiums. :-) Price in the U.K. for an Apple iPad 2 (16GB, no 3G): £399 Price in the U.S. for an Apple iPad 2 (16GB, no 3G): $499 (excluding sales tax, which could be 0%) U.K. price converted into U.S. Dollars (inter-bank exchange rate, as I write this): $622.95 U.S. price with an 8% sales tax: $538.92 Percentage increase in U.K. price v. U.S. price (at 8% sales tax rate): 15.6% Percentage increase in U.K. price v. U.S. price (at 0% sales tax rate): 24.8% iPads are identical around the world, with the possible exception of the electric power plug packed inside the box. Note that I'm not including the 5% rebate you get in the U.S. if you're using your Discover Card and Shop Discover. In fact, it's cheaper to use my particular U.S.-issued credit card in Singapore than it is to use a Singapore-issued credit card for typical purchases, absent a special store promotion in Singapore. My Australian colleagues in particular are amazed at the favorable terms for U.S. credit cards compared to theirs. Then there's the price of an automobile in Singapore compared to the U.S. The difference is astonishing, even if the car is built in Japan. The primary reason is that there are extremely high automobile taxes in Singapore, but the taxes don't fully explain the difference. The U.S. is an extremely big market with the best prices in the world across the vast range of products, in my experience as a shopper. My wife concurs, and her friends in the office gave her a long shopping list before her most recent U.S. trip. :-) As another example, my favorite Italian food products average about half the price in the U.S. compared to Singapore, and Singapore compares pretty favorably to other Asian countries in that regard. Even printer ink cartridges made in Singapore are more expensive to buy in Singapore than they are in the U.S. Medical care is a notable exception. German-made suitcases are another, perhaps less notable. (The U.S. has a significant luggage tariff.) Of course, there's an easy way for companies to enjoy U.S. prices: relocate to the U.S. :-) I'm kind of amazed that international price differences are a surprise to anyone. Heck, there are huge price differences *within* the U.S. And I'm pretty darn sure your employer, if it operates internationally, doesn't charge exactly the same price in every country. The U.S., by and large, is a shopper's paradise. Hong Kong is pretty good, too. The best and the brightest minds -- financial services/banking, anyone? -- are constantly figuring out ways to "optimize" prices. Including many of your employers. That's not a value judgment, that's just fact. For the record, IBM has held the line on z/OS since...forever? z/OS debuted in 2000 (with a price cut from OS/390), and I don't recall any other z/OS price increases since then. (Somebody can correct me on that if necessary, but my point still stands even if.) I do recall numerous z/OS price decreases -- including AEWLC introduced just last year. Nobody else has held the line like that -- much more than held the line. Just to pick another random example, oil has approximately quadrupled in price in the past 12 years. z/OS has a much lower *nominal* price (never mind real price) than it did 12 years ago. I never like price increases -- I don't like paying more for cans of tomato, guava, or electricity either -- but perspective is very important in understanding the world. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: NetView (5.4) Web Services Gateway
Alternatively you can step up to NetView V6. I know NetView V6R1 supports XML Toolkit V1R10. (I'm not sure about NetView V5R4.) Among other advantages to stepping up to NetView V6R1, there's a performance advantage with the XML Toolkit V1R10: http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/tools/xml/perform/ -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Looking for Decompiler
Here's one option: http://www.source-recovery.com I have no relationship with this company and do not offer an assessment. Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Compiling C++ by LE V1.8 and running on LE V1.13+ ?
Patrick Vogt wrote: >If we want to be actual, we need to Compile everything of the Product >NEW with the new Compiler to got it run. But that's too much Work to do. Is there something in the following document that causes concern? http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r13/topic/com.ibm.zos.r13.cbcmg01/mgpt06.htm#mgpt06 -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: ACCOUNT Product
Sérgio Lima Costa wrote: >The people here, want split the cost of Mainframe to users that use it. >For example, the user consumed 10% of CPU, then the cost of CPU is $40.000,00. >So for this user, the price was $4.000,00. >This is only a example. But your mainframe's economics doesn't work that way.(*) Moreover, if those people set up a chargeback system with that sort of formula, they're likely to cause serious IT (and financial) problems for your employer. Here's a simple counter-example. Let's suppose you have 10 users each consuming 10% of CPU, and you charge each user $4,000. Now one of those users decides to stop using the mainframe. Your formula then collects $36,000. Is the total cost still $36,000? No. It's much closer (or even equal to) $40,000. (Did you fire 10% of your IT staff?) So would you then charge the 9 remaining users ~$4440 each? Why? They didn't do anything, and nothing changed in the costs. See the problem? That average cost formula, among other things, fails to take into account the difference between marginal costs and fixed costs. And what happens is that cost-driven users (most/all are) then have perverse incentives to do all sorts of crazy things. [Sound familiar? :-)] That's why you're getting lots of questions about "why?" There are tools, lots of tools, highly developed and refined. They're useful, but you can also do really dumb things with those tools, like charge users average costs. Please don't. Bad chargeback systems are much, much worse than no chargeback systems. What problem(s) are they trying to solve? (*) *Any* highly virtualized infrastructure has this core financial characteristic. The whole IT world is preaching the virtues of highly virtualized infrastructure, including cost savings. Effective sharing of any resources, including computing resources, is highly cost-efficient. But if you institute a chargeback system which actively discourages users from sharing HVI, what do you think is going to happen? What has happened, with terrible business consequences, in too many cases? What is the IT world now spending considerable effort trying to un-do? -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Identifying SOA Workloads for zIIP zAAP Offload
Are you (also) asking how to identify candidate workloads that could be re-engineered, hopefully with little effort, to exploit zIIPs and/or zAAPs? If that's the question, here are a couple ideas: 1. Look for any Java code that may be executing, and classify those workloads according to the Java releases they use. Then start work on moving the biggest workloads running on the oldest Java releases to at least SDK 5 and preferably something much newer. Keep repeating this exercise to stay current on Java releases. IBM's SDKs for Java did not start to exploit zAAPs until 1.4.1-something or 1.4.2-something. 2. Review the current list of IBM and third-party zIIP and zAAP exploiters and their release levels, and see if any correspond to workloads you're running or could be running. Update accordingly. 3. Look for bulk data movements (notably FTPs) that could be re-engineered with more selective, direct data access. JDBC/ODBC access directly to DB2 (V8 and higher) exploits zIIPs, of course. There are typically strong security benefits and storage cost savings for this sort of re-engineering, too. Additionally, relatedly, consider adopting the DB2 Analytics Accelerator. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Tapeless Solutions
Now that I think about it, if the door to your data center isn't tall enough, IBM has a solution. Your new mainframe can be shipped topless, although that's not the exact term for it. Topless mainframe shipment is not recommended unless you really do have an unavoidably short entry door since IBM has to put the top back on your mainframe at your location. That takes some extra time. Best wishes everyone for a safe, happy, and healthy New Year. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Tapeless Solutions
Am I the only one who read the subject line too quickly, mentally substituting an "o" for the "a" and dropping the first "e"? I must be regressing. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Nice article, high level - homegrown vs. vendor basically
Re: "Great Platform Shakeout of the Naughts," I'm referring primarily to the struggles Sun and HP have had and are having, but you could include other examples, such as Silicon Graphics, which stopped producing its MIPS-based servers in 2006. The server market has ended up with two horses in my view, and in the view of most other observers. It's not unlike the passenger airliner market in that broad sense. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Determining MSUs
I like the RMF way. I think you can see MSU information in the (no additional charge) z/OS Management Facility, too. Although I work for IBM(*), does anyone happen to know how to find similar MSU information in BMC's CMF, for completeness? That's just in case somebody is trying to write documentation, for example. (*) And my views are my own. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Nice article, high level - homegrown vs. vendor basically
