z/OS Guide Share Europe

z/OS, zIIP and DataWareHouse with DB2

in Toyota Motor Europe Hein Vandenabeele

z/OS Team Leader

17Mar2010

Agenda

•  Toyota In Europe

•  z/OS in TME

•  zIIP in TME

•  DataWareHouse in TME

•  Questions ?

Toyota In Europe

Toyota In Europe •  First vehicle imported in 1963 •  HO in Brussels / Evere •  NMSCs (TBEL, TDE, TGB, …) •  EMCs (Plants - TMUK, TMMF, TMMT, TMMP, …) •  HUBs (Ports - Zeebrugge, Malmo, Hanko, …) •  TPC (Parts Center – Diest, Le Pouzin, …) •  R2D2 (Nice) •  Dealers (x1000) •  Strong link with TMC (Toyota Motor Corporation)

Belgium is VERY important to TME

Toyota In Europe

Toyota In Europe

IT Infrastructure in TME •  z Series – 2 z9 •  AIX / Sun Solaris:

•  150 virtual on 60 physical machines •  Power5, Power6

•  AS/400: •  18 lpars on 3 physical machines

•  Windows • 23 VM Ware Physical ESX Servers •  340 Virtual Machines (Lotus Notes, FileSharing, Print Servers, Web, …)

•  Linux

zOS in TME

Computer Rooms in TME

HO4N CR

TASC CR

MainFrame HeadCount

•  Infrastructure Teams: •  zOS Team: 3 ppl (incl storage mgmt) •  DBA Team: 7 ppl (incl CICS, MQS, Version Mgmt)

•  Development: •  Sales (Brussels) •  RDMC (Derby – UK)

z Series in TME - I •  2 x z9 EC – S08 – 504 – 2860 MIPS in two locations 200m apart (HO4N – TASC buildings)

•  4 GP each •  1 ICF •  1 zIIP each

•  Dasd: •  2 Sun/STK V2Xf PPRC •  Migration to IBM DS8300 ongoing – Implementation of HyperSwap

•  Tape: • 2 IBM ATL 3494, 18 3590-H1A tape units, 3000 tapes Media3 (Blue) / Media 4 (Green)

z Series in TME - II •  zOS V1R10 since Feb2010 •  DB2 V8 •  CICS TS V2R3 (EOS - $$$ ) •  MQS V5R3M1 (EOS - $$$ ) •  IMS V8 (EOS - $$$ ) •  Programming Languages

•  Cobol •  PLI •  C (NatStar) •  Java •  Some ASM

z Series in TME - III •  System Automation + NetView (Autom. Operat.) •  TWS (Scheduling) •  BMC MainView DB2, CICS, MQS, zOS (System Monitoring) •  IBM DB2 Tools – Coming from BMC DB2 Tools •  ConnectDirect (Data Transfer) •  XFB (Data Transfer) •  Beta 92, 93 (Output Management) •  MXG, SAS (Reporting, Capacity Planning) •  ISPW (Version Management)

z Series in TME - IV

•  5 Production Lpars (PRD0, PRD1, PRD2 = Sales – PROD, TEST = RDMC) •  2 ICF •  Parallel Sysplex – DB2 DataSharing – NO MQ Sharing (yet) •  Balancing batch workload amongst lpars using WLM Resources (Sales - PRD0/PRD1) •  Communication Server SysPlex Distributor (DDF, FTP, Telnet, CICS Listener) •  Lots of CF Structures (RACF, VTAM, JES2, IMS, GRS, MQS, OperLog, HSM, DB2, …)

z Series in TME - V

z Series in TME - VI

z Series in TME - VII

z Series in TME – CP - I •  WLM Report Class per

•  Application •  Workload Type (Batch, Online, DDF, TSO, …) •  Environment

•  Use of Business Drivers for the BIG applications •  Collaboration With Business •  Application of growth factor per application / type •  Input for xls that provides forecast

z Series in TME – CP - II

zOS in TME – Costing Model

•  We use PSLC. According to IBM we are (almost) ‘The Last Of The Mohicans’ •  Study for VWLC has been done more than once. Conclusion: it is 20% more expensive.

•  Reasons: •  ULC for MQS and IMS •  High average usage (> 90%)

zOS in TME – Future Plans - I

•  We migrated to zOS V1R6, V1R8 and now V1R10. No migration to zOS V1R11 foreseen. •  Check zOS guides for new features, we haven’t done that for a long time. It might be useful. •  RoadMap: create a detailed plan for

•  0 yr < 1 yr •  1 yr < 2 yr •  2 yr <

zOS in TME – Future Plans - II

•  Some Highlights: •  MQ Queue Sharing •  Study z10 •  Create (almost) Perfect (Sales) Plex •  DataSharing for RDMC (now only Sales DB2P) •  Study zLinux (To IBM: It says ‘Study’ ) •  Study WebSphere on zOS (idem)

