Wrapping up this week's theme on why the System z10 EC mainframe can replace so many older, smaller,underutilized x86 boxes.This was all started to help fellow bloggers Jon Toigo of DrunkenData
and Jeff Savit from Sun Microsystems
understand our IBM press release that we put out last February on this machine with my post[Yes, Jon, there is a mainframe that can help replace 1500 x86 servers
] and my follow uppost [Virtualization, Carpools and Marathons"
].The computations were based on running 1500 unique workloads as Linux guests under z/VM, and notrunning them as z/OS applications.
My colleagues in IBM Poughkeepsierecommended these books to provide more insight and in-depth understanding. Looks like some interesting summer reading. I put in quotes thesections I excerpted from the synopsis I found for each.
|[In Search of Clusters] by Gregory F. Pfister|
"From Microsoft to IBM, Compaq to Sun to DEC, virtually every large computer company now uses clustering as a key strategy for high-availability, high-performance computing. This book tells you why-and how. It cuts through the marketing hype and techno-religious wars surrounding parallel processing, delivering the practical information you need to purchase, market, plan or design servers and other high-performance computing systems.
- Microsoft Cluster Services ("Wolfpack")
- IBM Parallel Sysplex and SP systems
- DEC OpenVMS Cluster and Memory Channel
- Tandem ServerNet and Himalaya
- Intel Virtual Interface Architecture
- Symmetric Multiprocessors (SMPs) and NUMA systems"
Fellow IBM author Gregory Pfister worked in IBM Austin as a Senior Technical Staff Member focused on parallel processing issues, but I never met him in person. He points out that workloads fall into regions called parallel hell
, parallel nirvana
, and parallel purgatory
. Careful examination of machine designs and benchmark definitions will show that the “industry standard benchmarks" fall largely in parallel nirvana
and parallel purgatory
. Large UNIX machines tend to be designed for these benchmarks and so are particularly well suited to parallel purgatory
. Clusters of distributed systems do very well in parallel nirvana
. The mainframe resides in parallel hell
as do its primary workloads. The current confusion is where virtualization takes workloads, since there are no good benchmarks for it.
|[Guerilla Capacity Planning] by Neil J. Gunther|
"In these days of shortened fiscal horizons and contracted time-to-market schedules, traditional approaches to capacity planning are often seen by management as tending to inflate their production schedules. Rather than giving up in the face of this kind of relentless pressure to get things done faster, Guerrilla Capacity Planning facilitates rapid forecasting of capacity requirements based on the opportunistic use of whatever performance data and tools are available in such a way that management insight is expanded but their schedules are not."
Neil Gunther points out that vendor claims of near linear scaling are not to be trusted and shows a method to “derate” scaling claims. His suggested scaling values for data base servers is closer IBM's LSPR-like scaling model, than TPC-C or SPEC scaling. I had mentioned that "While a 1-way z10 EC can handle 920 MIPS, the 64-way can only handle 30,657 MIPS."in my post, but still people felt I was using "linear scaling". Linear scaling would mean that if a 1Ghz single-core AMD Opteron can do four(4) MIPS, and an one-way z10 EC can do 920 MIPS, than one might assume that 1GHz dual-core AMD could do eight(8) MIPS, and the largest 64-way z10 EC can do theoretically 64 x 920 = 58,880 MIPS. The reality is closer to 6.866 and 30,657 MIPS, respectively.
This was never an IBM-vs-Sun debate. One could easily make the same argument that a large Sun or HP system could replace a bunch of small 2-way x86 servers from Dell. Both types of servers have their place and purpose, and IBMsells both to meet the different needs of our clients. The savings are in total cost of ownership, reducing powerand cooling costs, floorspace, software licenses, administration costs, and outages.
I hope we covered enough information so that Jeff can go back about talking about Sun products, and I can go backto talk about IBM storage products.
technorati tags: IBM, z10, EC, Jon Toigo, DrunkenData, Jeff Savit, Sun, Gregory Pfister, Austin, Neil Gunther, MIPS, LSPR, SPEC, TPC-C, mainframe, scalability, UNIX, Linux, z/OS, HP, Dell
Continuing this week's theme on the z10 EC mainframe being able to perform the workloadof hundreds or thousands of small 2-way x86 servers, I offer a simple analogy.
