Tivoli Productivity Center for Replication (TPC-R) Benchmark on system z TECHNICAL REPORT

Transcription

1 Tivoli Productivity Center for Replication (TPC-R) Benchmark on system z TECHNICAL REPORT Version: final File:

2 Document history Revision Author Comment Date V0.1 P.Megard Draft v0.1 24/10/2013 V1.0 P.Megard Final 31/10/2013 Referenced Documents N Author Document name Date. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 2/34

3 TABLE OF CONTENT Executive Summary Introduction Business Context Objectives Project Team Project environment Architecture Hardware Software Operating System TPCR V Application Database Application server Scheduler Performance reporting tools Configuration Logical Architecture Network z/os Configuration WAS Configuration Storage configuration Performance reporting SMF RMF Application Performance Analyzer Project activities Test Scenarios Selected Runs RUN ID Naming Convention Golden Runs List z/os tuning TPC-R 5.2 installation TPC-R tuning Reported Problems Java dump when starting TPC-R V IWNR5446W for a session with HyperSwap Analyzed Runs Results Analysis Start time for a TPC-R instance Metro Mirror with HyperSwap runs Metro Global Mirror runs Technical Conclusions Appendix STC WLM classification: Sysplex CFRM policy: Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 3/34

4 Executive Summary At the end of October 2013, IBM Software Group delivered a new release of Tivoli Productivity Center for Replication called TPC-R 5.2. The main objective of this release was to reduce the installation complexity to improve the performance of the product and to reduce the CPU cost. IBM Client Center (ICC) in Montpellier was asked to run a benchmark to support this announcement by verifying some of the expected improvements on z/os. We compared the TPC-R 5.1 release with TPC-R 5.2 running on zec12 partitions with Dasd located on a DS/8870 storage subsystem. With this configuration: We re able to install a TPC-R 5.2 instance in less than two hours compared to a minimum of one day in case of 5.1. We also demonstrated the scalability of the solution when adding volume pairs and the CPU cost reduction was up to a divide by ten with 5.2 when managing multiple MGM sessions with one TPC-R instance. We measured around 70% offload to specialized engines (zaap or ziip) for TPC-R during the benchmark. Additionally, the TPC-R 5.2 solution was successfully tested in a Parallel Sysplex environment and we didn t detect any problems during the two week benchmark. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 4/34

5 1 Introduction This document is the technical report of the benchmark exercise which took place at the IBM Client Center (ICC) in Montpellier on behalf of Tivoli Productivity Center for Replication on system z (hereafter referred to as TPC-R), from 14th October 2013 till 25th October Business Context TPC-R on system z product was delivered since several years now and was installed as a WebSphere Application Server application. Starting with TPC-R 5.2, the product is installed as an application using the WAS liberty Profile feature. IBM and customer expected CPU cost reductions and less complexity for installation. IBM STG & Software Group asked IBM Montpellier PSSC to engage a Benchmark demonstrating the performance and scalability of the TPC-R 5.2 solution on z/os compared to TPC-R Objectives CPU cost comparison will be done for MM and MGM sessions between TPC-R for system z and TPC-R for system z 5.2. Validation of TPC-R 5.2 installation will be done during the time of the exercise. Time to start a TPC-R instance will be measured. 1.3 Project Team Name Role Company Patrice Megard IT Specialist, z/os specialist IBM Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 5/34

6 2 Project environment 2.1 Architecture Hardware TPCR Benchark Configuration zec12 H89 (Wxx) 89CPs 512 GB Memory LPAR 1 LPAR 2 CF CF 2 CP 2 CP MVL1 z/os V1R13 MVL2 z/os V1R13 MVK1 z/os V1R13 MVL3 z/os V1R MVL3 z/os V1R13 MQ V7.R1 Message Broker V FTM V WODM ILOG/WTX WAS V7.1 mgt FTM DBs DBS1 DB2 V10 MVL4 z/os V1R13 MQ V7.R1 Message Broker V FTM V2.002 WODM ILOG/WTX FTM DBs DBS2 DB2 V x.2 TPCR Or TPCR 5.2 WAS WAS V7.1 V7.1 mgt DBX1 DB2 V x.5 4 FICONs 8 Gb DS8870 (SXX) 30 TB RAID 5 TAPE 3590 A10/ XXX.x 10.7.x.1 Shared PC 10.7.x.140 Shared PC 10.7.x141 PC 10.7.x.142 Bench tool WMB Toolkit 10.7.x.14X MQ explorer Remote VPN Access ONN : 70x Subnet : 10.7.x..0/24 Mask : Gateway : 10.7.x.254 DNS 1 : x zec12 H89 with 81 general CPs 8 ziips available and 512 GB memory maximum 4 z/os LPAR with MQ, Message Broker, and DB2 (for Financial Manager Database) 1 z/os LPAR for running TPC-R for system z 2 Coupling Facilities LPAR with 2 CPs each. WAS Application Server V7.1 to implement FTM GUI. 4 Ficon Express 8S (8 Gbps channels) for communication between zec12 and DS 8870 Storage using zhpf 1 DS8870 as storage with 30 TB space in RAID 5, internal disks of 300GB 15K RPM. 2 networks : 1 administration ONN 1 dedicated room for the benchmark with several PC PC distribution and usage : 1 PC dedicated as Benchmark controller, 1 PC dedicated for WebSphere Message Broker (WMB) Toolkit and MQ Explorer, 1 shared PC as a possible FTP server, the other PCs as network stations connected to the administration network Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 6/34

