Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Ted MacNEIL wrote: Such outages are fully accepted by business. Wow! An understanding business! They are aware we can increase our availability. They are also aware of costs. Higher service level means higher costs. Rolls Royce is excellent car, while Toyota is acceptable good. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
>Such outages are fully accepted by business. Wow! An understanding business! >No unplanned IPLs/outages. Must be nice! We still have them! When in doubt. PANIC!! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Timothy Sipples wrote: Ed Gould writes: This a tangent issue but it really shows that PC weenies are finally coming to grips (or not) with power issues with the server farms. A few weeks ago in one of the trade mags there was an article (California?) where the power company actually told a place that they were at the limit for power usage and they would not let them add any more servers PERIOD. I regret not having saved the article now as it is extremely (albeit off on a different issue per se) interesting IMO. That'd be an interesting article to read. If you can recover the article reference, that'd be great. Even the Wall Street Journal has reported on this issue lately. They are real factors (electricity, floor space, cooling), although the impact will vary depending on your geography and circumstances. Those things aren't getting any cheaper, though. Gentlemen, I was talking about SINGLE box. You can have up to 2 timers connected to CPC. It shouldn't be compared to still growing bunch of PC-servers. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Ted MacNEIL wrote: *Fully* failing to recognize the needs of single-CPC sites which require uninterrupted operation and accurate time. How do you get uninterrupted operation on a single-CPC site? (*) Never IPL? Very seldom. 2-3 times a year. Usually, when CPC is changed to new one. Such outages are fully accepted by business. No unplanned IPLs/outages. Never have a sub-system failure? I can't remain any on production. We use quite stable software: z/OS, DB2, CICS. Without Parallel SYSPLEX? Yes. I'd like to have PS. Business want to have cost effectivness. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
>How do you get uninterrupted operation on a single-CPC site? >Never IPL? This is not related to single vs. multi CEC environments. You need IPLs every now and then in either case. >Never have a sub-system failure? >Without Parallel SYSPLEX? You can run a Parallel Sysplex on a single CEC. It probably isn't done too often but it can eliminate some of the single point of failure (of course not the hardware related ones). Peter Hunkeler CREDIT SUISSE -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Ed Gould writes: >This a tangent issue but it really shows that PC weenies are finally >coming to grips (or not) with power issues with the server farms. >A few weeks ago in one of the trade mags there was an article >(California?) where the power company actually told a place that they >were at the limit for power usage and they would not let them add any >more servers PERIOD. >I regret not having saved the article now as it is extremely (albeit >off on a different issue per se) interesting IMO. That'd be an interesting article to read. If you can recover the article reference, that'd be great. Even the Wall Street Journal has reported on this issue lately. They are real factors (electricity, floor space, cooling), although the impact will vary depending on your geography and circumstances. Those things aren't getting any cheaper, though. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Nov 15, 2006, at 1:21 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote: ---SNIP They were required for GDPS, so that's where you'd see a lot of them. I think you're onto something, though. My suspicion is that STP will be more popular since it's an integral feature rather than "yet another box." That idea runs counter to Radoslaw's basic point that more boxen is no big deal. But it's a very real phenomenon, at least psychologically. Timothy: This a tangent issue but it really shows that PC weenies are finally coming to grips (or not) with power issues with the server farms. A few weeks ago in one of the trade mags there was an article (California?) where the power company actually told a place that they were at the limit for power usage and they would not let them add any more servers PERIOD. I regret not having saved the article now as it is extremely (albeit off on a different issue per se) interesting IMO. Ed -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:08 AM, Hunkeler Peter (KIUK 3) wrote: SNIP- You don't mix up STP with (S)NTP, do you? Sigh... yes I did. I am sorry about the error. Ed The former is IBM's new System z timer protocol; the latter is a TCP/IP based timer protocol. (S)NTP can be used to synchronise clocks across the Internet but it can as well be use to synchronise some isolated machines which happen to have TCP/IP interconnections amongst themselves. Peter Hunkeler CREDIT SUISSE -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Radoslaw writes: >Less less floor space/electricity/air condition ? >Timothy, c'mon! That's typical sales rep mantra ! >Probably you've seen 9037-2. It is in PC desktop size. Agreed, for most shops these are minor issues for the 9037s, at least in isolation (although minor <> nonzero). I did say that everybody is different and that your mileage may vary. That list, which included other attributes, was an attempt to be reasonably thorough. I get dinged when I'm not, so maybe I can't win. :-) Ed Gould writes: >Just curious about the offering. IBM seems to think (if I understand >what is being offered correctly). That most mainframes are hooked up >to the internet. While this may be true for some companies, I suspect >it is not true for most. The sysplex timer (IMO) was a costly >"feature" IMO it really didn't offer a real payback. While it may >have been nice to have it really wasn't high on anyones list of got >to have this. I worked at a place that had one and IMO it was a box >that not vary many people had a clue what it was. They were required for GDPS, so that's where you'd see a lot of them. I think you're onto something, though. My suspicion is that STP will be more popular since it's an integral feature rather than "yet another box." That idea runs counter to Radoslaw's basic point that more boxen is no big deal. But it's a very real phenomenon, at least psychologically. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
In a recent note, Tony Harminc said: > Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:01:14 -0500 > > > > How do you get uninterrupted operation on a single-CPC site? > > Never IPL? > > Never have a sub-system failure? > > Without Parallel SYSPLEX? > > I assume he meant "uninterrupted by the need to fix the clock that has > drifted". > Correct. I can readily imagine a circumstance in which the MTBF of a single-CPC meets availability criteria but the need to shut down periodically to reset the clock is unacceptable. Am I to understand from this thread that the entire description of Clock Steering in the recent POp refers to a chargeable feature? Or that STP which is the software that exploits Clock Steering is chargeable? If the latter, there's an opportunity for independents. They might even be able to make it work for VM, VSE, and Linux. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Ted MacNEIL wrote: > >*Fully* failing to recognize the needs of single-CPC sites > >which require uninterrupted operation and accurate time. > > How do you get uninterrupted operation on a single-CPC site? > Never IPL? > Never have a sub-system failure? > Without Parallel SYSPLEX? I assume he meant "uninterrupted by the need to fix the clock that has drifted". Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On 13 Nov 2006 16:43:29 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) wrote: >Just curious about the offering. IBM seems to think (if I understand >what is being offered correctly). That most mainframes are hooked up >to the internet. While this may be true for some companies, I suspect >it is not true for most. The sysplex timer (IMO) was a costly >"feature" IMO it really didn't offer a real payback. While it may >have been nice to have it really wasn't high on anyones list of got >to have this. I worked at a place that had one and IMO it was a box >that not vary many people had a clue what it was. It's interesting how needs change. At one time, I was willing to pay good money for an accurate clock for my PC. Now I accept an inaccurate one that corrects itself daily. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