•  PPP (Possible Political Problems )

zIIP in TME

zIIP – What is the 50% ? Is really around 56% but we assume 50% for the sake of simplicity

zIIP – Usage in TME •  DB2:

•  DDF – All day long •  Rebuild Indexes – Out of peak hours •  All lpars •  Query //: experimented but no big success •  DFSORT (with some apars) – Out of peak hours

•  Since zAAPzIIP (zOS V1R10 – Mid Feb2010): •  Java

•  Batch Jobs – All day long •  Online – Jetty – Java Application Server – All •  All lpars

zIIP – DW2P Results

zIIP – Overall DB2 Results

zIIP - Later

zIIP in TME - Latest

zIIP in TME – $$$ Justification zOS V1R8, no

zAAPzIIP

zIIP in TME – Future Plans •  Create Capacity Plan for zIIP. Not really needed as not fully used. However at some moments they are used up to 80%-90%. Use of XRMFINT table in SAS which contains a WEALTH of information..

•  z9 ? More powerful zIIPs (985 MIPS z10 EC). Target = 2 per CEC. IBM: better start thinking.

•  Other ISV ? Now only BMC MainView zOS, DB2 Tools

•  DB2 V8+: Native Stored Procs

DWH on z Series in TME

DataWareHouse in TME - I

•  What is it ?

•  Purpose ?

•  Infrastructure ?

•  Users ?

•  Development ?

DataWareHouse in TME - I

•  Purpose:

•  Create Operational Reporting

•  Create Cubes

•  Multidimensional structure to analyse data

•  Like an xls but with more axes

Cube - I

Cube - II

Cube - III

DataWareHouse in TME - I

•  HardWare InfraStructure: •  z9 •  Cognos on Windows NT / 2000

•  SoftWare InfraStructure: •  PowerPlay

•  Being replaced by IBM Cognos ReportNet (Cognos8 – Web Based)

•  Cubes •  Cognos 7 / Impromptu

•  Being phased out •  Reporting

DataWareHouse in TME - II

•  Users:

•  14 NMSC

•  TME Users (Central Warranty, New Parts, Vehicle): x100

•  Development

•  1 IT

•  Admin + Reporting

•  2 Key Users

•  Reporting

DataWareHouse in TME - zIIP •  Study done in 2008 as a part of a possible DWH solution (vs Distributed) ‒ Use of DDF on zIIP •  LPAR PRD2 was created in 200x to split DWH activity from the rest of Sales (PRD0 + PRD1) •  In separate DB2 SubSystem DW2P

•  Decision Making: See A3 ‒ Toyota Format •  1 zIIP in each CEC implemented in Aug2008 (For IBM 1 € = 1 $ ) •  Benefits for all other lpars too (DDF only at the time) •  All scheduling on external systems done by TWS on z •  Universal Command •  Secure Shell

DataWareHouse in TME - III

DataWareHouse in TME - zIIP

DataWareHouse in TME - SDR •  Shared Data Reporting Project

Project deliverables are:

•  Automated data collection from necessary source systems •  Creation of a central Data Store for keeping that information •  Creation of 10 management reports •  Provide tool(s) for specialist reporting by key users

DataWareHouse in TME - SDR

Different Data Sources from

which to distill reports

DataWareHouse in TME - SDR

Different Data Models for

different Data Sources

PowerDesigner used as

modeling tool

DataWareHouse in TME - SDR

Most Data comes from z

DB2: -  Source -  Target IBM InfoSphere

DataStage

DataWareHouse in TME - SDR

Comments from a DBA:

- About Datastage --> it proved to be very unstable during development phase and we needed to have the support from IBM lab several times. Don't know if this is related to the fact we used Solaris or what, but the product itself was kind of a mess...

- About The Project --> it would be better to use datastage on Linux on z. The project organization was a problem because lack of resources, this increased costs and make more interesting the idea of a Cobol programming project as an alternative. Good it is zIIP eligible. They may use a better way of loading the data in z/OS (load instead of insert). But the most important point: because we used the zIIP we reduced the TCO and we saved PRD2!…

DataWareHouse in TME - QREP •  BMC LogManager:

•  Now used to scan logs and apply changes to DWH tables •  Several drawbacks:

•  Logs are scanned more than once (once per application)

•  Leadtime for application – Not real time •  Queue Replication (QREP):

•  IBM solution to use MQS to get the same result but better •  Several advantages:

•  Real time replication •  Single scan of logs •  Easier management

DataWareHouse in TME - QREP

DataWareHouse in TME - QREP •  The IBM $$$ Problem:

•  QREP comes with MQS (now V6) under the covers for which we do NOT have to pay.

•  We have an ULC licence for the ‘normal’ MQS usage which uses the SMF89 for billing (now V5R3)

•  The MULC report distinguishes between MQ Versions so today no problem

•  If we ever run the same version of MQ for these two functionalities than we will not see the difference in the SMF records. Only base for differentiating is the MQ SubSystem ! But how will we ‘sort’ SMF89 ?

Questions

Thank you