- One car, one driver
If you wonder why so many companies subscribe to the notion that you should only runa single application per server, blame Sun, who I think helped promote this idea.Not to be out-done, Microsoft, HP and Dell think that it is a great idea too. Imaginethe convenience for operators to be able to switch off a single machine and impactonly a single application. Imagine how much this simplifies new application development,knowing that you are the only workload on a set of dedicated resources.
This is analogous to a single car, single driver, where the car helps get the personfrom "point A" to "point B" and the single driver represents the driver and solepassenger of the vehicle. If this were a single driver on a energy-efficient motorcycleor scooter, than would be reasonable, but people often drive alone much bigger vehicles,what Jeff Savit would call "over-provisioning". Chips have increased in processingpower much faster than individual applications have increased their requirements, so as a result,you have over-provisioning.
- Carpooling - one bus, one driver, and many other passengers riding along
This is how z/OS operates. Yes, you could have up to 60 LPARs that you could individuallyturn on and off, but where z/OS gets most of its advantages is that you can run many applicationsin a single OS instance, through the use of "Address Spaces" which act as application containers.Of course, it is more difficult to write for this environment, because you have to be a good"z/OS citizen", share resources nicely, and be WLM-compliant to allow your application to beswapped out for others.
While you get efficiencies with this approach, when you bring the OS down, all the apps on that OS image haveto stop with it. For those who have "Parallel Sysplex" that is not an issue. For example, let's say youhave three mainframes, each running several LPARs of z/OS, and your various z/OS images all are able toprocess incoming transactions for a common shared DB2 database. Thanks to DB2 sharing technology, youcould take down an individual LPAR or z/OS image, and not disrupt transaction processing, because theIP spreader just sends them to the remaining LPARs. A "Coupling Facility" allows for smooth operationsif any of the OS images are lost from an unexpected disaster or disruption.
Needless to say, IBM does not give each z/OS developer his or her own mainframe. Instead, we get to run z/OS guest images under z/VM. It was even possible to emulate the next generation S/390 chipsetto allow us to test software on hardware that hasn't been created yet. With HiperSockets, we canhave virtual TCP/IP LAN connections between images, have virtual coupling facilities, have virtualdisk and virtual tape, and so on. It made development and test that much more efficient, which iswhy z/OS is recognized as one of the most rock-solid bullet-proof operating systems in existence.
The negatives of carpooling or taking the bus applies here as well. I have been on buses that havestopped working, and 50 people are stranded. And you don't need more than two people to make thelogistics of most carpools complicated. This feeds the fear that people want to have separatemanageable units one-car-one-driver than putting all of their eggs into one basket, having to scheduleoutages together, and so on.
(Disclaimer: From 1986 to 2001 I helped the development of z/OS and Linux on System z. Mostof my 17 patents are from that time of my career!)
- Bicycle races and Marathons
The third computing model is the Supercomputer. Here we take a lot of one-way and two-way machines,and lash them together to form an incredible machine able to perform mathematical computations fasterthan any mainframe. The supercomputer that IBM built for Los Alamos National Laboratory just clockedin at 1,000,000,000,000,000 floating point operations per second. This is not a single operating system,but rather each machine runs its own OS, is given its primary objective, and tries to get it done.NetworkWorld has a nice article on this titled:[IBM, Los Alamos smash petaflop barrier, triple supercomputer speed record].If every person in the world was armed with a handheld calculator and performed one calculation per second, it would take us 46 years collectively to do everything this supercomputer can do in one day.
I originally thought of bicycle races as an analogy for this, but having listened to Lance Armstrong at the[IBM Pulse 2008] conference, I learned thatbiking is a team sport, and I wanted something that had the "every-man-for-himself" approach to computing.So, I changed this to marathons.