7 2.1.2 Software z/os V1R Operating System TPCR V5 TPC-R V TPC-R V Application MQ v7r1 Message Broker v with JDK V6 64 bit SR12 FTM V2.1 IBM InfoSphere Replication Server for z/os V10.1 WebSphere Transformation Extender (UK91147 build 43) WebSphere Operational Decision Management for z/os Database DB2 v10.1 RSU Application server WebSphere Application Server Scheduler TWS v8.5.1 (Tivoli Workload Scheduler) Performance reporting tools SMF/RMF z/os OMEGAMON XE DB2 PE v5.1 DB2 Administration Tool 10.1 Tivoli Decision Support Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 7/34

8 2.2 Configuration Logical Architecture Five z/os partitions are part of the parallel SYSPLEX; four are dedicated for a WMB application called FTM and one is dedicated to run the TPC-R on system z application. Two General processors (CP) and one specialized engine processor (ziip) are configured on the partition running TPC-R with 8 GB of real storage Network A Fast Ethernet LAN remotely accessible through an open VPN connection was used for Administration (ONN 708) z/os Configuration Workload Manager (WLM) The performance goals of z/os components are managed by the z/os workload manager (WLM) and defined in a WLM policy. The WLM policy used during the benchmark for System tasks (STC) classification is detailed in Appendix STC WLM classification WAS Configuration TPC-R is configured in a WAS V7 instance with DB2 V10 as data store. TPC-R 5.2 is configured in a WAS 8.5 liberty profile delivered with the product; TPC-R 5.2 used an embedded database instead of DB Storage configuration 1 DS/8870 DASD subsystem configured with 4 FICON Express 8S switched connection (8 Gbps channel). Raid 5 was used for the disk arrays. 256 GB of storage cache, internal disks were 300GB SAS disk 15K RPM. The configuration for the DS/8800 was 30 LCUs of 3390 mod27 and mod1, which equates to approx. 40TB. MGM session with practice was configured with H1 defined as: 59 Mod 27 on LCU0, 47 Mod27 on LCU1, 32 Mod27 and 224 Mod1 on LCU2 LCU3 LCU4 and LCU5. HyperPAV is available on LCU0 and LCU Performance reporting Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 8/34

9 SMF For each run, all z/os metrics were recorded by System Management Facility (SMF) including CPU consumption, memory, I/O, etc. per address space RMF Report Management Facility (RMF) is used to extract various z/os metrics from the SMF data sets. We used RMF monitor I monitor III and Data Portal Application Performance Analyzer Application Performance Analyzer for z/os has extensive performance analysis, monitoring, and reporting for CICS, Assembler, COBOL, PL/I, C/C++, DB2, IMS, and WebSphere MQ applications. This can be used during the benchmark for identifying bottlenecks in DB2 and in the application, and long running SQLs. 3 Project activities The following test scenarios have been performed during the two weeks of benchmark. The run durations have been fixed to one hour per run in order to have a significant average value. 3.1 Test Scenarios Three test scenarios have been performed Scenario 1: Measure CPU consumption and elapsed time of a TPC-R start with and 5.2. Scenario 2: Measure CPU consumption of a TPC-R MM session with TPC-R and TPC-R 5.2 when idle. Scenario 3: Measure CPU consumption of various TPC-R MGM sessions with TPC-R and TPC-R 5.2 when idle. 3.2 Selected Runs In this section, we detail the results of the tests performed in the course of the benchmark RUN ID Naming Convention We agreed about the following convention Year 2013 Date R R1 Run Number in the day Type of run Month (here march) (only one type in this benchmark) Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 9/34

