Re: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
snip- I know that MIM/Allocation is more powerful in that it can span multiple sysplexes and has more options. However, in a single basic sysplex environment with only two members, it is really worth my while to set up MIM/Allocation? We have it because we use MIM/Integrity (mainly to automatically hold/requeue/release jobs with DATASET IN USE). More curious than anything else. unsnip- I wouldn't bother. -- 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: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:56 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation snip- I know that MIM/Allocation is more powerful in that it can span multiple sysplexes and has more options. However, in a single basic sysplex environment with only two members, it is really worth my while to set up MIM/Allocation? We have it because we use MIM/Integrity (mainly to automatically hold/requeue/release jobs with DATASET IN USE). More curious than anything else. unsnip- I wouldn't bother. That seems to be the consensus. In any case, I can start with autoswitch and always implement MIA later if there is some good reason. Right now, I'm busy enough just trying to get this mess off the ground. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- 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: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
snip We only have a single monoplex today. We are splitting it in twain for political reasons. I.e. the current image will run only production work, the new image will run all development/test/qa (nonproduction) work. It will be a basic sysplex because nobody would pony up the $173,000 USD to get a CFL for our z9BC. If interested, the reasoning goes that since we cannot get all of our work done during month-end because production soaks the CPU totally, the non-production work is be unjustly penalized. This will be fixed by putting the non-production work in its only LPAR on the same CEC and weighting the LPARs appropriately. Nobody would believe me when I said that I could do this using WLM on a single image. They wouldn't even allow a proof of concept to see how a WLM solution might work. Yes, I'm disgusted. ---unsnip The whole situation sounds very much like Management by Airline Magazine. Do as you're told, try and soak the very best performance you can get, watch for vacancies in the ranks of senior management and quietly prepare for a CPU upgrade. Your politicians are like most others; not all, but most. They don't know diddley squat about capacity management and they've let things deteriorate to the point where the only solution is to spend some money, a mortal sin in their eyes. -- 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: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
I can relate and sympathize with John on this. A while back I was asked to work with the installation team to *shoehorn* WAS V5 onto a G5 in 31 with 2 LPAR's, 1 sandbox/1 production/dev. The prod/dev. LPAR had 2.4 GB w/1.7 cs and .7 es. The machine was already running at 100% with latent demand. While my pre analysis stated that it would not work I was *asked* to make it happen. Of course being the good soldier I am I proceeded. I wish I could have seen the faces when we started the WAS cell groups up during prime time as I was working remote of the corporate site where the prod users were. I sure saw the faces of the support staff at our site when we cranked WAS up. The freakin' lights dimmed in Trevose at times. After about 6 weeks of causing my own performance problems it was decided it would not work. That and the fact that we did not really have the storage to support prod., acceptance, dev. and test WAS cell groups. It was an experience though and I did seem some performance numbers I have never saw before. Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole situation sounds very much like Management by Airline Magazine. Do as you're told, try and soak the very best performance you can get, watch for vacancies in the ranks of senior management and quietly prepare for a CPU upgrade. Your politicians are like most others; not all, but most. They don't know diddley squat about capacity management and they've let things deteriorate to the point where the only solution is to spend some money, a mortal sin in their eyes. -- 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: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 10:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation [snip] ---unsnip The whole situation sounds very much like Management by Airline Magazine. Do as you're told, try and soak the very best performance you can get, watch for vacancies in the ranks of senior management and quietly prepare for a CPU upgrade. Your politicians are like most others; not all, but most. They don't know diddley squat about capacity management and they've let things deteriorate to the point where the only solution is to spend some money, a mortal sin in their eyes. -- It is a combination of two things, from what I understand. First, many managers now here came from a larger shop when this was normal, so they think this is the way every shop should run. Second, the managers were of the opinion that this new image was theirs and under their control. That is, production can't mess around with MY system any more! Reminds me of many years ago with a lady in accounting (at another company). She got actual 80 column card decks for PAC (Pre Authorized Check) processing. I wrote a very quick and dirty ROSCOE application to help her. She didn't want it. Why? She took out the card deck, with a computer print out wrapped around it and said: This is MINE! I know and have proof of what happened with these accounts! -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- 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: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:26:10 -0500, McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that MIM/Allocation is more powerful in that it can span multiple sysplexes and has more options. However, in a single basic sysplex environment with only two members, it is really worth my while to set up MIM/Allocation? We have it because we use MIM/Integrity (mainly to automatically hold/requeue/release jobs with DATASET IN USE). More curious than anything else. So what are you doing today to share tape between your two monoplex systems? I've always liked MIA and have used it at different shops since the early 90s. It is simple to set up if you already have MII, but there really is no reason to do so since z/OS 1.2 if you are running a sysplex. One nice thing you can do with MIA that looks like it will be in z/OS 1.10 is the ability to vary devices as overgenned. This takes them out of the EDL. There are also the display that tells you where a drive is allocated, but with only 2 systems it's sort of obvious. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.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: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:46 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation [snip] So what are you doing today to share tape between your two monoplex systems? We only have a single monoplex today. We are splitting it in twain for political reasons. I.e. the current image will run only production work, the new image will run all development/test/qa (nonproduction) work. It will be a basic sysplex because nobody would pony up the $173,000 USD to get a CFL for our z9BC. If interested, the reasoning goes that since we cannot get all of our work done during month-end because production soaks the CPU totally, the non-production work is be unjustly penalized. This will be fixed by putting the non-production work in its only LPAR on the same CEC and weighting the LPARs appropriately. Nobody would believe me when I said that I could do this using WLM on a single image. They wouldn't even allow a proof of concept to see how a WLM solution might work. Yes, I'm disgusted. I've always liked MIA and have used it at different shops since the early 90s. It is simple to set up if you already have MII, but there really is no reason to do so since z/OS 1.2 if you are running a sysplex. One nice thing you can do with MIA that looks like it will be in z/OS 1.10 is the ability to vary devices as overgenned. This takes them out of the EDL. There are also the display that tells you where a drive is allocated, but with only 2 systems it's sort of obvious. The overgenned is nice. I've used it in the past. But that alone does not seem worth the effort to implement MIA. Mark -- -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- 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: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
It will be a basic sysplex because nobody would pony up the $173,000 USD to get a CFL for our z9BC. First, itym icf -- cfl stands for Canadian Football League. Second, I thought the prices were closer to $73,000 US. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation
Jeez John, I'd rather do the proof of concept on the current setup, WLM prior to plex, than go to a setup, plex, that could cause additional degradation and then maybe have to go back but I guess that's all water under the bridge at this point. I know I'm preaching to the choir but don't *they* realize there is the very real possibility that you'll use more CPU managing a plex environment with weighting than a single image? And so now you could face the possibility that some of the production work may not get done or will be delayed during heavy month end processing due to the plex setup and the guarantee to the test/development image. I have been down the month end road, super peaks with maybe 30 in ready and basically none of my bottom feeders, test/dev., getting any CPU, well 85 - 95% CPU delay, but the production batch work chugged along and finished and my onlines didn't notice any significant delays. This was on a small 2 way machine as I believe you are on also. Good luck... McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:46 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Tape switching: Autoswitch vs MIM/Allocation [snip] So what are you doing today to share tape between your two monoplex systems? We only have a single monoplex today. We are splitting it in twain for political reasons. I.e. the current image will run only production work, the new image will run all development/test/qa (nonproduction) work. It will be a basic sysplex because nobody would pony up the $173,000 USD to get a CFL for our z9BC. If interested, the reasoning goes that since we cannot get all of our work done during month-end because production soaks the CPU totally, the non-production work is be unjustly penalized. This will be fixed by putting the non-production work in its only LPAR on the same CEC and weighting the LPARs appropriately. Nobody would believe me when I said that I could do this using WLM on a single image. They wouldn't even allow a proof of concept to see how a WLM solution might work. Yes, I'm disgusted. I've always liked MIA and have used it at different shops since the early 90s. It is simple to set up if you already have MII, but there really is no reason to do so since z/OS 1.2 if you are running a sysplex. One nice thing you can do with MIA that looks like it will be in z/OS 1.10 is the ability to vary devices as overgenned. This takes them out of the EDL. There are also the display that tells you where a drive is allocated, but with only 2 systems it's sort of obvious. The overgenned is nice. I've used it in the past. But that alone does not seem worth the effort to implement MIA. Mark -- -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology -- 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