The marathon was named after a fabled greek soldier was sent as messenger from the [Battle of Marathon to the City of Athens],a distance that is now standardized to 26 miles and 385 yards, or 42.195 kilometers for my readersoutside the United States.
If you were given the task to get thousands of people from "point A" to "point B" 26 plus milesaway, would you chose thousands of cars, each with a lone driver? Conferences with a lot of people in a few hotels useshuttle buses instead. A few drivers, a few buses, and you can get thousands of people from a fewplaces to a few places. But the workloads that are sent to supercomputers have a single end point,so a dispatcher node gives a message to each "greek soldier" compute node, and has them run it on their own. Somemake it, some don't, but for a supercomputer that is OK. When the message is delivered, the calculation for thatlittle piece is done, and the compute node gives it another message to process. All of the computations areassembled to come up with the final result. Applications must be coded very speciallyto be able to handle this approach, but for the ones that are, amazing things happen.
So, how does "server virtualization" come into play?
- Logical Partitions
IBM has had Logical Partitions for quite some time. A logical partition, or LPAR, can run its own OSimage, and can be turned on and off without impacting other LPARs. LPARs can have dedicated resources,or shared resources with other LPARs. The IBM z10 EC can have up to 60 LPARs. System p and System i,now merged into the new "POWER Systems" product line, also support LPARs in this manner. Depending onthe size of your LPAR, this could be for a single OS and application, or a single OS with lots of applications.
- Address Spaces/Application Containers
This is the bus approach. You have a single OS, and that is shared by a set of application containers. z/OS does this with address spaces, all running under a single z/OS image, and for x86there are products like [Parallels Virtuozzo Containers] that can run hundred of Windows instances under a single Windows OS image, or a hundred Linux imagesunder a single Linux OS image. However, you cannot mix and match Windows with Linux, just as all theaddress spaces on z/OS all have to be coded for the same z/OS level on the LPAR they run in.
- Virtual Guests
The term "guests" were chosen to model this after the way hotels are organized. Each guest has a roomwith its own lockable entrance and privacy, but shared lobby, and in some countries, shared bathroomson every hall. This approach is used by z/VM, VMware and others. The z/VM operating system can handle any S/390-chip operating system guest, so you could have a mix ofz/OS, TPF, z/VSE, Linux and OpenSolaris, and even other z/VM levels running as guests. Many z/VM developers runin this "second level" mode to develop new versions of the z/VM operating system!
As part of the One Laptop Per Child [OLPC] development team (yes, I ama member of their open source community, and now have developer keys to provide contributions), I havebeen experimenting with Linux KVM. This was [folded into the base Linux 2.6.20 kernel and availableto run Linux and Windows guest images. This is a nice write-up on[Wikipedia].
The key advantage of this approach is that you are back to one-car-one-driver simplistic mode of thinking. Each guest can be turned on and off without impacting otherapplications. Each guest has its own OS image, so you can mix different OS on the same server hardware.You can have your own customized kernel modules, levels of Java, etc.Externally, it looks like you are running dozens of applications on a single server, but internally,each application thinks it is the only one running on its own OS. This gives you simpler codingmodel to base your test and development with.
Jeff is correct that running less than 10 percent utilization average across your servers is a cryingshame, and that it could be managed in a manner that raises the utilization of the servers so that fewer areneeeded. Just as people could carpool, or could take the bus to work, it just doesn't happen, and data centersare full of single-application servers.
VMware has an architectural limit of 128 guests per machine, and IBM is able to reach this withits beefiest System x3850 M2 servers, but most of the x86 machines from HP, Dell and Sun are less powerful,and only run a dozen or so guests. In all cases, fewer servers means it is simpler to manage, so moreapplications per server is always the goal in mind.
VMware can soak up 30 to 40 percent of the cycles, meaning the most you can get from a VMware-basedsolution is 60 to 70 percent CPU utilization (which is still much better than the typical 5 to 10 percent average utilization we see today!) z/VM has been finely tuned to incur as little as 7 percent overhead,so IBM can achieve up to 93 percent utilization.
