Discussion:
Security, Other Risks When Unsupported
Add Reply
Timothy Sipples
2017-08-03 05:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Wait first for fireworks/drama, then wait for your retirement or
dismissal letter... ;-)
Saying: if you knew this, why didn't you tell us?
Yes, I agree. You really don't want the "Why didn't you tell us?" question
after something bad happens. (Unless you want full responsibility?) It's
perfectly reasonable to inform your manager, in writing, when you spot an
anomaly that could impact the business (or government agency if you work in
the public sector). "My boss already knows" isn't quite enough here, in my
view. I'd put it in writing, and again when there's a material change to
report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: ***@sg.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Timothy Sipples
2017-08-03 05:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
We are studying to replace old IBM z890 Capacity Setting 230 (170 Mips –
26
MSU´s) by an IBM z10 BC Capacity Setting J02 (182 Mips – 23 MSU´s).
We understand that since MSU´s are lower in z10BC (23 x 26 MSU´s), we
should
pay less for software contracts with IBM, CA and SoftwareAG.
This situation is correct for IBM and CA, but not for SoftwareAG since
they
charge by MIPS not MSU´s.
1 – Anyone had any experience with this?
Yes. There are some customers and a very few vendors with software license
agreements that are based on full capacity, however defined.
2 – IBM and CA accepts capping to charge software, SoftwareAG not, is this
a
normal business practice?
A software vendor and their customer can agree to pretty much any charging
metric, as long as it's legal. For example, if you manufacture ice cream,
you and the vendor can agree to pay for software based on the number of
liters of ice cream that you manufacture each month. Whatever contract you
have, and can agree to, is what you have.

There are some sensible industry norms, of course.
3 – Any ideas how to circumvent this situation? z890 is out of IBM service
and we need to replace it. 2nd hand machine available closer to z890
capacity is z10BC, even due z/OS-e will run there with few ptfs applied to
support new hardware (z10BC).
"Talk to your friendly IBM representative." And probably also to Brian
Westerman at Syzygy. I haven't seen your contract (and don't want to!), but
here are some ideas, in no particular order:

(a) If you have a full capacity license for the "software of concern" AND
your peak usage of that software can be substantially below 170 "MIPS,"
then consider setting up a basic Parallel Sysplex with two machines. For
example, let's suppose you only need 75 MIPS of that particular software
(at peak), and otherwise you need 130 MIPS for everything else. OK, then
you could get an IBM z13s A01 capacity model and couple it to an IBM z13s
A02 capacity model. You would run the "software of concern" on the A01
(softcapped at 75 MIPS, pay for 80 MIPS for that particular software), and
you would run all your other software on the A02 machine (and softcap it at
130 MIPS). Other "penalty box" variations are possible, of course. Note
that the machines can be physically separated a substantial amount and
probably take care of your DR needs, in "flip flop" fashion, especially if
you use Coupling Thin Interrupts and Asynchronous CF Duplexing.

(b) Buy an IBM z13s capacity model B02 (165 MIPS, 21 MSUs). The z13s B02 is
the "Price is Right" system: the closest you will get to 170 MIPS without
going over, assuming you want to maintain a 2-way configuration and
assuming you do not want to license more of that "software of concern."

(c) Buy a used IBM z10BC capacity model N01 (168 MIPS, 21 MSUs), a 1-way
machine. I do not recommend this option, for a variety of reasons.

(d) Check to see if a z/OS hosting company makes sense, at least for this
"software of concern" workload. Syzygy, IBM, and others can advise you on
such options.

(e) Migrate from the "software of concern" to a machine like the one in
Option (b) but with different software with better licensing terms. And,
preferably, use the same machine to run other cool stuff, too -- new stuff
and stuff you may already be running on other servers. There's an excellent
IBM redbook with some advice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA
E-Mail: ***@sg.ibm.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Brian Westerman
2017-08-03 06:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi,

We actually helped 4 of our clients in 2016 replace their z8xx boxes with brand new z13s's (which start out at 10MSU), we did experience a problem dealing with Software AG at two of the sites (they go by MSU as well, but they don't use IBM's MSU's), but they came around in the end at both sites.

IBM offered EGO pricing on the box (for 3 years) and at two of the sites, the reduction in pricing (and the fact that we could replace some non-IBM software with IBM's at the EGO price) meant that they actually saved money (a lot of it), over the course of the 3 years which they would have otherwise had to spend should they have tried to keep their old box(es) or go with their original choice (3 wanted z/114's and one wanted a z/10).

There were some issues with ESCON (the z13s doesn't support it), but in all cases the DASD they already had supported FICON already, and one of them had a converter and another had some older ESCON tape drives, but they decided to move to Virtual Tape (from Optica in the end and they threw in a convertor for them to use for as long as they needed to) so now they have no "real" drives.

I think that all 4 sites will probably stick with these boxes for a number of years, and they are fairly well "future proofed" with that model. Two have since upgraded to zOS 2.1 and 2.2, and the other two are still running 1.13, but have plans to upgrade in the next few months. All 4 were installed with the assumption that they would be upgrading to zOS v2, (there are ways to make the 2nd jump much easier, i.e. under 30 days, but htat's not your question here)

Unless there is something really compelling for the site in going with the z/10, you would most likely be much better off with a z13s.

If you think the "other" software vendors will decrease the cost, you shouldn't really count on it. While in most cases the existing software vendors did reduce a bit, it wasn't anything worth writing about. CA mostly just called it a wash, and said they wouldn't increase for the more "efficient" CPU, but some of the others lowered prices by 5% or less.

The conversion to the z13 was slightly complicated at 3 of the sites (they were running zOS 1.4, 1.6 and 1.7 and only 1 was running 1.13), the conversion went very quickly, (although in two steps), the first step was to install and upgrade them to 1.13 (that's the lowest that the z13s supported, although we later found that not to be entirely true), and the second was to move them from the old z/8xx to the z13s.

The first step took about 70 to 90 days from start to finish, mostly because of the lack of personnel to conduct user testing, the second step took an hour. I think one of the sites took a few hours, but it wasn't anything major.

If you want to discuss the steps, just contact me offline.

Brian

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Steve Beaver
2017-08-03 20:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Carlos -- Are you using the SCRT?

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-***@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Lizette Koehler
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 10:11 AM
To: IBM-***@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Software costs - CPU Replacement

You should review this weblink (access the PDF) on support for the hardware

https://www-03.ibm.com/support/techdocs/atsmastr.nsf/WebIndex/TD105503


you want to make sure the next hardware you are going to will be available
for a long time.


Lizette
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Carlos Bodra - Pessoal
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 6:07 AM
Subject: Software costs - CPU Replacement
We are studying to replace old IBM z890 Capacity Setting 230 (170 Mips
– 26
MSU´s) by an IBM z10 BC Capacity Setting J02 (182 Mips – 23 MSU´s).
We understand that since MSU´s are lower in z10BC (23 x 26 MSU´s), we
should pay less for software contracts with IBM, CA and SoftwareAG.
This situation is correct for IBM and CA, but not for SoftwareAG since
they charge by MIPS not MSU´s.
1 – Anyone had any experience with this?
2 – IBM and CA accepts capping to charge software, SoftwareAG not, is
this a normal business practice?
3 – Any ideas how to circumvent this situation? z890 is out of IBM
service and we need to replace it. 2nd hand machine available closer
to z890 capacity is z10BC, even due z/OS-e will run there with few
ptfs applied to support new hardware (z10BC).
Thanks
Carlos Bodra
IBM System Certified System z
São Paulo - Brazil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email
to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to ***@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Loading...