10 3.2.2 Golden Runs List For this benchmark, we performed about more than 40 runs from which the following ones were the most representative. Runid CPU sec WAS CPU sec Enclave CPU sec IOS MIPs CP + IIP Mips CP WAS CP% WAS IIP% WAS IIP Offload % Comments TPCR 5.1 R31014R2 42,926 0,13 0, ,553 53,986 4,91 30,92 86,30% R31022R1 33, ,105 10,206 2,548 0,23 0,7 75,27% R31022R2 26, ,083 8,186 2,121 0,19 0,55 74,32% R31022R3 20, ,075 6,362 1,691 0,15 0,42 73,68% R31022R4 15, ,067 4,625 1,226 0,11 0,31 73,81% R31022R5 9, ,058 3,070 0,809 0,07 0,2 74,07% R31022R6 6, ,038 2,817 0,801 0,07 0,18 72,00% R31024R3 6, ,102 1,926 0,589 0,05 0,12 70,59% R31025R2 177, ,054 54,349 9,695 0,88 4,06 82,19% TPCR 5.2 R31016R5 2, ,023 1,571 0,459 0,04 0,1 71,43% R31016R6 2, ,023 1,413 0,480 0,04 0,08 66,67% R31017R3 1, ,017 1,012 0,456 0,04 0,05 55,56% R31021R1 8, ,109 2,570 0,805 0,07 0,16 69,57% R31021R2 7, ,084 2,440 0,716 0,06 0,15 71,43% R31021R3 7, ,079 2,235 0,687 0,06 0,14 70,00% R31021R4 6, ,072 2,052 0,699 0,06 0,12 66,67% R31024R4 3,14 0 0,087 0,986 0,410 0,04 0,06 60,00% R31025R1 13, ,044 4,234 0,902 0,08 0,3 78,95% Start in 1mn 10sec TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MM + GM with 234 pairs IIPHonorpriority=NO TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 874 pairs (5 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 618 pairs (4 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 362 pairs (3 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 106 pairs (2 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 59 pairs (1 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR WAS V7 embedded MM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR WAS V7 embedded MGM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) 6 sessions IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR MGM with 064 pairs (2 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) TPCR MGM with 032 pairs (1 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) TPCR MGM with 000 pairs (0 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) TPCR MGM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) TPCR MGM with 874 pairs (5 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) TPCR MGM with 618 pairs (4 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) TPCR MGM with 362 pairs (3 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) TPCR MM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) TPCR MGM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) 6 sessions IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 10/34

11 3.2.3 z/os tuning Enhanced Catalog Sharing is activated on the z/os partitions. zhpf was turned on for the media manager IO requests. WLM policy was modified to classify TPC-R address space and the two IOS address spaces used for HyperSwap. A WLM report class has been defined for CB WAS enclave to report any GUI activity, this activity should be zero as we want to measure the CPU cost of TPC-R internal activity. USS file sharing was implemented for the four z/os partitions running FTM and the ZFS files provided by the z/os components are always mounted read only in order to avoid ZFS sharing cost; customization zfs files are mounted read/write with the z/os partition doing write as the owner of the ZFS file. This is a general good practice for z/os performance, and it s very important to follow it. The z/os partition for TPC-R is isolated from the four z/os partitions running FTM, so is not using USS file sharing. This configuration was done for the benchmark and is not mandatory, TPC-R can run on the z/os partitions running applications and in this case the recommendations for ZFS files should be followed. In order to maximize the usage of specialized engines (ziip in our case as we are using ziip on zaap feature) and to reduce the CPU cost on general CP, we specified IIPHONORPRIORITY=NO into IEAOPTxx Parmlib member. RMF monitor II display the current parameters for IEAOPTxx Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 11/34

12 3.2.4 TPC-R 5.2 installation A big improvement of TPC-R 5.2 was the installation process. With the usage of Liberty profile of WAS 8.5, there is no need to install a WebSphere Application Server instance. The installation is done with two jobs; the first one defined some RACF resources and the second installed and configured TPC-R 5.2. These two sample jobs are located into SYS1.SAMPLIB IWNRACF was the job defining RACF resources. IWNINSTL was the job installing and configuring TPC-R with Liberty profile. You haven t to use a userid defined with uid=0 to submit this job, the userid running the job needs the following RACF authorities: UNIXPRIV SUPERUSER.FILESYS.CHOWN read access FACILITY BPX.FILEATTR.PROGCTL read access FACILITY BPX.FILEATTR.APF read access Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 12/34