Packaged applications -- or whatever other term you'd like to use -- have been around and popular since at least the 1960s. Many/most portfolios of mainframe-hosted applications have always blended purchased applications and application components (purchased "libraries" and "frameworks," as examples) with homegrown code, including contractor-written code. However, a lot of people seem to have forgotten that fact. Moreover, that history suggests the same thing will happen again, that today's (mostly) packaged applications will evolve into tomorrow's homegrown applications -- or at least hybrid monsters -- as they evolve. There's plenty of evidence that's exactly what's happening. I have long argued -- and still argue -- that the mainframe is a uniquely attractive application hosting environment from that point of view. You can run valuable application code as long as you want, packaged or not, while adding new, fully interoperable applications and application components as quickly or as slowly as you want. Occasionally there are some people who get in the way of that evolution and improvement, but that's not the technology's fault. (And there are organizational ways to deal with that.) The future is bright, too. Business processes are getting ever more complex, more sophisticated. As usual, business demands are running ahead of vendors' and programmers' ability to code. Rewriting will continue to increase in cost, and consequently durable platforms should do well. And perhaps we've just been through the Great Platform Shakeout of the Naughts, which reminds me a lot of the passenger airliner industry. We'll see, but I think the trends are pretty clear. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: LDAP for z/OS with long name
RACF might enforce certain limits if you're accessing RACF resources via the z/OS LDAP Server. If you're not doing that -- it's not required to do that -- then no, I don't think there's any 256 character limit. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: ZNALC Option for LICENSE Parameter
Walter Marguccio writes: >under zNALC you can have as many TSO users as you like. That's a technical capability, but one could easily imagine that "as many TSO users as you like" would be inconsistent with your license agreement. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Connect Direct - Performance and efficiency
Ted MacNeil writes: >Sterling Commerce was bought by IBM a few years ago. Only last year (2010). There's lots of information on IBM Sterling Connect:Direct available here: http://www.ibm.com/software/commerce/managed-file-transfer/products/connect-direct/ ---- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: iPad and HMC and Safari?
The third party cloud browser approach only works if the browser provider has network access (over the Internet) to your HMC, perhaps through a reverse proxy that you control. Technically that would work, but that approach would still make at least some people nervous from a security point of view since the third party provider would have the technical ability to record keystrokes. It's a question of trust, and that's really a political, legal, and financial question rather than a purely technical one. If you don't (or cannot) trust the third party to a sufficient degree, you could certainly operate a *private* cloud service. That could even be a Linux on System z image running remote desktop access software such as TightVNC and a Java-enabled browser such as Firefox. (Yes, Firefox is available for Linux on System z.) Then typically what you'd do is connect to your organization's private network via a VPN (or company premises wireless), start your VNC client on your iPad/iPhone/iPod touch/other mobile device, then run your "desktop" browser remotely. But in this example the desktop is actually the mainframe itself. A single Linux image could support multiple VNC logins and Firefox sessions. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: iPad and HMC and Safari?
One option is that you can use your iPad (or iPhone or iPod touch) to connect to your Mac or PC, then use your Mac- or PC-based browser from there. There are multiple options for remote desktop access from your iPad. Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Batch COBOL as a Consumer of Web Services
Glenn Schneck writes: >However this notion that only IBM can do things correct, cheap, stable >and 'free' is not reality. I never claimed that. >Does the base product for CICS have support for CICS web services - >yes it does, but it does not have all the necessary components? If it >did why would IBM sell RDz, WebSphere ESB, WebSphere Process Server and >many other products to use in conjunction for web services? That doesn't make logical sense. Starbucks sells hazelnut syrup for use in conjunction with their coffee. Does the existence of hazelnut syrup mean that a cup of coffee does not have all the "necessary components"? That's news to this coffee drinker. Those other products (and still others) exist because they are often valuable for particular projects. Are they required to develop and to use CICS Web Services? No. (Although Rational Developer for System z is darn useful, because if you've ever dealt with Web Services development it's just not fun in terminal emulation.) Moreover, the original poster has CICS Web Services up and running, today. >Would most companies need to invest in CICS Transaction Gateway? For Web Services? No. That's a different, excellent product for different purposes. Some companies have built/build Web Services (running in WebSphere Application Server, for example) using CICS Transaction Gateway as their connector to CICS Transaction Server, but that's not CICS Web Services. >How easy is it to defined composite services? Very. That's called the CICS Service Flow Feature. It's part of CICS Transaction Server, too. >Can the user call the service from multiple sources, such as Batch, >Java, .NET, VB, C? Yes, of course. CICS implements all the latest relevant Web Services standards, and they're bidirectional. As an example, the original poster is invoking Web Services from his COBOL batch programs (outbound from COBOL batch) using only CICS. >IBM is best served when they embrace and work with third party vendors >instead of trying to take over all aspects of mainframe processing. I'm confused. First you seem to be criticizing IBM for requiring several products to implement Web Services support for CICS, which isn't true. Then you're not happy when IBM provides complete Web Services support in CICS itself? Why don't you aim your fire at those awful people at the Apache Foundation? CICS uses Apache's Axis2 as the core of its Web Services support, which is a very good thing. Apache Axis2 is freely downloadable code, to which many developers (including IBM developers) contribute. Are you suggesting that IBM should somehow withhold access to this freely available code (if IBM could) specifically and only if you're a mainframe customer? Or, if you're suggesting IBM shouldn't make any functional improvements to its products, I can assure you that's not IBM's plan. (Thank goodness.) Web Services are pervasive and important, and that's why such functionality is built into CICS (and into IMS, as another example), just as TCP/IP is, just as TLS and SSL are. By the way, CICS Web Services (SOAP for CICS) debuted in 2003, almost 9 years ago now. There's also enormous opportunity for innovative third party products. Including in Web Services, I suspect, as long as there's value for money. Speaking only for myself. Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Batch COBOL as a Consumer of Web Services
I like the CICS approach, particularly since you already have it implemented, know how to monitor/manage/secure it, etc. It's a very natural fit for many environments and for most developers working in this domain. CICS has also had a solid track record of picking up new Web Services capabilities as the standards have evolved, so you get that free as you track new CICS releases. Same with performance improvements. And CICS neatly takes care of that persistence issue that was mentioned. When is CICS ever (completely) down, by the way? Alternatively, is it better to worry about just keeping at least a bit of CICS up and running (which you presumably already worry about) versus keeping both CICS and something else up and running? I would contact IBM and also cross-post to the CICS-L list to ask for advice on performance engineering and tuning to see if there's anything you're missing. Every once in a while it's worth checking performance for best practices, regardless of solution approach. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: As IBM CEO, Ginni Rometty will bring some Midwestern charm
There are lots of "Midwestern charm" references returned by your favorite search engine. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Data offload to DVDs or external drives