Jeff argues that since many of the z/OS technologies that allow customers to get over90 percent utilization don't apply to Linux guests under z/VM, then all of the numbers are wrong.My point is that there are two ways to achieve 90 percent utilization on the mainframe, one is throughz/OS running many applications on a single LPAR (the application container approach), and the other through z/VM supporting many Linux OS images, each with one (or a few) applications (the virtual guest approach).
I am still gathering more research on this topic, so I will try to have it ready later this week.
technorati tags: IBM, z10, EC, mainframe, Jeff Savit, Sun, Microsoft, HP, Dell, car, driver, bus, carpool, marathon, z/OS, LPAR, z/VM, guest, address space, application containers, ibmpulse, pulse2008, VMware, x3850
I am saddened to learn that one of my favorite comedians, [George Carlin
],passed away yesterday. He was famous for a skit about "seven words" you could not say on Television.A few of those came to mind in the response I got from my post[Yes, Jon,There is a mainframe that can help replace 1500 x86 servers
, which attempted to provide an answerto a simple question about the IBM System z10 Enterprise Class (EC) mainframe.
Jon: So, where is the 1500 number coming from?
Tony: I’ll investigate and get back to you.
My post tried to explain how IBM estimated that number. However, my fellow blogger from Sun, Jeff Savit, posted on his blog [No, there isn't a Santa Claus] in response. (If Sun'sshareholders are expecting anything other than a [lump of coal] under the tree this year, they should probablyread Sun's press release about their last [financial results].)A few others contacted me about this also, from a bunch of rather different angles, from reverse-engineering emulation of other company's chipsets to my use of internal codenames. (There are now MORE than seven words I can't type in this blog!) Jon is just trying to gather information, but his [head hurts] from all of this debate.
This week I will try to clarify some of the confusion.
technorati tags: George Carlin, Jon Toigo, DrunkenData, IBM, z10, Jeff Savit, Sun, quarterly loss, lump of coal
Two weeks ago, I mentioned in my post [Pulse 2008 - Day 2 Breakout sessions
] thatHenk de Ruiter from ABN Amro bank presented his success storyimplementing Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) across hisvarious data centers. I am no stranger to ABN Amro, having helped "ABN" and "Amro" banks merge their mainframe data in 1991. Henk has agreed to let me share with my readers more ofthis success story here on my blog:
Back in December 2005, Henkand his colleagues had come to visit the IBM Tucson ExecutiveBriefing Center (EBC) to hear about IBM products and services. At the time, I was part of our "STG Lab Services" team that performed ILM assessments at client locations. I explained to ABN Amro that the ILM methodology does not requirean all-IBM solution, and that ILM could even provide benefits with their current mix of storage, software and service providers.The ABN Amro team liked what I had to say, andmy team was commissioned to perform ILM assessments atthree of their data centers:
- Amsterdam (Netherlands)
- Sao Paulo (Brazil)
- Chicago, IL (USA)
Each data center had its own management, its owndecision making, and its own set of issues, so we structuredeach ILM assessment independently. When we presented our results,we showed what each data center could do better with their existing mixed bagof storage, software and service providers, and also showed howmuch better their life would be with IBM storage, software andservices. They agreed to give IBM a chance to prove it, and soa new "Global Storage Study" was launched to take the recommendationsfrom our three ILM studies, and flesh out the details to make aglobally-integrated enterprise work for them. Once completed,it was renamed the "Global Storage Solution" (GSS).
Henk summarized the above with "I am glad to see Tony Pearsonin the audience, who was instrumental to making this all happen."As with many client testimonials, he presented a few charts onwho ABN Amro is today, the 12th largest bank worldwide, 8th largest in Europe. They operate in 53 countries and manage over a trillioneuros in assets.
They have over 20 data centers, with about 7 PB of disk, and over20 PB of tape, both growing at 50 to 70 percent CAGR. About 2/3 of theiroperations are now outsourced to IBM Global Services, the remaining 1/3is non-IBM equipment managed by a different service provider.