13 The following procedure IWNSRV found into SYS1.SAMPLIB has to be copied into a Proclib dataset and then we started TPC-R with the z/os command: Start IWNSRV TPC-R tuning We ve performed runs with TPCR using a DB2 database or an embedded database and measured the same CPU cost when idle for MGM or GM sessions. For simplification and to avoid any network changes to our configuration we used only zos native connections (done via FICON CCW) to connect the DS/8870 to TPC-R. It took around 2 hours and 20 minutes to get the 1130 volume pairs ( Cylinders) in sync for an MGM HyperSwap session with TPC-R or TPC-R 5.2. In order to avoid complex changes that are only applicable to some configurations; we only changed the Initial heap size of the JVM for TPC-R and TPC-R 5.2. Other areas of interest will be described into this chapter. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 13/34

14 For TPC-R we increased the Initial heap size of the servant region from 256MB to 512 MB (see figure below). For TPC-R 5.2 we increased the initial heap size from 128MB to 512MB by changing the jvm.options file located into : /var/tivoli/rm52/wlp/usr/servers/replicationserver Notice that for production usage, it s common that the Initial heap size is equal to the Maximum heap size. The server.xml file for TPC-R 5.2 was not modified; you ve to notice that the monitoring of files is disabled to reduce idle CPU. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 14/34

15 One feature of interest will be the usage of 1MB frames, we validated that it could be used with TPC-R 5.2 by adding the large page option into the jvm.options file ( -Xlp option ).Using large page available with z10 and above improved java performance and avoid page out of the JVM. The compressed references option often linked to the large page option into some documentation is a performance sweet spot with a 2048 megabyte heap size or above; for less than 2048 MB heap size it ll have no impact. During the benchmark we discovered that internal tracing needed for debugging was improved and tuned with TPC-R 5.2, there was a significant CPU cost reduction for this activity with TPC- R 5.2. If the CPU cost is critical with TPC-R 5.1, some CPU reduction (measured at around 25%) can be expected by using trace.level=error (or WARNING) instead of trace.level=info for the TPC-R ccwtrace. This is not recommended as it could increase time for the IBM support to investigate any errors; it s a trade off between performance and First Time Data Capture. The parameter is located into the essclientlogging.properties file. An alternative to this change can be to change the parameter csm.server.progress.query.interval.min into rmserver.properties from the default value of 30 seconds to 330 seconds in order to increase by 5 mn the interval for Query PPRC status used to report Out of Sync counts. This function generated a burst of write to the TPC-R ccwtrace; by increasing the interval between runs of it we ll decrease the CPU cost of it (measured at around 50%) without any impact when the session is prepared. This is not applicable to TPC-R Reported Problems Java dump when starting TPC-R V5.2 We got a java dump when starting TPC-R V5.2 because SDM Ptfs for Apar OA40930 and OA40875 were not installed. After installing the above Ptfs the problem was solved IWNR5446W for a session with HyperSwap Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 15/34

16 The following warning message appeared on the TPC-R Gui for a MGM session with HyperSwap: PTF for Apar OA40862 resolved this problem. 3.4 Analyzed Runs The runs have been done with the configuration described in chapter 2; the run durations have been fixed to one hour per run in order to have a significant average value. We measured CPU seconds of execution time from SMF 72 records for TPC-R address spaces, for CB and for the IOS address spaces involved with HyperSwap (IOSHSIB and IOSHSAPI). Based on estimated MIPs delivered by the zec12 we have been able to estimate the MIPs usage of TPC-R. The column CP% or IIP% from SMF72 was the percentage of processor use, 150% stands for 1.5 CPs Results Analysis Start time for a TPC-R instance The objective for these runs is to measure the elapsed time and Cpu time needed to start a TPC-R instance. Here is a summary of the resources used: Run infos Runid CPU sec WAS CPU sec Enclave CPU sec IOS MIPs CP + IIP Mips CP WAS CP% WAS IIP% WAS IIP Offload % Comments TPCR 5.1 Start in 1mn 10sec TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MM + GM with 234 pairs R31014R2 42,926 0,13 0, ,553 53,986 4,91 30,92 86,30% IIPHonorpriority=NO TPCR 5.2 R31017R2 82,92 0 0, ,146 33,376 3,03 66,07 95,62% Start in 1mn 10sec TPCR 5.2 M GM with 234 pairs IIPHonorpriority=NO System metrics analysis The time to start TPC-R was the same for and 5.2 in the above configuration with one MGM session active. It took around 70 seconds to start it. The major difference was the reduction of CP time with 5.2; we decreased the CP time from 53.9 seconds to 33.3 seconds. The IIP time with 5.2 was higher than with because for these runs we didn t change the initial heap size for TPC-R and the default was 128MB for 5.2 and 256 MB for We could expect IIP time reduction for TPC-R 5.2 when using an initial heap size of 256 MB or more. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 16/34