David O'Brien posts: >The following has been posed by one of our mainframe users. >QUESTION: What options (if any) are available for migrating >these old study files and contents of accounts to storage media >such as DVDs and external hard drives that could be securely >held (off-line) by the agencies? >Looking at the user id provided I find that most of these files >are VSAM. >Is there any way to use VSAM in a non-mainframe environment? >Is there a way to write directly to a dvd from a mainframe? There have been a lot of replies already, but I think there's also a lot of guessing going on. Let's not guess too much. The most reasonable question to ask at this point is "What business problem(s) are you trying to solve?" Without that context, it's difficult to answer these questions. To answer the questions to the degree possible for now: 1. There are myriad options for copying data. Mainframe-accessible data are also ones and zeros. Several copy methods have been mentioned, and I could probably come up with a dozen more. (IND$FILE? Kermit? :-)) What would you prefer? 2. Maybe there is a way to use VSAM (data) in a non-mainframe environment. The data are ones and zeros, regardless of platform. Interpreting the data is another question. What programs interpret and process the data today? How were those programs created, and how are they maintained? Is NIH's requirement to preserve the ability to run those programs upon demand for some period of time and to preserve the associated data for the same period of time? And to do that in a way that reliably reproduces original study results (and potential new results based on older data), with the integrity associated with careful medical research? For how long? Or are there some other (or additional) requirements? Is that an ongoing requirement for current and future studies, to have a computing infrastructure that supports long-term retention of data *and the ability to interpret those data*? That's exactly what mainframes are designed to do. There are programs written in the mid-1960s (and perhaps even earlier) that are still running today, still processing and interpreting their data. Medical research goes back at least that far, including groundbreaking studies on smoking and cancer (for example). This is something NIH really ought to be thinking about, carefully, and at senior levels. The central design premise of mainframes is "avoid breaking programs if at all possible." In contrast, our PCs (and Macs) break programs practically every year that passes. Archivists are warning that society is rushing headlong into creating a big "digital hole" in the historical record, because we simply won't be able to process and interpret older data (even if we have it) even a few years from now. Mainframes are a very notable exception, precisely because many businesses have the same requirements. Many insurance companies, for example, need to retain policies and the processing rules associated with those policies for 100 years or more (the lifetime of a life insurance policyholder and his/her heirs). Mainframes do that -- and support running brand new programs written 5 minutes ago. 3. Yes, actually. (There's at least one vendor that sells hardware to do that.) To what purpose? Many/most mainframes have tape available, often HSM-managed, which works beautifully for archiving programs and data -- and for managing the ability to carry those data forward for decades through technology changes, if that's the retention policy. (And I could see why that might be the retention policy for certain NIH programs and data. Cancer studies need to be long-running, for example. Same with research into chemicals that mimic hormones, which are very subtle and gradual but extremely serious, to pick another example.) If the business problem is "to save money," bear in mind that programs that don't run consume zero CPU and data stored on tape consumes (a part of) a tape. That's it. Mainframes are exceptionally talented at (centralized cloud) archiving, because that's what businesses (and governments) need to do quite often, and those are the systems they buy to do it. I'm hard pressed to think of another option that could be less expensive in the real world. If somebody is charging someone else within the same federal government a price that bears no relation to that reality, then that's the business problem to solve -- certainly for the sake of this taxpayer and millions of others. Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: MQ alternatives
To oversimplify only slightly, MQ is a transport and Web services is (are) a protocol. It's quite OK, even common, to run Web services over a JMS/MQ transport. If you say you want to use Web services instead of MQ, it's a bit like saying you want to use voicemail instead of a cellular telephone network. "Instead" isn't exactly the right word to connect those two concepts. You could say something like "We want to use Web services with a transport other than JMS or MQ" or "We want to use Web services with an HTTPS transport." That might be fine or might not. If the vendor application supports that, if it works, if it meets the non-functional requirements (reliability, performance, maintainability, recoverability, etc.), and if the business case is the strongest, then that's the approach I'd pick. If not, then not. Does the vendor support Web services for integrating their application? With what transport(s)? So far we only know about three available choices: MQ, JMS, and Microsoft Message Queuing. Are CICS-based application(s) the other party(ies) to the interaction(s) with this vendor application? Or some other type of application on the mainframe? ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: MQ alternatives
That (software licensing "aware" configurations) is (are) not at all unique to mainframes. If anything, such configurations are easier to handle with mainframes if you choose them. My airline ticket for this coming holiday season is much more contorted, but by gosh it's cost-optimized. :-) -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: MQ alternatives
Based on the information before us, I'd vote for MQ for z/OS. The vendor just might know something here. Keep in mind that there are never any cost-free options which involve change. And often inertia is costly, too. Simple is good, and the most direct (and efficient) JMS connection to z/OS is quite simply via MQ for z/OS. To expand on the MQ sub-capacity licensing point, what many shops do is create (or use) a small(er) LPAR for MQ, then place one or a couple CICS TORs in that LPAR (if we're talking about CICS here). Then set a softcap for that MQ LPAR. If you have variable licensing, which you should in this case, you'll never see an MQ charge exceeding your softcap. The CICS AORs can be in other LPARs. That works beautifully. If you want to get slightly more sophisticated and more highly available, you can configure an MQ shared queue in a coupling facility. That works even more beautifully. IBM WebSphere MQ is available for many platforms, including Microsoft Windows. IBM WMQ is not at all the same thing as Microsoft Message Queuing. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: MQ alternatives
WebSphere MQ is also a (most excellent) Java Message Service provider for z/OS, which is probably why the vendor recommended it. WebSphere Application Server for z/OS also provides JMS support, but then you'd have to figure out how to interface WAS to whatever else you want (i.e. your mainframe applications). One popular way would be via WebSphere MQ. :-) Conceivably you could cobble something JMS together and run it on Java on z/OS, but then you'd be responsible for the stream of costs associated with creating, maintaining, and managing it, plus you'd have to figure out how to connect it. (You could write your own operating system, too, if you really want.) Considering that you're asking about a vendor application that you're buying instead of building, you've probably already ruled out building. Microsoft Message Queuing runs only on Windows (last I checked), so if you want to connect Windows systems to this vendor application, that's an option. You can't run it on z/OS (or on several other operating systems), so you'd need something else to bridge between Microsoft and any other platform (including z/OS), and that bridge would have to be a Windows system. And then you'd need to buy, maintain, and manage that, plus figure out how to connect it. Other bridge approaches are possible, with the same issue. Note that WebSphere MQ for z/OS is sub-capacity licensed. Maybe the vendor is correct. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: z/OSMF - Download Link
Look for IBM program number 5655-S28. If you want to get a quick start while you're waiting for the download from Shopz, take a look at the Program Directory document. The IBM publication number is GI11-2886. You can find IBM publications here: http://www.ibm.com/e-business/linkweb/publications/servlet/pbi.wss Just select the latest revision number (currently -02), and you can view the document online. Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Check out Apple says Steve Jobs has died - The Washington Post
FWIW, I posted my thoughts on Steve Jobs's passing here: http://mainframe.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/in-memoriam-steve-jobs.html Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: ZDNET actually says something nice about IBM LINUX