>*Fully* failing to recognize the needs of single-CPC sites which require >uninterrupted operation and accurate time. How do you get uninterrupted operation on a single-CPC site? Never IPL? Never have a sub-system failure? Without Parallel SYSPLEX? When in doubt. PANIC!! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Paul Gilmartin wrote: In a recent note, Roy Hewitt said: Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:24:19 + Ok, so the price might have been on the high side, and I *fully* understand the frustrations of single-CPC sites and external time syncronisation, but remember the primary function of the sysplex timer is to syncronise time *bewteen* CPCs. So yes, I would never expect it to be on the list of "got to haves" for single-CPC sites ... *Fully* failing to recognize the needs of single-CPC sites which require uninterrupted operation and accurate time. -- gil Paul, That's maybe a little unfair.. (or was it aimed at IBM??). I do recognise those needs, which is what I meant by "frustrations of single-CPC sites". I was just attempting to counter Ed's generalisation that it was just a "nice to have" and not "high on anyones list". There are lots of sites (both single and multi CPC) for which the Timer is essential. I find that the difference of opinion between the two type of sites is usually cost based. For the large multi-CPC sites, the cost is usually trivial compared to other HW and SW licensing costs. For these sites the benefit of enabling multiCPC sysplex and datasharing far outways the Timer cost. For the single CPC sites - I presume your's is one of those - it is often seen as an expensive option, and rightly so. And this I suppose comes down to IBM's view (back in the early 90's) that sysplex was the way to go. Its a pity that it's taken so long to release an alternative (STP) to the Timer, and even more so that it is chargable. As I said in my last post, it would be good if it were non-chargable for singleCPCs.. Regards Roy -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
- The sysplex timer (IMO) was a costly "feature" IMO it really didn't offer a real payback. While it may have been nice to have it really wasn't high on anyones list of got to have this. I worked at a place that had one and IMO it was a box that not vary many people had a clue what it was. --- Ed, if you ran a parallel sysplex across multiple footprints, you realized the value in one heap big hurry! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
In a recent note, Roy Hewitt said: > Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:24:19 + > > Ok, so the price might have been on the high side, and I *fully* > understand the frustrations of single-CPC sites and external time > syncronisation, but remember the primary function of the sysplex timer > is to syncronise time *bewteen* CPCs. So yes, I would never expect it > to be on the list of "got to haves" for single-CPC sites ... > *Fully* failing to recognize the needs of single-CPC sites which require uninterrupted operation and accurate time. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
> Just curious about the offering. IBM seems to think (if I understand > what is being offered correctly). That most mainframes are hooked up to > the internet. While this may be true for some companies, I suspect it is > not true for most. You don't mix up STP with (S)NTP, do you? The former is IBM's new System z timer protocol; the latter is a TCP/IP based timer protocol. (S)NTP can be used to synchronise clocks across the Internet but it can as well be use to synchronise some isolated machines which happen to have TCP/IP interconnections amongst themselves. Peter Hunkeler CREDIT SUISSE -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Ed I think your undestanding of the both the Sysplex Timer and STP is a little incorrect.. comments inserted.. Ed Gould wrote: Tim: Just curious about the offering. IBM seems to think (if I understand what is being offered correctly). That most mainframes are hooked up to the internet. While this may be true for some companies, I suspect it is not true for most. I'm not sure were you get this from, what has the STP got to do with being connected to the internet?. Nothing I've seen implies this. The sysplex timer (IMO) was a costly "feature" IMO it really didn't offer a real payback. While it may have been nice to have it really wasn't high on anyones list of got to have this. Ok, so the price might have been on the high side, and I *fully* understand the frustrations of single-CPC sites and external time syncronisation, but remember the primary function of the sysplex timer is to syncronise time *bewteen* CPCs. So yes, I would never expect it to be on the list of "got to haves" for single-CPC sites - they don't have another CPC to sync with. However, when you consider its prime purpose, and you run your plex across CPCs, then the timer is right near the top of "must haves". Its all about context and what the device was designed to do. Unfortunatlely, as the timer (and now STP) is the only way for ETS synconisation, in the context of small sites it