17 Metro Mirror with HyperSwap runs The objective for these two runs is to measure the Cpu cost for a Metro Mirror HyperSwap session with 1130 volumes in pair managed by TPC-R. Run infos Runid CPU sec WAS CPU sec Enclave CPU sec IOS MIPs CP + IIP Mips CP WAS CP% WAS IIP% WAS IIP Offload % Comments TPCR 5.1 TPCR WAS V7 embedded MM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) R31024R3 6, ,102 1,926 0,589 0,05 0,12 70,59% IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR 5.2 R31024R4 3,14 0 0,087 0,986 0,410 0,04 0,06 60,00% TPCR MM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) System metrics analysis For these two runs we observed an average CP + IIP consumption divided by two with 5.2 and around 30% less CP consumption with 5.2 compared to The CPU cost is small with Metro Mirror, it s why we decided to spend more time on Global Mirror that triggered some RPO monitoring by TPC-R. The following two graphs resumed the difference between and 5.2. M I P s 2,5 2 1,5 CP +IIP cost (1130 pairs) C o s t 1 0,5 0 MM Cost Cost 5.2 Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 17/34

18 M I P s 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 CP cost (1130 pairs) C o s t 0,3 0,2 0,1 0 MM Cost Cost Metro Global Mirror runs The objective for these runs is to analyse the behaviour of TPC-R with various MGM configuration from 32 to 1130 pairs and from 1 to 6 MGM sessions. Main Observations were on CPU cost, for memory we observed no more than 1.5 GB memory used for a maximum heap size of 768 MB and an initial heap size of 512 MB. Based on TPC-R 5.2 screen, the definitions for the MGM sessions were: Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 18/34

19 Run infos The following table resumed the results achieved with a MGM session with Practice and HyperSwap enabled. Runid CPU sec WAS CPU sec Enclave CPU sec IOS MIPs CP + IIP Mips CP WAS CP% WAS IIP% WAS IIP Offload % Comments TPCR 5.1 TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 000 pairs (0 LCU) R31017R5 5, ,024 3,233 0,681 0,06 0,23 79,31% IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=all R31022R1 33, ,105 10,206 2,548 0,23 0,7 75,27% TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info R31022R2 26, ,083 8,186 2,121 0,19 0,55 74,32% TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 874 pairs (5 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info R31022R3 20, ,075 6,362 1,691 0,15 0,42 73,68% TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 618 pairs (4 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info R31022R4 15, ,067 4,625 1,226 0,11 0,31 73,81% TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 362 pairs (3 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info R31022R5 9, ,058 3,070 0,809 0,07 0,2 74,07% TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 106 pairs (2 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info R31022R6 6, ,038 2,817 0,801 0,07 0,18 72,00% TPCR WAS V7 DB2 MGM with 59 pairs (1 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info TPCR 5.2 R31016R5 2, ,023 1,571 0,459 0,04 0,1 71,43% TPCR MGM with 064 pairs (2 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) R31016R6 2, ,023 1,413 0,480 0,04 0,08 66,67% TPCR MGM with 032 pairs (1 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) R31021R1 8, ,109 2,570 0,805 0,07 0,16 69,57% TPCR MGM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) R31021R2 7, ,084 2,440 0,716 0,06 0,15 71,43% TPCR MGM with 874 pairs (5 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) R31021R3 7, ,079 2,235 0,687 0,06 0,14 70,00% TPCR MGM with 618 pairs (4 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) R31021R4 6, ,072 2,052 0,699 0,06 0,12 66,67% TPCR MGM with 362 pairs (3 LCU) IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info (default) Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 19/34

20 3000 Average RPO :44: :12: :40: :09: :37: :06: :34: :02: :30: :59: :27: :55: :24: :52: :20: :49: :17: :45: :14: :42: :10: :39: :07: :35: :04: :32: :01: :29: :58: :26: :54: :23: :51: :19: :48: :16: :44: :13: :41: :10: :38: :06: :35: :03: :31: :00: :28: :56: :25: :53: :21: :49: :17: :46: :14: :42: Total We used the Global Mirror Info panel updated every minute to monitor RPO of the MGM session and by exporting the Global Mirror Data we draw the above graph that reported a 2.5 second RPO during more than one day for a TPC-R 5.2 MGM session with HyperSwap of 1130 volume pairs. It was very stable during the day. 2.5 second of RPO is expected with the defined consistency group interval of two seconds for the MGM session. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 20/34

