Short presentation I gave to the UKCMG 1-day mini-conference 15 October in London. Covers 2 main aspects of Parallel Sysplex performance, both in the CPU area: 1) Comparing Type 70 view of CPU to Type 74-4. 2) Type 74-4 Structure-Level CPU and its role in Capacity Planning and Performance.

1. What's New With Coupling Facility CPU
Martin Packer
martin_packer@uk.ibm.com
+44­7802­245584
Twitter: MartinPacker
© 2009 IBM Corporation 1

2. Abstract
Recently RMF's reporting of Coupling Facility CPU was enhanced,
mainly to give more granularity.
This presentation outlines the author's experience with this important
new instrumentation, both from the perspective of Capacity Planning
and from the perspective of how parallel sysplexes perform under
increasing load. It also covers other areas of Parallel Sysplex
performance.
IN CASE YOU WERE IN ANY DOUBT: “other areas” does not mean “ALL
other areas”. :-)
2 © 2009 IBM Corporation

3. Topics
 Structure-Level CPU
– Structure CPU Experiment
 CPU / LPAR Match Up Between 70-1 and 74-4
 Conclusings and Musions
3 © 2009 IBM Corporation

4. Structure-Level CPU
© 2009 IBM Corporation 4

5. Structure-Level CPU Consumption
 CFLEVEL 15 and z/OS R.9
– Most customers are now this far advanced
 New SMF 74-4 Field: R744SETM
– “Structure Execution Time”
 Always 100% Capture Ratio
– Adds up to R744PBSY
 Multiple uses:
– Capacity planning for changing request rates
– Examine which structures are large consumers
– Compute CPU cost of a request
• And compare to service time
• Interesting number is “non-CPU” element of service time - as we shall see
– Understand whether CPU per request has degraded
– Estimating Structure Duplexing cost
 NOTE:
– Need to collect 74-4 data from all z/OS systems sharing to get total request rate
• Otherwise “CPU per request” calculation will overestimate
5 © 2009 IBM Corporation

6. Structure CPU Experiment
6 © 2009 IBM Corporation

7. Structure CPU Experiment
 Based on
– R744SETM Structure Execution Time
– Sync Request Rate
• Virtually no Async
– Sync Service Time
 One minute RMF intervals
– Sorted by request rate increasing
 Run was 1-way DB2 Datasharing
– Only really active structures ISGLOCK and LOCK1
 Red lines are CPU time per request
– Blue lines are Service time per request
 ISGLOCK “low volume”
– Shows amortization of some fixed cost effect
• Wondering also if some “practice effect” affects service times
– CF used IC links
 LOCK1 “high volume”
– More reliable for capacity planning
– CF used a mixture of ISC and ICB links
7 © 2009 IBM Corporation

8. ISGLOCK Requests
16
14
12
Microseconds
10
8
6
3us?
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Requests / Second
CPU Time Service Time
8 © 2009 IBM Corporation

9. LOCK1 Requests
12
10
8
Microseconds
6
4 3.5us?
2
0
750 800 850 900
Requests / Second
CPU Time Service Time
9 © 2009 IBM Corporation

10. And From My Travels...
 Next chart isn't from the experiment just described
– A real customer system
 A Group Buffer Pool
 ISC-Connected
– Necessary for the customer's estate
 Clearly something goes wrong at about 1100 requests / second
– Especially in response time terms but also CPU
• (Coupling Facility not CPU constrained)
 Options include
– Managing the request rate to below 1100 / sec
– Working on the request mix
– Infrastructure reconfiguration
10 © 2009 IBM Corporation

11. 25us?
11 © 2009 IBM Corporation

12. CPU / LPAR Match Up Between
70­1 and 74­4
12 © 2009 IBM Corporation

13. Internal Coupling Facility - Basics
●
Managed out of Pool 5 in z9 and z10
●
Pool numbers given in SMF 70 as index into table of labels
●
Recommendation: Manage in reporting as a separate pool
●
Follow special CF sizing guidelines
●
Especially for takeover situations
●
Always runs at full speed
●
So good technology match for coupled z/OS images on same footprint
●
Another good reason to use ICFs is IC links
●
Shared ICFs strongly discouraged for Production
●
Especially if the CF image has Dynamic Dispatch turned on
●
Should not run ANY coupling facility above 50% busy
●
Especially if we need to be able to recover structures onto it
13 © 2009 IBM Corporation

14. ICF CPU Instrumentation
SMF 74­4 view different from SMF 70­1 LPAR view of processor busy
•R744PBSY is CPU time processing requests
•R744PWAI is CPU time while CFCC is not processing requests but it is still using CF
cycles
•For Dynamic Dispatch PWAI is time when not processing CF requests but Logical
CP not yet taken back by PR/SM
•For dedicated or non­Dynamic Dispatch cases sum is constant
•For Dynamic Dispatch sum can vary.
Number of defined processors is number of CF Processor Data sections in 74­4
•Refined for CFLEVEL 15 by new fields for dedicated (R744FPDN) and shared
(R744FPSN) processors
•Also whether individual engine is dedicated (R744PTYP) and its weight (R744PWGT)
PBSY and PWAI Can be examined down to Coupling Facility engine level
SMF 74­4 has much more besides CF CPU instrumentation
14 © 2009 IBM Corporation

15. CF LPAR Identification In SMF 70-1 Is Complex
 Need to match LPARs in SMF 70-1 with coupling
facilities in SMF 74-4 to get proper CPU picture
 Since z/OS Release 8 74-4 has machine serial number
– Allows correlation in most cases
– But LPAR names and CF Names often don't match
– Often multiple CF's in same footprint with similar
configuration
– Sometimes there are multiple CF's with the same name
– My code – in extremis – uses the presence of IC links to
determine “colocality”
– I'm slowly learning :-) not all CF LPARs are in Pool 5
15 © 2009 IBM Corporation

16. New Instrumentation - OA21140
 Introduced to support zHPF
– Has other SMF and reporting improvements
• HiperDispatch Vertical Polarisation indicators at ENGINE level
– Type 70
• Normalisation factor for zIIP – Type 70
 Adds CF LPAR Partition Number
– Allows matching with SMF 70-1
 RMF Level (SMFxxSRL) changed to X'55'
16 © 2009 IBM Corporation

17. Conclusings and Musions
 I think we've come a long way with Coupling Facility
CPU
– Capacity Planning is now down to the structure level
• But not to the structure-by-system level
– We can now tie up the Coupling Facility and LPAR views of
CPU
• With a few “corner cases”
 I'd encourage you to revisit your Parallel Sysplex
reporting
– Including for all the other aspects we didn't have time for
 Shouldn't machines be self-documenting in SMF?
17 © 2009 IBM Corporation