can seem a rough deal. I worked at a place that had one and IMO it was a box that not vary many people had a clue what it was. On one hand you have an expensive (25K IIRC) piece of equipment that really didn't offer a hard return. Like I said above, enabling multi-CPC plexes is a pretty good return. It's just as essential as a coupling facility - do you think that CFs don't offer a hard return, just the cost of a single ICF is way more that a timer. On the other hand is a piece of software that if ordered requires a hook up to the Internet. Just how many companies are going to go for that kind of trade off? On one hand a secure environment and on the other hand the timer is costly yet reasonably secure. One final coment about the STP feature. Although we might not like it, I suppose that its to be expected that IBM charge for it - they dont give CF links away do they? However, it would probably be better if they had decided to enable the feature in 2 levels - Single CPC and multi-CPC. Single CPC would just facilitate ETS sync, and multi CPC being the full blown STP.. (and if they were feeling real generous, the SingleCPC mode would be included in the base price ;-) Regards Roy -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Alan Altmark wrote: On Monday, 11/13/2006 at 08:02 CST, "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The zSeries TOD clock is only sync'ed to the HMC (or SE) clock with a Power On Restart (or is it RESET?), not at IPL time or LPAR activation time. A POR affects all LPARs, obviously. My informant says otherwise: When you activate an LPAR it will resync its TOD to the CEC TOD. After that, any STP/ETR-induced changes to the CEC TOD are invisible to the partition unless it explicitly enables to be notified of TOD changes. z/OS will do that. z/VM won't. (And, right, IPL does not resync the TOD.) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott Are you sure this is accurate (or not misleading)? My impressions from empirical evidence on a z900 is that the CEC TOD is not the same as the HMC (or SE) clock; that it takes a POR to set the CEC TOD clock from the HMC or SE clock, while an activate sets the LPAR TOD based on the CEC TOD clock and both increment in sync. In other words, if you change the SE clock and want it to propagate, a POR was necessary to start the process. Can't speak for interactions with ETR as we have never had one. We are now on a z9, but have only been there for four months. The CEC TOD increment finally seems to have accuracy comparable to a $30 watch, and we haven't had to correct its TOD clock yet. -- Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, AR[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Tim:
Just curious about the offering. IBM seems to think (if I understand
what is being offered correctly). That most mainframes are hooked up
to the internet. While this may be true for some companies, I suspect
it is not true for most. The sysplex timer (IMO) was a costly
"feature" IMO it really didn't offer a real payback. While it may
have been nice to have it really wasn't high on anyones list of got
to have this. I worked at a place that had one and IMO it was a box
that not vary many people had a clue what it was.
On one hand you have an expensive (25K IIRC) piece of equipment that
really didn't offer a hard return . On the other hand is a piece of
software that if ordered requires a hook up to the Internet. Just how
many companies are going to go for that kind of trade off? On one
hand a secure environment and on the other hand the timer is costly
yet reasonably secure.
Ed
On Nov 13, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
Shane writes:
Yep, I'd reckon it'd be a pretty hard sell for those (particularly
small) shops that shelled out for redundant timers as recommended by
IBM.
The replacement would need to be real cheap.
Every customer is different, but I believe the intent here is to
simplify
the infrastructure and, thus, lower costs. ("Progress.") There are
several probable cost reductions: lower hardware maintenance (no
Sysplex
timer hardware), less cabling, less electricity, less floor space,
less
labor (at least for physical setup and maintenance), less data
center air
conditioning, less complicated DR. I believe there's also a potential
distance benefit for GDPS customers. There may be a bit of
residual value
in the Sysplex timers that customers switching to STP could
recoup. (There
will be a secondary market in Sysplex timers for a period of time.)
Your mileage may vary, but probably not much here. Looks to me
like a very
good step forward, technologically and financially.