21 2,5 CP and IIP % usage 2 1,5 1 0, /22 10/28 TPCR51 TPCR52 WAS CP% WAS IIP% As observed into the runs table CP and IIP usage was higher with than with 5.2. The peak observed with and 5.2 was always for less than 2% total (0,02 zec12 CP). The CP usage % is very low for the 5.2 run; both runs were for a MGM session with HyperSwap of 1130 volume pairs. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 21/34

22 EXCP WAS SSCH WAS EXCP and SSCH rate E X C P r a t e S S C H r a t e /22 10/28 0 TPCR51 TPCR52 Values EXCP WAS SSCH WAS Version DATE TIME The graph for EXCPs (not physical IOs, EXCP didn t automatically generate physical IOs) showed as for the CPU graphs some peaks at regular interval (every 18 mn for 5.2 and every 2.5 mn for ). After investigations we found that the Query Peer-to-Peer Remote Copy Status Enhanced CCW function is scheduled less often on 5.2 than on when the MGM session is prepared; this change was part of the performance improvement done with 5.2. EXCP rate is mainly due to write to the TPC-R ccwtrace, SSCH rate for this ccwtrace activity is not part of this graph because SSCHs for TPC-R logging to ccwtrace are issued by the ZFS component of z/os. SSCH rate detected on this graph are done via SDM for the Query Peer-to- Peer Remote Copy Status. More explanations are available on this subject into chapter Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 22/34

23 12 CP + IIP cost M I P s C o s t Nbr of Pair in MGM Session Cost Cost 5.2 The cost (CP plus IIP) for a MGM session with HyperSwap is linear with the number of volume pairs. The big difference was that the difference of cost between and 5.2 increased a lot when the number of volume pairs increased. For a session of 1130 volume pairs the cost is multiplied by 5 with compared to CP cost M I P s C o s t 2,5 2 1,5 1 0, Nbr of pair in MGM Session Cost Cost 5.2 Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 23/34

24 Same observation for the CP cost than for CP plus IIP cost, we noticed that for a MGM session of 1130 pairs with 5.2 the average cost on CP is less than 1 MIPs, this is low. For 6 sessions The following table resumed the results achieved with 6 MGM sessions without HyperSwap on one TPC-R instance. We wanted to measure the impact of the number of sessions to the CPU cost. Runid CPU sec WAS CPU sec Enclave CPU sec IOS MIPs CP + IIP Mips CP WAS CP% WAS IIP% WAS IIP Offload % Comments TPCR 5.1 TPCR WAS V7 embedded MGM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) 6 sessions IIPHonorpriority=NO R31025R2 177, ,054 54,349 9,695 0,88 4,06 82,19% trace=info TPCR 5.2 R31025R1 13, ,044 4,234 0,902 0,08 0,3 78,95% TPCR MGM with 1130 pairs (6 LCU) 6 sessions IIPHonorpriority=NO trace=info System metrics analysis The comparison between TPC-R and TPC-R 5.2 can be observed in the following graphs where the total cost (IIP plus CP) is divided by 10 with TPC-R 5.2. M I P s C o s t CP +IIP cost (1130 pairs) 0 MGM 1 session Cost Cost 5.2 MGM 6 sessions Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 24/34

25 M I P s C o s t CP cost (1130 pairs) 0 MGM 1 session Cost Cost 5.2 MGM 6 sessions With TPC-R 5.2 the CP cost to monitor 6 MGM sessions is under one MIPs and is divided by 10 when compared to In this case the impact of the Query Peer-to-Peer Remote Copy Status Enhanced CCW function is multiplied by the number of MGM sessions. As already explained a change was done with TPC-R 5.2 to improve this function when the MGM sessions are in status prepared. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 25/34