Mainframe economics continue to improve, and it's important to take advantage of that if you can, when you can. With respect to the z10 BC and its IFLs, let's consider a back-of-the-envelope exercise for WebSphere Application Server workloads. I'm going to use IBM's LSPR PCI metric as a proxy for relative performance. (It's a pretty good one.) If you have three IFLs (only), that's the rough equivalent of a Z03 capacity setting, which has a PCI of 1777. If WebSphere Application Server is configured in such a way to be capable of running on all three IFLs, you would need to license 360 Processor Value Units (PVUs) worth of WebSphere (120 PVUs per z10 IFL). Thus you get about 4.94 PCIs per PVU -- that's a metric of software license efficiency, similar to kilometers per gallon. Now, let's re-run this calculation for a z114. Three IFLs on that machine would be roughly equivalent to a PCI of 2026. Also, z114 IFLs require only 100 PVUs each. So, taking 2026 and dividing by 300, you get about 6.75. That's an almost 37% improvement in performance per dollar of software licensing! That's huge. That doesn't count the performance improvements made in newer software releases, which are also huge. Even when you keep the version levels the same, if you can get to the latest JVM (in WAS 8) you'll find some exploitation of instructions found only in z196/z114. So I think it's fair to say that 37% improvement is more like a floor and less like a ceiling in this example. And this is just looking at the IBM software licensing, which is just a piece of the financial picture -- and probably not the most significant piece here. But it is an interesting piece. Also, in general, data centers aren't getting less full nor is expanding them (or building new ones) getting any cheaper. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: ZDNET actually says something nice about IBM LINUX
I have to respond to one point Roger Bowler made (again). Roger, it's impossible to configure a z114 at capacity setting A00 without either one IFL or one ICF -- and you probably know better. IBM's starting mainframe configuration is either a single IFL model or a capacity setting A01 model. Yes, it's one of those two (not the ICF-only model). No, IBM didn't say which of those two configurations starts at under $75,000 (U.S. pricing), but I assure you it's one of those two. (Hint: Joe Clabby narrows it down.) Just as IBM also didn't say which z890 configuration started at under $100,000 when that model was announced, but there were only the same two starting configurations then, too. Your repeating your false assertion (a $75K mainframe without customer-usable CPU capacity) in multiple forums doesn't make your assertion any more correct. (LinkedIn, too? Seriously?) Your assertion is just flat out false and disparaging. As I mentioned elsewhere, the only people upset that IBM has reduced starting prices for its z114 mainframes by 25% (fact!) are IBM's competitors. Everyone else is thrilled. And the only person who doubts this earth is round is you. If you've got hard evidence that IBM doesn't know its own pricing, put up. If you don't, it's long past time you ceased. (Sorry for that digression, folks.) -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CPU utilization/engine
How about simply allowing the customer/client installing the program to configure a target URL to a Web page that provides that information (and more)? One option is the z/OS Management Facility, which is available at no additional charge to every z/OS licensee. The z/OS MF's performance section can provide that information. (There are also REST APIs to perform tasks programmatically.) More information here: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zosmf/vxrx/index.jsp Or, in the alternative, the installer could choose to configure a URL pointing to a Tivoli Web page (e.g. Tivoli Business Service Manager), OMEGAMON, or your other favorite Web page. In other words, why put the burden on the application developer to reinvent something (poorly) that already exists (much better) in some fashion in 99.9+ percent of mainframe installations? Every non-trivial application has certain prerequisites, regardless of platform. So I see no distinction there. It'd be nice, on every platform, to include some sort of advisory message for the user. Something like, "Caution: While this information is available to you, correct interpretation of this information requires expertise. Please consult with your system administrators for assistance in interpreting this information." -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: 1TB EAV Support
If you'd like to attach consumer-grade laptop hard disks to z/OS, go for it! There's a prolific poster to IBM-MAIN who has one idea how to do that. This company (no affiliation) has a couple other inexpensive ways: http://www.mainstorconcept.de/zdasd.html?&L=1 http://www.mainstorconcept.de/mfstor.html?&L=1 [A tape drive is no longer a requirement to start and run z/OS -- thank you, IBM! -- although there are many occasions when it makes sense to have tape drives and libraries, perhaps lots of them. "It depends."] Now, hard disk cheapness with your mainframe may or may not be a good idea. Your mileage may vary. Mainframes and z/OS are quite obviously designed and optimized for enterprise-grade computing, in the fullest definition of the term. When IBM has dabbled in storage products with somewhat fewer functions and less expandability (with correspondingly lower prices -- but without compromising quality), unfortunately, typically, too few of you have been buying those products. Moreover, the mainframe storage market is extremely competitive and has been for decades. This topic comes up from time to time and, frankly, I don't get it. "But I can buy a 1TB hard disk for my PC for $XX." Yes, you can. And you can even attach it, and many more like it, to your mainframe if you wish. (See above.) You can also install that hard disk in your missile's guidance system, in your space probe's scientific instruments, in your nuclear power plant's valve operating computer, and in your medical diagnostic equipment. You probably could, technically anyway. Should you? The fact is, these things really are different in many ways, starting with the misleading comparison between a spindle and a storage frame. They have different qualities: performance, environmentals, error rates, testing standards, control systems, caches, administrative functions, disaster recovery capabilities, storage management features, etc., etc. I know it's shocking, but it actually costs vendors a bit to provide those differentiated qualities and capabilities and to do the R&D to invent them. And if mainframes didn't have these qualities and capabilities, maybe they wouldn't be mainframes. But it's a free market, so if you aren't interested in those things, go for it! But thank goodness there are more (and higher quality/richer function) storage options in the world than consumer-grade PC hard disks. There are also endless arguments about whether a PC or a Macintosh is "better," and endless debates about pricing differentials. Let's stipulate that PCs are cheaper than Macs for sake of argument. That's interesting, even fascinating. Except there's one wee little problem: PCs don't (legally, reliably) run Mac OS X. Thus they're very different, and in other ways. Is running Mac OS X worth the price premium to you? It depends, but for increasing numbers of buyers around the world, yes, heck yes. As a reminder, whether or not I remind, I speak only for myself, especially when I'm controversial. Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Development licences
You may be thinking of this: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/solutions/editions/appdev/index.html or this: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/rational/products/developer/systemz/unittest/ There are specific terms and conditions associated with those offerings, and you may or may not qualify, depending on what you're doing. That said, what development tools are you talking about? If IBM's, they're almost always sub-capacity eligible. Is there some particular (non-IBM?) software that you think ought to run on a "penalty box"? Splitting your current z/OS installation in two ordinarily results in a higher total z/OS license charge (and a higher license charge for any common MLC products). One reason that happens is that you get to take an additional trip on the MLC price curve. Another reason (sometimes bigger reason) is that you lose the virtualization benefits that accrue between dev/test and production, so your total licensed capacity could well increase. Of course, you've got the extra machine to buy, the additional maintenance, and the added space/power/cooling. For any server those expenses are not zero. In short, I'm skeptical of your idea as presented, but I'm keeping an open mind pending more information. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Mainframe traders
IBM offers Certified Pre-Owned System z equipment. IBM does business around the world. For example, here's the direct Web link to the English (U.K.) site for Europe: http://www.ibm.com/financing/uk/gars Click on the "Have a rep call me" link. As another example, in the United States there's an easy-to-remember telephone hotline: 1-866-IBM-USED. Or visit here: http://www.ibm.com/products/specialoffers/us/en/zseries_servers.html and click on the "IBM Certified..." link. If you are a current or potential IBM partner (software developer, etc.), visit here for more information on obtaining IBM Certified Pre-Owned equipment: https://www.ibm.com/financing/partner/used/overview ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: zOS 32-bit ? 64-bit ?