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:16 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9 > > > > My informant says otherwise: When you activate an LPAR it > will resync its > TOD to the CEC TOD. After that, any STP/ETR-induced changes > to the CEC > TOD are invisible to the partition unless it explicitly enables to be > notified of TOD changes. z/OS will do that. z/VM won't. > (And, right, > IPL does not resync the TOD.) > > Alan Altmark Either that is new, or I totally misread the books back when I was reading about this. OK, that was on a 9672 . But it is very good to know. I'll check it out on my sandbox. My HMC clock is off by a couple of minutes. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Monday, 11/13/2006 at 08:02 CST, "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The zSeries TOD clock is only sync'ed to the HMC (or SE) clock with a > Power On Restart (or is it RESET?), not at IPL time or LPAR activation > time. A POR affects all LPARs, obviously. My informant says otherwise: When you activate an LPAR it will resync its TOD to the CEC TOD. After that, any STP/ETR-induced changes to the CEC TOD are invisible to the partition unless it explicitly enables to be notified of TOD changes. z/OS will do that. z/VM won't. (And, right, IPL does not resync the TOD.) Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Neal > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:58 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9 > > > Thank you, George. This makes more sense now. It sounds > like there are > two functions involved in STP. 1) Get the time (ETS) from a > modem or NTP > and 2) adjust processor time to match ETS time. > > Will I be able to use the ETS to update my service processor > clock and > then use that time at my next IPL? I want the ETS function > without paying > the STP price. > > Thanks, >Mark The zSeries TOD clock is only sync'ed to the HMC (or SE) clock with a Power On Restart (or is it RESET?), not at IPL time or LPAR activation time. A POR affects all LPARs, obviously. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:17:53 +1100, George Kozakos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To have an ETS for the mainframe you need STP functionality to gradually > steer the time.You can dial out to a modem but you still need STP. > Thank you, George. This makes more sense now. It sounds like there are two functions involved in STP. 1) Get the time (ETS) from a modem or NTP and 2) adjust processor time to match ETS time. Will I be able to use the ETS to update my service processor clock and then use that time at my next IPL? I want the ETS function without paying the STP price. Thanks, Mark -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:35:02 -0600, Mark Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am planning to install a small Z9 BC next month and I would like to have >an ETS for the mainframe. I do not need a Sysplex Timer or the STP >functions. > >It looks like NTP and GPS time sources are a Statement of Direction for >STP, but what about a simple modem? I do not want to install STP for >thousands of dollars, if I can get the same function (ETS) with a $20 >modem. Also, I already have NTP and GPS timer sources for my network, >Windows servers and workstations, I prefer to use that ETS functionality >without spending thousands of dollars for an STP that I do not need in a >one CEC sysplex. $0 to use our existing GPS NTP is great. A $20 modem for ETS on the HMC is very reasonable. An $8,000 (?) STP feature for ETS is not. Since, IBM has not announced how ETS will be supported on the Z9 and whether the STP feature is required for ETS, I will wait for updates. Mark -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 09:04 +0100, R.S. wrote: > [...] > Less less floor space/electricity/air condition ? > Timothy, c'mon! That's typical sales rep mantra ! > Probably you've seen 9037-2. It is in PC desktop size. Agree totally. Absolute piffle. Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Timothy Sipples wrote:
Shane writes:
Yep, I'd reckon it'd be a pretty hard sell for those (particularly
small) shops that shelled out for redundant timers as recommended by
IBM.
The replacement would need to be real cheap.
Every customer is different, but I believe the intent here is to
simplify
the infrastructure and, thus, lower costs. ("Progress.") There are
several probable cost reductions: lower hardware maintenance (no Sysplex
timer hardware), less cabling, less electricity, less floor space, less
labor (at least for physical setup and maintenance), less data center
air
conditioning, less complicated DR.
[...]
Less less floor space/electricity/air condition ?
Timothy, c'mon! That's typical sales rep mantra !
Probably you've seen 9037-2. It is in PC desktop size.
I hope, the STP is *significantly* cheaper than 9037. Or maybe there's
special pricing for monoplex users (those, who need STP as ETS only).
Regards
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
Shane writes:
>Yep, I'd reckon it'd be a pretty hard sell for those (particularly
>small) shops that shelled out for redundant timers as recommended by
>IBM.
>The replacement would need to be real cheap.
Every customer is different, but I believe the intent here is to simplify
the infrastructure and, thus, lower costs. ("Progress.") There are
several probable cost reductions: lower hardware maintenance (no Sysplex
timer hardware), less cabling, less electricity, less floor space, less
labor (at least for physical setup and maintenance), less data center air
conditioning, less complicated DR. I believe there's also a potential
distance benefit for GDPS customers. There may be a bit of residual value
in the Sysplex timers that customers switching to STP could recoup. (There
will be a secondary market in Sysplex timers for a period of time.)
Your mileage may vary, but probably not much here. Looks to me like a very
good step forward, technologically and financially.