26 4 Technical Conclusions This project demonstrated the TPC-R 5.2 improvements from a CPU cost point of view in addition to the installation simplification with the Liberty Profile function of WebSphere Application Server V8R5. The Parallel Sysplex consisted of five z/os LPARs, running on a zec12 machine, and TPC-R 5.2 was successfully validated with several configuration of MM, MGM with or without HyperSwap. We didn t report any failures during the two weeks test. M I P s C o s t CP cost (1130 pairs) MM MGM 1 session MGM 6 sessions Cost Cost 5.2 The above graph summarized the CPU cost reduction observed with TPC-R 5.2, with multiple MGM sessions we divided the cost of TPC-R per 10. In case of idle measurement of MGM sessions, this was mainly due to improvements in the Peer-to-Peer Remote Copy Status Enhanced function brought by TPC-R 5.2. TPC-R 5.2 demonstrated good linear scalability both in terms of CPU consumption when increasing the number of sessions or the number of volume pairs in session. A long run of multiple days during the week-end has been performed to validate MGM session with HyperSwap. Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 26/34

27 5 Appendix 5.1 STC WLM classification: * Subsystem Type STC - system STC & Users STC Classification: Default service class is VEL30STC Default report class is VEL30STC # Qualifier type Qualifier Name Starting Position Service Class Report Class 1 TN BPXAS VEL50STC STC 1 TN IWNSRV VEL50STC WASINF1 1 TN L%SR0%%S VEL50STC WASINF1 1 TN L%SR0%% VEL50STC WASINF1 1 TN L%DEMN% VEL50STC WASINF1 1 TN MQC1MSTR VEL60STC IMQMMSTR 1 TN MQC1CHIN VEL60STC IMQMCHIN 1 TN MQ%%MSTR VEL60STC MQMMSTR 1 TN MQ%%CHIN VEL60STC MQMCHIN 1 TN OMVSZFS VEL60STC STCZFS 1 TN IOSH* VEL60STC HYPERR 1 TN DB%%MSTR VEL60STC DB2MSTR 1 TN DB%%IRLM SYSSTC DB2IRLM 1 TN DB%%DBM* VEL50STC DB2DBM 1 TN DB%%DIST VEL50STC DB2DIST 1 TN DB%%SPAS VEL50STC DB2SPAS 1 TN DB%%WLM VEL50STC DB2WLM 1 TN DB%%ADMT VEL50STC DB2ADM 1 TN MQP%BRK VEL60STC RBROKER 2. AI. FTM% VEL60STC RBROKLLO 2. AI.* VEL60STC RBROKDEF 1 TN ASNQAP* VEL60STC RQAAPT 1 TN ASNQCA* SYSSTC RQCAPT 1 TN NET SYSSTC NETWORK 1 TN TCPIP SYSSTC NETWORK 1 TN HIS* SYSSTC STCPERF Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 27/34

28 1 TN RMF* SYSSTC STCPERF 1 TN GPM* SYSSTC STCPERF 1 TN OPC* SYSSTC STCPERF 1 TN TRK SYSSTC STCPERF 1 SPM SYSTEM SYSTEM RSYSTEM 1 SPM SYSSTC SYSSTC RSYSSTC 1 TN LLA VEL50STC STC 1 TN RRS SYSSTC STC 1 TN CA* SYSSTC STCPERF 1 TN SDSFSRV VEL50STC STC * Subsystem Type CB WebSphere Enclave Classification: Default service class is RT1S Default report class is RTDEF 5.2 Sysplex CFRM policy: //DEFCFRMP JOB ('GA'),NOTIFY=&SYSUID,REGION=0M, // MSGCLASS=X,MSGLEVEL=(1,1) //* *// //*- SYSPLEX JOB UTILISE DANS LES PROCEDURES CLONAGE NE PAS SUPPRIMER*// //* *// //****************************************************************** //STEP1 EXEC PGM=IXCMIAPU //SYSPRINT DD SYSOUT=* //SYSABEND DD SYSOUT=* //SYSIN DD * /* DEFINE POLICY TYPE CFRM */ DATA TYPE(CFRM) REPORT(YES) DEFINE POLICY NAME(POL1) REPLACE(YES) CF NAME(CF1) TYPE(002827) MFG(IBM) PLANT(84) SEQUENCE( CD7) PARTITION(01) CPCID(00) DUMPSPACE(20) Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 28/34