z/OS 1.5 (not 1.4) was the last release that could also run in ESA (31-bit) mode. If it's z/OS 1.6 or higher, you know for sure you're running in z/Architecture (64-bit) mode. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Reminder to Place Any Orders for z/OS 1.12
Please note that October 11, 2011, is the recommended last date to order z/OS 1.12 via ServerPac or CBPDO. I recommend using Shopz electronic delivery: https://www.ibm.com/software/shopzseries After October 25, z/OS 1.12 will only be available via SystemPac. Why not set an annual recurring reminder in your calendar(s) for early September? Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Send SMS from z/OS
If you want/need to bypass the e-mail to SMS path, instead using something more direct -- and can arrange a more direct connection with your wireless carrier -- then you could send a text message using SMPP (Short Message Peer to Peer protocol). If you search on SMPP there are several places where you can get source code, typically for Java. Here are a couple examples: http://opensmpp.logica.com http://smppapi.sourceforge.net Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CSP
Clark Morris writes: >The CSP code was inefficient, caused excessive COBOL compile times and >required the compile option NOOPTIMIZE in general. OK. Those might be some possible reasons for writing COBOL in the 1980s. Obviously those reasons were considered and rejected. COBOL was not a secret, and CSP requires the COBOL compiler anyway. Bridge, crossed. >If the generated COBOL or JAVA code is still as inefficient, I would >recommend going to another product and NOT upgrading from CSP to EGL. I think that's bad advice. First of all, that's a big "if," isn't it? Second, what alternative do you recommend, and why would it be a better *business case* overall? EGL preserves one's investment in CSP code while extending its functionality and reach with 20+ years of improvements. (Including, quite possibly, performance improvements.) Are you suggesting that the original poster dump all their CSP code (which is obviously delivering business value) and *rewrite* it in COBOL? What makes you think that idea would have merit today? Have the labor costs changed in such a way to make that idea more financially viable? Honestly, I'm tired of programming language fights. They're pointless. There are many programming languages in the world, and most of them are absolutely wonderful tools. Including COBOL. They're different, and they're different usually for good reasons (or at least well-intentioned ones). Some require more CPU than others. So what? That's but one progressively less important variable to consider among many within a sensible overall business case, not a religion. "Rewrite all my code in another language" is typically the least attractive business case. By the way, exactly the same argument was made and nearly universally rejected in *favor* of COBOL not all that long ago. COBOL isn't the most CPU-efficient way to instruct a computer to perform tasks. Does that matter? I don't speak for IBM. ------------ Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CSP
Clark Morris asks: >Does EGL generate any better code than the awful spaghetti >GO TO laden COBOL code of CSP? "Do not look directly into the sun." :-) Kind of missing the point. Generated code isn't supposed to be pretty, maintained, or even looked at. If you want to write "beautiful" COBOL, write beautiful COBOL! (Are you volunteering aesthetic duties for the original poster? :-)) For that matter, write beautiful Assembler or machine code if you don't like what your compiler generates. If you want to write EGL, write EGL. They're different programming languages, that's all. Vive la différence. The original poster already has CSP because, for whatever reason(s), past/present/future, at least one group of developers (users?) didn't want to write COBOL, PL/I, FORTRAN, Assembler, Java, Perl, PHP, REXX, or RPG code (to pick some examples). And presumably they've got a large (and perhaps growing) portfolio of CSP code. Only EGL protects that investment. Think of it as CSP Version 12 if you like. (Version 4 was the last version of CSP.) There are some differences between Version 4 and Version 12 -- ahem, CSP and EGL. One difference: CSP generates intermediate COBOL (only) on your mainframe while EGL generates your choice of COBOL or Java (or both) on your PC or Mac with Rational Developer for System z, Rational EGL Community Edition (Java only), etc. Consequently there is no generator license or generator processing required on your mainframe -- just the EGL runtime libraries (for COBOL) plus COBOL compiler (per normal), and/or the Java runtime environment. In CSP terms, if you're using the COBOL runtime with EGL you would only need the "AE" kit (plus an LPAR somewhere with the COBOL compiler), not the "AD" kit. Another difference is 20 years of enhancements and improvements: to the language's capabilities, the developer tools (graphical! Eclipse!), vastly increased user interface support (including "Web 2.0" browsers and mobile devices), support for more runtimes, and so on. You can use as much or as little of that new functionality as you wish. Yet another different: EGL is supported. Good stuff. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: CSP
Jim Link writes: >Now there is no direct migration to EGL, so the customer >is engaged with IBM to get some professional services help... That's true (not "direct"). But the supported migration path is still available: CSP to VisualAge Generator (as a brief "stopover"), then to Enterprise Generation Language (EGL). IBM can assist with that migration if you like/need, and there's some very good migration documentation available. The migration preserves code investment, plus you get to do all the cool/new stuff. It's a migration worth doing (functionally and financially), not to mention that Cross System Product (CSP) is out of support. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Dashboard type software for monitoring z/OS
David Crayford asks:
>Are there any monitoring tools that can show the complete transaction
>life history through, for example, a zLinux WAS server into z/OS
>CICS/DB2/IMS etc.
>There seems to be a boundary where the two worlds are quite separate as
>far as instrumentation data. I attended to a CIM session at SHARE and it
>appears to be a good framework but light on substance.
Tivoli Composite Application Manager (ITCAM) is a very good suggestion --
thanks, Lim. TBSM is another. Or both. "It depends," that's why both exist.
But they both very much cross platform and middleware "silos."
I guess writing software ("build") is nearly always an option. To
editorialize, it usually isn't a very good option when compared to choosing
from a highly developed commercial software market with several high
function product alternatives, which this market segment is. The vendors
you might predict that would have tools in this area do, and some other
vendors might.
As a polite reminder, I don't speak for IBM.
