| Author |
Message
|
| Alyindar |
 Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:21 am Post subject: BMC Cost Analyzer |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 5
|
My company is looking to purchase BMC's "Cost Analyzer for zEnterprise" product to get a better grasp on mainframe costs, however the presentation says it gathers SMF/SCRT data to generate reports. Currently we only have SMF 115 records being gathered, with both 116's turned off. Does anyone know if we will see any valuable information for MQ out of the Cost Analyzer tool, or do we need this extra level of SMF turned on in order to see the benefits?
Any help or advice is appreciated! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Enable both 115 and 116 records. There is near zero overhead for doing so. You won't see the whole picture with only one or the other.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MQsysprog |
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 116
|
Hello,
From your brief description I would think that you will need the 116s accounting smf and thereafter collect them as an input for your post processing statistics.
You could obtain some performance data on fly, using a monitor like
omegamon or mqmanager .
The accounting records are useful ,but you should consider the overhead necessary to produce them especially on busy Qmanagers .
The support pack mp1b is a good study to begin with . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| MQsysprog wrote: |
| ... but you should consider the overhead necessary to produce them especially on busy Qmanagers. |
Having sufficient perf data to make decisions seems to outweigh the nit in overhead imposed in SMF record collection - especially on busy qmgrs.
You would need to go back decades to see SMF record collection sucking up extraordinary processor cycles.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MQsysprog |
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 116
|
Hello Bruce2539,
I would say yes to your nit ,but i am a bit conservative in terms of system resource consumption , because i remember the old times when the single track of Dasd space was billed to the customer....
Probably now it is a minor nuisance in terms of disk space and cpu ,if i my memory works well the overhead stated by Colin Paice was in the order of 5 - 10 %
cpu increase with 116 detail full on.
I think that a good compromise would be with 115 and 116 at the statistic level with the cpu used by thread and the summary of operations activities on the queues .
A new feature in the new V8 is the chinit smf ,so this in my opinion will be a first candidate for a permanent activation and collection . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alyindar |
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 5
|
| Thanks for the recommendations. While I agree in principle that SMF 116 records provide vital information, I'm really looking for feedback on anyone who's used Cost Analyzer and their experiences with MQ SMF records. Currently I've only used the MQ1B support pac for SMF analysis in limited durations, but with this new BMC product we need to understand the impact of not having these gathered semi-permanently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| elkinsc |
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 138
Location: Indy
|
The cost for the SMF115 records is very near zero, that is true. The cost for the SMF116 class 3 records is not. Unfortunately the costs vary widely based on a number of things:
1) Are you using MVS logging for the SMF data? The overhead has been reported to be much lower when using the logger over using the traditional 'MAN' datasets.
2) Are the queue managers primarily processing batch workload? Batch workload typically generate fewer of the SMF 116 Class 3 records, they are cut at SMF intervals and at end of job.
3) Are the queue managers primarily processing individual (one per message) CICS or IMS transactions? This will generate the most sets of SMF 116 class 3 records, and is often whee people see the impact.
4) If using the MAN datasets, how robust is the I/O subsystem?
We have seen wide variations in the costs associated with generating this data, most high volume customers I speak with have reported a cost of 2-3%. But that is not a 'scientific' number. The original estimate of 5-10% overhead was made a number of years ago, and on old hardware and for now-unsupported software versions. The performance team is Hursley has been asked for a measurement and plans on publishing some benchmark numbers soon. And these numbers will include measuring the new SMF subtypes added for V8! 
Are you able to test a production-like workload in a test environment and take measurements? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MQsysprog |
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Posts: 116
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Alyindar |
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 5
|
Hi Lyn -
Thanks for the feedback. From what I understand, we are using MVS logging for SMF data, the queue managers do both batch and online workload, but primarily online during core hours (distributed MQ-to-MF MQ to start CICS transactions, then replies sent back via MQ), and the I/O leaves some things to be desired. 
We're still on v7.1, probably won't be moving to 8 until next year after z/OS and CICS upgrades.
Do you have any experience with customers who use BMC Cost Analyzer and their usage of MQ data to know what we might see with 116's turned off? I think I can make a pretty good case to get 116's enabled, but want to ensure I have all my ducks in a row before I put forth the suggestion to management. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