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 17:26 +0100, R.S. wrote: > > Yes, the STP enabling feature, Feature number 1021, > > is required for servers and CFs and is a chargeable feature. > > Well, this is the way how IBM promotes Parallel Sysplex ? > I'm curious what is the charge for STP. Asuming it's comparable to 9037 > price (50k$), it seems "a little bit" expensive as a ETS solution... Yep, I'd reckon it'd be a pretty hard sell for those (particularly small) shops that shelled out for redundant timers as recommended by IBM. The replacement would need to be real cheap. Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
George Kozakos wrote: On Sun, Nov 12 2006 12:29pm, Shane wrote: >George, is STP chargeable as Mark alleges ???. Yes, the STP enabling feature, Feature number 1021, is required for servers and CFs and is a chargeable feature. Well, this is the way how IBM promotes Parallel Sysplex ? I'm curious what is the charge for STP. Asuming it's comparable to 9037 price (50k$), it seems "a little bit" expensive as a ETS solution... -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Sun, Nov 12 2006 12:29pm, Shane wrote: >George, is STP chargeable as Mark alleges ???. Yes, the STP enabling feature, Feature number 1021, is required for servers and CFs and is a chargeable feature. See the STP announcement at: http://www-306.ibm.com/common/ssi/fcgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca &htmlfid=897/ENUS106-715&appname=usn -- Regards, George Kozakos -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 11:17 +1100, George Kozakos wrote: > > To have an ETS for the mainframe you need STP functionality to gradually > steer the time.You can dial out to a modem but you still need STP. George, is STP chargeable as Mark alleges ???. To my brief skim through the guide, looks like you just need to be at the correct MCL, and then active it. Seems like the modem would be plugged into the HMC rather than the timer(s). Guess we'll all find out when we try it. Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
>I have been reviewing the STP documentation and I am not able to find much >information on the External Timer Source (ETS). It is documented in the >STP Planning Guide, but there are few details. >I am planning to install a small Z9 BC next month and I would like to have >an ETS for the mainframe. I do not need a Sysplex Timer or the STP >functions. It looks like the STP is a billable feature on the Z9, so that >is even more incentive to avoid a STP. >It looks like NTP and GPS time sources are a Statement of Direction for >STP, but what about a simple modem? I do not want to install STP for >thousands of dollars, if I can get the same function (ETS) with a $20 >modem. Also, I already have NTP and GPS timer sources for my network, >Windows servers and workstations, I prefer to use that ETS functionality >without spending thousands of dollars for an STP that I do not need in a >one CEC sysplex. >Does anybody have more information on the External Timer Source for the Z9? >Thanks, Hi Mark, I have discussed your questions with IBM development. The term ETS for the 9037 to describe both: - dial out to time services via an external modem - attach to a time code receiver like radio receivers, GPS receivers etc via a RS-232 connection from the ETS device to the 9037 STP supports dial out and attach to a time code receiver is planned. To have an ETS for the mainframe you need STP functionality to gradually steer the time.You can dial out to a modem but you still need STP. -- Regards, George Kozakos -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
External Timer Source without STP on a Z9
I have been reviewing the STP documentation and I am not able to find much information on the External Timer Source (ETS). It is documented in the STP Planning Guide, but there are few details. I am planning to install a small Z9 BC next month and I would like to have an ETS for the mainframe. I do not need a Sysplex Timer or the STP functions. It looks like the STP is a billable feature on the Z9, so that is even more incentive to avoid a STP. It looks like NTP and GPS time sources are a Statement of Direction for STP, but what about a simple modem? I do not want to install STP for thousands of dollars, if I can get the same function (ETS) with a $20 modem. Also, I already have NTP and GPS timer sources for my network, Windows servers and workstations, I prefer to use that ETS functionality without spending thousands of dollars for an STP that I do not need in a one CEC sysplex. Does anybody have more information on the External Timer Source for the Z9? Thanks, Mark -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