------------
Timothy Sipples
Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Dashboard type software for monitoring z/OS
Elardus Engelbrecht writes: >It is meant to be used by management and call centre staff. and then writes this: >Are these STC, JES2, TCP/IP, etc. hearts beating and running? Bear in mind "management" and "call centre staff" typically don't know what JES2 is. (A few do, but most don't.) So that part of your question is probably going to send some people off into "interesting" directions, because there are so many options for monitoring particular subsystems, or collections of subsystems. I'm guessing the audience for the dashboards is the most important part of your question. Thus I would take a very close look at Tivoli Business Service Manager (TBSM): http://www.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/bus-service-mgr-zos/ TBSM (as the name suggests) is really useful for delivering a complete business service-level view of operations, exactly what managers and call centre staff are looking for. (Sure, you can drill down into detail if you want.) TBSM can provide an end-to-end view, spanning platforms. It's real-time. Great stuff. -------- Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: IBM announces up to 5% increase in monthly Entry WLC
Yes, IBM has announced that EWLC for many IBM software products is increasing by 5%, effective January 1, 2012, unless you have an existing agreement with IBM to the contrary. EWLC is available only for standalone z800, z890, z9 BC, and z10 BC machines. Let's just stipulate that nobody likes price increases. Some observations, however: 1. IBM also reduced prices substantially (compared even to current pricing) on the z114 (and z196) for everybody moving to that model. AEWLC replaces EWLC for standalone z114 machines and offers the biggest price reductions. Smaller and medium-sized mainframe customers disproportionately run standalone z114 machines, meaning that these customers will typically see the biggest percentage reductions. Note that "standalone" does not mean "without Sysplex." You can certainly configure ICFs and Sysplex on a single z114. And "standalone" certainly does not mean "without DR." You can contract with any shared DR provider you wish and/or keep a Capacity Backup (CBU) machine at your alternate site. 2. IBM reduced hardware prices with the z114. => Conclusion: Yes, it's a good idea to upgrade to a z114. (Not a surprise.) 3. Has anybody checked non-mainframe/non-IBM software prices lately? Easy summary: they are soaring. I have some thoughts on software pricing trends posted to The Mainframe Blog if anybody is interested. See here: http://mainframe.typepad.com 4. The U.S. Consumer Price Index is up 3.6% just in the past 12 months (as I write this). If a price increases by 5% once or twice in a long while, the real price is decreasing because of inflation. => Conclusion: If you're not looking at real, relative prices (and better yet costs), you're not paying attention. :-) As a reminder, I don't speak for IBM. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: NYTimes: IBM, helped by new mainframe sales, exceeds analysts' expectations
There's some coverage on The Mainframe Blog of IBM's exceptional mainframe performance: http://mainframe.typepad.com While I don't speak for IBM, I would like to thank everyone for choosing IBM and System z. Obviously these results are not possible without your support. Thanks to your strong demand, IBM can keep delivering even more wonderful System z products with continuing value improvements. And (also with your support) the 68 new mainframe customers(*) in the past 12 months represent just the beginning. Thank you. (*) Yes, many are new z/OS customers. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Language Environment and z196
There are at least a couple things to watch out for when recovering to a substantially older model machine. DB2 10 (z990/z890 and higher) and z/VM 6.1 (z10 and higher) come to mind. Periodic, realistic DR rehearsals are wise. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: performance differences between java versions
Why are you (re)loading Java?
Hypothetically, if you received a new version of CICS that took 2 seconds
longer to load but provided every application a 20% CPU reduction during
execution, would you take that trade? I certainly would.
Third digit point releases in Java have delivered substantial performance
improvements, never mind whole new versions.
To the comment about languages ("why Java?"), is English better than
Mandarin? No -- they're two different languages, each with their own
attributes and each with enormous (and growing) installed bases, portfolios
of knowledge, and invested value. Why not read/write/speak (support) both?
They're both great. I really, really don't understand objections to
particular programming languages. That'd be like somebody saying everything
must be written in COBOL and nothing must be written in FORTRAN. Well, why?
That's a quasi-religious or political viewpoint, not a technical or
business value one.
Honestly, I don't get it. Maybe I should have been around when people were
(stupidly?) warring over Assembler versus COBOL versus PL/I. (The correct
answer/outcome: they're all fine.)
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
Resident Enterprise Architect
Value Creation & Complex Deals Team
IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Vector processors on the 3090
The 1984 withdrawal announcement for the IBM 3838 Array Processor is still available at IBM's announcements Web site. The announcement number is 184-060. I found a list of several other high-level software products that apparently supported the VFs, at least some of which could be used by high level languages: 1. MSC/NASTRAN from MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation and NASA Information on MSC/NASTRAN is still available here: http://www.mscsoftware.com 2. CAEDS which was developed by Structural Dynamics Research Corporation then sold by IBM See IBM announcement 292-635, for example. 3. ANSYS from Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. Company is now known as ANSYS, Inc. (http://www.ansys.com) 4. FIDAP developed by Fluid Dynamics International, distributed/serviced by Boeing Here's some historical information: http://web.utk.edu/~mnewman/ibmguide18.html#Header_446 5. EASY5 from Boeing http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/easy5/ http://www.mscsoftware.com/Products/CAE-Tools/Easy5.aspx 6. IMSL Library from IMSL, Inc. http://www.roguewave.com/products/imsl-numerical-libraries.aspx IBM also offered Vector Facility Simulator software which provided instruction-level compatibility on machines that didn't have actual VF hardware. Of course, it was slower. I can't find too much information about the simulator, but in principle it would permit running VF software on System z machines. If possible, it would be very interesting to benchmark today's machines running the simulator against actual VF hardware. :-) - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Vector processors on the 3090
Rick Fochtman wrote: >Unless you're a serious masochist, I suggest you drop that line >of inquiry. None of the HLL's support the Vector Processor so you're >stuck using Assembler Language if you want to use it. That's not really true. For example, there was the IBM Engineering and Scientific Subroutine Library (ESSL) Vector and Scalar/370 software. That software provided a library of mathematical functions you could call from FORTRAN, C, PL/I, APL2, or Assembler programs on MVS or VM. It was also supported for the languages that ran on AIX/ESA. Program number was 5688-226, and it was withdrawn from marketing in 2001. VS FORTRAN Version 2 (not sure which release) also had some automatic vector support of its own. The Vector Facility for 3090s was announced on October 1, 1985. Announcement letter 185-121 is still available on IBM's announcements Web site (http://www.ibm.com/common/ssi). At the time you could rent your first Vector Facility for a list price of $30,830 per month and any subsequent VFs for $19,170 per month. The purchases prices were $370,000 and $230,000, respectively. All prices are in 1985 dollars, of course. Before that there was the IBM 3838 Array Processor which ran (eventually) the Vector Processing Subsystem (VPSS)/XA. I think the 3838 debuted in 1976 or 1977. Your VPSS stuff could run on the VFs using (what else) VPSS/VF. VPSS/XA was IBM Program Number 5665-301. VPS/XA also supported FORTRAN, at least. And before *that* there was the IBM 2938 Array Processor which you attached to your System/360. By the way, you could think of today's zEnterprise BladeCenter Extension (zBX) as a mainframe vector processor...plus lots of other capabilities. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HOWTO invoke Web Services from a batch program?
The original poster pointed out that they are *already* using CICS Web Services. Now they want to access Web Services from batch (and/or vice versa). So the question now is whether it makes sense to buy, develop, test, secure, implement, operate, manage, support, and maintain a *second*, entirely separate Web Services capability versus just accessing the excellent one they've got in production. It's trivially easy to access CICS from batch, requiring no special skills. I seriously doubt whether any other option is going to make business sense, absent a "damn good reason" -- or preferably several such reasons. By the way, CICS TS V4.2 uses Apache Axis2. That's a very good thing, because it's very industry standard and moves with the industry. And that's the point of Web Services, to provide interoperability across application services. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: HOWTO invoke Web Services from a batch program?