29 CF NAME(CF2) TYPE(002827) MFG(IBM) PLANT(84) SEQUENCE( CD7) PARTITION(02) CPCID(00) DUMPSPACE(20) /* DEFINE STRUCTURE SIGNALING */ STRUCTURE NAME(IXC1_GRS) SIZE(20000) STRUCTURE NAME(IXC1_BIG) SIZE(20000) STRUCTURE NAME(IXC1_DEF8K) SIZE(20000) STRUCTURE NAME(IXC1_DEFAULT) SIZE(20000) STRUCTURE NAME(IXC1_GRS2) SIZE(20000) STRUCTURE NAME(IXC1_BIG2) SIZE(20000) STRUCTURE NAME(IXC1_DEF8K2) SIZE(20000) STRUCTURE NAME(IXC1_DEFAULT2) SIZE(20000) /* DEFINE STRUCTURE GRS */ STRUCTURE NAME(ISGLOCK) INITSIZE(32768) SIZE(32768) /* DEFINE STRUCTURE RACF */ STRUCTURE NAME(IRRXCF00_P001) SIZE(5120) STRUCTURE NAME(IRRXCF00_B001) SIZE(5120) /* DEFINE STRUCTURE RRS */ STRUCTURE NAME(RRS_RMD) INITSIZE(64000) SIZE(96000) STRUCTURE NAME(RRS_RESTART) INITSIZE(16000) SIZE(24000) STRUCTURE NAME(RRS_MAIN) INITSIZE(16000) SIZE(24000) Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 29/34

30 STRUCTURE NAME(RRS_DELAY) INITSIZE(16000) SIZE(24000) STRUCTURE NAME(RRS_METADATA) INITSIZE(16000) SIZE(24000) /* DEFINE STRUCTURE OPERLOG */ STRUCTURE NAME(SYSTEM_OPERLOG) INITSIZE(64000) SIZE(128000) /* DEFINE STRUCTURE LOGREC */ STRUCTURE NAME(SYSTEM_LOGREC) INITSIZE(4096) SIZE(8192) /* DEFINE STRUCTURE ECS */ STRUCTURE NAME(SYSIGGCAS_ECS) INITSIZE(4096) SIZE(8192) /* DEFINE STRUCTURE OPERLOG */ /*********************************************/ /* DEFINE VTAM STRUCTURES FOR MNLB */ /*********************************************/ STRUCTURE NAME(ISTGENERIC) SIZE(4096) INITSIZE(4096) STRUCTURE NAME(ISTMNPS) SIZE(16384) INITSIZE(16384) STRUCTURE NAME(EZBDVIPA) SIZE(5120) INITSIZE(5120) REBUILDPERCENT(20) STRUCTURE NAME(EZBEPORT) SIZE(2560) INITSIZE(2560) /*********************************************/ /* DEFINE DB2 STRUCTURES FOR DSNDBS0 */ /*********************************************/ STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_LOCK1) SIZE(524288) INITSIZE(524288) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_SCA) SIZE(9600) INITSIZE(9600) Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 30/34

31 STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP0) SIZE(65536) INITSIZE(32768) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP2) SIZE(262144) INITSIZE(262144) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP3) SIZE(262144) INITSIZE(262144) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP8) SIZE(4096) INITSIZE(4096) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP9) SIZE(4096) INITSIZE(4096) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP40) SIZE(65536) INITSIZE(65536) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP49) SIZE(65536) INITSIZE(65536) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP8K0) SIZE(8192) INITSIZE(8192) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP8K1) SIZE(262144) INITSIZE(262144) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP8K2) SIZE(262144) INITSIZE(262144) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP8K3) SIZE(262144) INITSIZE(262144) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP8K4) SIZE(262144) INITSIZE(262144) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 31/34

32 STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP16K0) SIZE(32768) INITSIZE(16384) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP16K1) SIZE(262144) INITSIZE(262144) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP16K3) SIZE(131072) INITSIZE(131072) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP32K) SIZE(32768) INITSIZE(16384) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) STRUCTURE NAME(DSNDBS0_GBP32K2) SIZE(262144) INITSIZE(262144) ALLOWAUTOALT(NO) /****************************************************/ /* END OF DEFINE DB2 STRUCTURES FOR DSNDBS0 */ /****************************************************/ /*********************************************/ /* DEFINE WMQ STRUCTURES FOR DSNDBS0 */ /*********************************************/ STRUCTURE NAME(MQCSSHARE1) SIZE(120480) INITSIZE(120480) STRUCTURE NAME(MQCSCSQ_ADMIN) SIZE(20480) INITSIZE(20480) STRUCTURE NAME(MQCSCFSMDS1) SIZE( ) INITSIZE( ) ALLOWAUTOALT(YES) STRUCTURE NAME(MQCSCFSMDS2) SIZE( ) INITSIZE( ) ALLOWAUTOALT(YES) /****************************************************/ /* END OF DEFINE WMQ STRUCTURES FOR DSNDBS0 */ /****************************************************/ Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 32/34

33 - END OF DOCUMENT - Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 33/34

34 Mainframe z Benchmark Center Copyright IBM 2013 Page 34/34