ABN Amro deployed IBM TotalStorage Productivity Center, variousIBM System Storage DS family disk systems, SAN Volume Controller (SVC), Tivoli StorageManager (TSM), Tivoli Provisioning Manager (TPM), and several other products. Armed with these products, they performed the following:
- Clean Up. IBM uses the term "rationalization" to relate to the assignment of business value, to avoid confusion with theterm "classification" which many in IT relate to identifyingownership, read and write authorization levels. Often, in theinitial phases of an ILM deployment, a portion of the data isdetermined to be eligible for clean up, either to move to a lower-cost tier or deleted immediately. ABN Amro and IBM set a goal to identifyat least 20 percent of their data for clean up.
- New tiers. Rather than traditional "storage tiers" which are often justTier 1 for Fibre Channel disk and Tier 2 for SATA disk, ABN Amroand IBM came up with seven "information infrastructure tiers" thatincorporate service levels, availability and protection status.They are:
- High-performance, Highly-available disk with Remote replication.
- High-performance, Highly-available disk (no remote replication)
- Mid-performance, high-capacity disk with Remote replication
- Mid-performance, high-capacity disk (no remote replication)
- Non-erasable, Non-rewriteable (NENR) storage employinga blended disk and tape solution.
- Enterprise Virtual Tape Library with remote replicationand back-end physical tape
- Mid-performance physical tape
These tiers are applied equally across their mainframe anddistributed platforms. All of the tiers are priced per "primary GB", so any additional capacity required for replication orpoint-in-time copies, either local or remote, are all folded into the base price.ABN Amro felt a mission-critical applicationon Windows or UNIX deserves the same Tier 1 service level asa mission-critical mainframe application. Exactly!
- Deployed storage virtualization for disk and tape. Thisinvolved the SAN Volume Controller and IBM TS7000 series library.
- Implemented workflow automation. The key product here is IBM Tivoli Provisioning Manager
- Started an investigation for HSM on distributed. This would be policy-based space management to migrate lessfrequently accessed data to the TSM pool for Windows or UNIX data.
While the deployment is not yet complete, ABN Amro feels they have alreadyrecognized business value:
- Reduced cost by identifying data that should be stored on lower tiers
- Simplified management, consolidated across all operating systems (mainframe, UNIX, Windows)
- Increased utilization of existing storage resources
- Reduced manual effort through policy-based automation, which can lead to fewer human errors and faster adaptability to new business opportunities
- Standardized backup and other operational procedures
Henk and the rest of ABN Amro are quite pleased with the progress so far,although recent developments in terms of the takeover of ABN AMRO by aconsortium of banks means that the model is only implemented so far in Europe. Further rollout depends on the storage strategy of the new owners. Nonetheless,I am glad that I was able to work with Henk, Jason, Barbara, Steve, Tom, Dennis, Craig and othersto be part of this from the beginning and be able to see it rollout successfully over the years.
For more about what was presented at Pulse 2008 conference, see the videos of the keynotespeakers at [IBM Pulse - YouTube channel]!
technorati tags: IBM, ABN Amro, Henk de Ruiter, merge, mainframe, Tucson, Executive Briefing Center, EBC, STG, Lab Services, ILM, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Chicago, Global Storage, study, solution, Productivity Center, DS8000, DS4000, SVC, storage tiers, rationalization, NENR, FC, SATA, Windows, UNIX, TS7000, HSM
IBM is hosting a webcast about storage for SAP Environments. Learn how integrated IBM infrastructure solutions, specifically, customized for your SAP environments, can help lower your business costs, increases productivity in SAP development and test tasks, and improve resource utilization. This will include discussion of archive solutions with WebDAV, ArchiveLink and DR550;IBM Business Intelligence (BI) Accelerator; IBM support for SAP [Adaptive Computing]; and performance benchmark results. The session is intended for SAP and storage administrators, IT directorsand managers.
Here are the details:
The session is targeted to run for 60 minutes.
technorati tags: IBM, SAP, storage, virtualization, webDAV, ArchiveLink, DR550, Adaptive Computing, BI Accelerator, benchmark, performance