I would recommend you leverage what you already have that's working (i.e. CICS Web Services) and just invoke CICS from your PL/I batch programs, which is trivially easy. It's hard for me to imagine how any other option would be as simple, as straightforward, and as cost-effective. You already paid for CICS, presumably you are already publishing and distributing WSDLs to Web Services consumers, etc. IBM keeps enhancing CICS, so you get those enhancements for free simply by tracking new CICS releases per normal. The tooling is standard, all the operations are common (security, monitoring, scheduling, etc.), it's bi-directional, it's transport-agnostic (HTTP, HTTPS, MQ), it performs well (and tracks all performance improvements in CICS), there's specialty engine exploitation, the CICS Service Flow Feature can orchestrate microflows around your Web Services, etc., etc. Why reinvent? Why would CICS be offline, ever? If that's the only problem, fix that. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Looking for solution Mainframe system management report tool
Some or all of these IBM products would in all likelihood satisfy the requirements: Tivoli Decision Support for z/OS http://www.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/tds-zos/ Tivoli Usage and Accounting Manager http://www.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/usage-accounting/ zSecure Audit and/or zSecure Alert http://www.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/zsecure/ - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: mainframe color-blindness software: a query
What do you mean by mainframe-generated display? I assume you do not mean the hardware management console or the service elements. Do you mean a traditional 3270 user interface as a PC or Mac would generate it using particular terminal emulation software packages with default color settings? Via a Web browser? - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: z/OS 1.4 Compatibility feature for z890.
Carlos, You can find the exploitation feature here: http://www.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/downloads/#zos14_z990_exploitation As mentioned, z/OS 1.4 is very much out of support, so you'll want to get current as quickly as possible. That's very good advice for many reasons -- I concur. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: An upbeat story
This discussion reminds me of a true IBM story. I was part of a small group that wanted to recruit a couple interns through a partnership we have with a particular university. I was responsible for writing the internship listing, and I asked the other group members for their input. One of them insisted that we include a requirement that applicants must major in computer science or engineering. I remarked, "Well, I didn't, and is that really important?" The other group member replied, "We aren't interested in interviewing French history majors, are we?" I didn't immediately reply to that question, but I had a hunch. I asked a first line IBM technical manager in the group what her major was in college. "French history," she replied. We dropped any mention of majors from the listing. As it turned out, one of the interns we hired majored in pre-med biochemistry, and that intern became a full time IBM mainframe software technical specialist. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: WLC and 4HRA across CEC's
I agree with Al: it's per machine. After all the per machine calculations are made, there's a final step before billing: adding up the per machine peak 4HRAs for any qualifying Sysplexes. There are some relatively unsurprising conclusions you can draw if you want to maximize efficiency: 1. Having a respectably small number of machines for the size of your particular workloads is generally wise. Parsimony is good. These are mainframes, and that's how they're designed. Said another way, LPARs work. Use them. 2. Having reasonably even load across your Sysplex is wise. Said another way, real Sysplexes with real workload sharing get the most Sysplex benefit. Technically qualifying Sysplexes may only get some benefit. Said yet another way, take advantage of Sysplex. Writing only for myself. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: COBOL to SQL server
There are just a few ways to connect to Microsoft SQL Server. The most common is a protocol called ODBC. There are JDBC to ODBC "bridges" available, and that would be one option. But that might be a bit Rube Goldbergesque for some. There are some vendors of ODBC drivers for z/OS. One of them is my employer. For example, WebSphere Message Broker for z/OS includes an ODBC driver, and that would be a very elegant and extensible approach which would reduce or eliminate programming burden in the short and long term. More information here: http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/wbimessagebroker Another possibility is to install TXSeries for Windows on the SQL Server machine (or at least on a machine in close proximity). TXSeries for Windows is capable of issuing an EXEC SQL call into SQL Server. You could use EXEC CICS LINK on the CICS Transaction Server side for the CICS to TXSeries interoperations, so that's very straightforward, too. The assumption of course is that you have CICS Transaction Server for z/OS. I think Attunity has a client ODBC driver for z/OS (for CICS specifically), although I don't know much about its status. I found a brief mention here: http://www.attunity.com/forums/cics-adapters/odbc-client-interface-under-cics-os-240.html There are some non-ODBC options, too, but I'll stop there for now. Hope that helps! - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: "Under z/OS Unix"
>>Is TCP/IP for z/OS a separately priced item? >Yes. Actually, no. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: PSF and non AFP printer
Since your IBM 6262 printer is now TCP/IP-attached, have you tried sending it a small test job using z/OS's LPR command? - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Editing Unicode Files in z/OS
Tony asks: >Are you asking what people are currently using, or what they >might like to see? The former, for the most part. But the latter is also interesting. Speaking of which, has anyone tried to compile the "mined" editor for z/OS UNIX System Services? That particular editor claims to be a stand-out for Unicode support on Linux/UNIX. Rob Schramm writes: >I had been using Putty connecting via openssh, tagging the file, >setting the _BPXK_AUTOCVT=ON and editing with vi for quick edits. Yes, that's one method that seems to work well. There's some more information here: http://dovetail.com/docs/misc/editascii.html - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Using EMC Clariion SCSI disk with Linux
By sheer coincidence there's an IBM webcast next week demonstrating how to configure and add ECKD and FCP volumes to Linux on System z. Here's the link for more information on the webcast: http://www.vm.ibm.com/education/lvc/ - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: ZIP and FTP
Just to offer one more data point on the hazards of placing PCs anywhere "in the loop" if avoidable, which in this case it most definitely is, consider this case from South Korea: http://mainframe.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/maybe-its-time-for-more-mainframe-solutions.html - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Editing Unicode Files in z/OS?
This question isn't any sort of official IBM survey or anything like that -- just a question arising out of personal curiosity. I'm wondering what IBM-MAINers like to use for editing Unicode (UTF-8, UTF-16, and/or UTF-32) "files" on z/OS. There are of course graphical options (notably Rational Developer for System z) which work great, but for this question I'm more focused on text editors that meet the following attributes: 1. Accessible via TN3270E (i.e. "3270 editors") and/or Telnet (to z/OS UNIX System Services) -- i.e. "old school" terminal mode editors; 2. Support editing UTF-8, UTF-16, and/or UTF-32; 3. Support sequential (QSAM), VSAM, PDS/PDSE, HFS/zFS, DB2, and/or IMS data (i.e. "whatever you can imagine"). If you'd like to reply to me offline, that's perfectly fine -- either way. Thanks in advance. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: ZIP and FTP
And to expand in another direction here, file transfer (generically) is, in my humble opinion, vastly over-used as a means to lash two systems together. One gating question has to be asked: is the business process that this (new) file transfer will support "real time" or "batch" in nature? If the former, you probably shouldn't be using file transfers. You should probably be using some sort of "live" record-at-a-time access, which in modern vernacular and language might be called a "service interface." A file transfer means: 1. The data are frozen at a moment in time. Any subsequent updates to the system of record won't be reflected. Then you have to figure out how to synchronize updates, if necessary. 2. You typically lose the "meta data" associated with the data, which includes the security policies and governance. I can't even begin to count the number of times companies and governments have gotten into trouble because they "lost" a file containing all their employee records, all their customer records, or whatever. Downloading a bunch of personally identifiable information to a PC to work around a firewall rule is just begging for a security breach! Omit needless file transfers! - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: ZIP and FTP
Yet another option is to establish an IPSec connection between machines and then use NFS sharing across that link. That would be the most secure option (among those mentioned) and eliminate the security risks associated with using PCs in the loop. The NFS can be bidirectional, with both z/OSes running both NFS client and server. Both IPSec and NFS are supported in all the z/OS releases mentioned. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: DB2 V9 Vs V10
There are performance improvements in DB2 10 which many people appreciate, so that's another great reason to get up to 10. I don't speak for the company, but I think IBM's general advice is that if you're underway with a V9 upgrade, get it done and keep going. If you haven't even started planning your upgrade from V8, then (absent a specific and "darn good" exception), go straight to V10, and start now. DB2 10 became generally available in October, 2010 (after a big beta program), so it's already 6 months past GA as I write this. If you ordered DB2 10 today, you'd have a 12 month Single Version Charge period, meaning that DB2 10 would be 18 months post-GA by the time you must flip the final switch in order to maintain SVC. That's a lot of time post-GA. Moreover, DB2 8 reaches end of service on April 30, 2012, so now really is the time to get moving forward if you haven't already. Yet another reason to move straight to V10 if you can: you may avoid an extra version migration. DB2 skip-version migration with coexistence support is quite unusual. The last time that happened was DB2 V5 to V7 many years ago. So if you've got the chance to do a skip-version migration, grab it. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: New job for mainframes: Cloud platform
Computer networks (including the Internet) are inherently big endian. Little endian CPUs, such as Intel/AMD X86 and X86-64, have to flip the bit order when engaging in network communications. That bit flipping obviously works (and is usually performed by the network driver), but it's not totally free in terms of instructions. ARM and Power CPUs are capable of running in either big endian or little endian mode. When ARM CPUs are deployed primarily for networking-related missions (such as embedded controllers for routers), especially in power-sensitive roles, there's some appeal to running in big endian mode. Hence, Linux (and some other operating systems) are available for ARM's big endian mode. That's the "armeb" flavor of Linux, specifically. Linux for Power always runs in big endian mode. Itanium is also bi-endian and can run in either mode. VMS, for example, runs on Itanium in little endian mode. I was merely pointing out that there are lots of big endian CPUs that are selling very well and that are running Linux in big endian mode, including System z, Power, and ARM. There's no danger that Linux will somehow forget big endian bit order any more than X86 CPUs will forget how to use the Internet. To pick another example, Solaris is available in both little endian (X86-64) and big endian (SPARC) flavors. Not surprisingly, Java is almost entirely endian-agnostic, but to the extent bit order matters it's big endian. I've known HP in its sales pitches to make a lot of fuss about endianness as reason why it would be oh-so-difficult for an HP-UX customer to move to Linux on X86, or for a Linux X86 customer to move to (or add) Linux on System z, depending on their sales situation. Then hundreds/thousands of HP customers moved without endianness difficulty, and many more will follow. The IT community figured out how to flip bit order a long time ago. Before System/360, even. That's not to say endianness isn't a problem...for HP. If they want to move HP-UX to a little endian CPU, they'll have a lot of investment to do (as Sun did for Solaris X86). For non-OS kernel/non-compiler programmers, which is the vast majority of us, it's not a real-world problem. In fact, endianness is one of the least interesting issues when porting from one CPU to another. For my thoughts on the HP Itanium meltdown, see The Mainframe Blog: http://mainframe.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/hp-itaniums-ignominious-demise.html - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: New job for mainframes: Cloud platform
Linux on Power is also big-endian. Linux on ARM is available either way
("arm" or "armeb"). Big-endian ARM is preferred for many
performance-sensitive embedded applications because it's in network byte
order.
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
Resident Enterprise Architect
Value Creation & Complex Deals Team
IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Cheryl's List #148
There's also a triple technology dividend between a z800 and a z10 BC. And more granular capacity settings. And zIIPs and zAAPs. And much beefier IFLs for additional consolidation potential. I'm not sure what capacity you have for your z800, but let me guess it's a 2066-0B1 which is approximately 99 MIPS and exactly 20 MSUs (full capacity). Other examples are similar. Here are some z10 BC configurations that would be analogous to a 2066-0B1 (ignoring potential specialty engine benefits): 2098-J01: ~96 MIPS/12 MSUs 2098-E02: ~96 MIPS/12 MSUs 2098-K01: ~108 MIPS/14 MSUs 2098-F02: ~107 MIPS/14 MSUs Let's go with the average of 13 MSUs. Just moving to a z10 BC would yield a ~35% reduction in MSUs, which then yields a substantial reduction in IBM license charges. For example, if you're currently seeing a peak 4HRA of 19 MSUs on a z800, you'd probably see that change to 12 MSUs on a z10 BC. There's most likely a strong business case here for doing something different/smarter when putting the ingredients together. Whether your employer sees the business case reasonably accurately then acts on the business case is another question, unfortunately. :-( - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Cheryl's List #148
Responding to Linda, I think you'll want to compare business cases with your management. Case #1: Business as usual. Case #2: Minimize the cost of overnight operators as much as possible (through increased automation, alerting, etc.), and compare the cost of that skeleton crew (of one?) to the likely sub-capacity license savings. It seems odd to me that #1 would make financial sense, but odd is not impossible. And then Case #3: Case #2, plus reallocate some non-mainframe operators by shifting workload to the mainframe, starting with some workloads that can fill utilization "valleys." Mainframes are *extremely* operator-efficient -- so if there's a focus on controlling operations costs, go actually control operations costs. If you add workload to a mainframe, typically the operations staff doesn't even change. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Cheryl's List #148
A few follow-up comments: 1. It is possible (and common) to see different MSU values for z/OS and, for example, for DB2 in SCRT reports. That is, a particular LPAR could peak at 10 MSUs for z/OS and peak at 8 MSUs for DB2 (and 7 MSUs for CICS), or whatever. All the major IBM products (plus several others) cut their own SMF Type 89 records. Just like the machine, the size of the LPAR (z/OS peak) is only a ceiling, not a floor, for the other products. 2. One of the factors in determining how to configure LPARs (and how many to configure) is software licensing, and certainly that's common practice (and has been for years). IBM's zNALC and Solution Edition licensing requires separate LPARs, in fact. 3. Integrated Workload Pricing (IWP) gets even deeper into sub-LPAR sub-capacity licensing. 4. I'm also puzzled why sub-capacity licensing isn't even more popular. - - - - - Timothy Sipples Resident Enterprise Architect Value Creation & Complex Deals Team IBM Growth Markets (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: timothy.sipp...@us.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
