Tag Archives: ACM
Even without Automated Capacity Management (ACM), ThruPut Manager’s automation engine – Service Level Manager – can really speed up your batch workload and, in most cases, reduce your batch window. But it can also save you CPU cycles; and, anything you can do to put off an upgrade or reduce your MSU numbers means you’ve saved your company money.
Companies are more cost-focused than ever before. While some industries have always had narrow margins, every company is looking for cost-savings wherever possible. Soft-capping can be scary, but you still need to save money. So what do you do? The solution is LPAR sets.
In our last post, we reviewed the Automated Capacity Management (ACM) feature of ThruPut Manager and its ability to control the rolling 4-hour average (R4HA) by constraining or deferring specified workloads as the R4HA approaches the soft cap limit. But you may prefer more granular control in order to more fully leverage the opportunity for MLC savings, or you may not prefer to put caps in place at all, but still wish to reduce demand and enjoy the resulting cost savings.
Many datacenters are enjoying the software savings provided by ThruPut Manager’s Automated Capacity Management (ACM) component, a safe and selective method to reduce MSU consumption and resulting MLC costs. Now, ACM introduces a significant enhancement – LPAR Sets.Monthly License Charges are implemented on a CPC basis, but each LPAR may contribute to the total in different ways with different software stacks, varying business requirements, or various MSU costs for each LPAR. We are now introducing LPAR Sets to give you more granular control over your batch workload.
Just as IBM helped customers with CPU costs by offering zIIP engines, it’s again stepping up to the plate to make the cost of mobile applications more affordable. The company’s new program, highlighted in a previous post, is designed for z/OS customers running such programs as CICS, IMS and DB2 with IBM’s new Mobile Workload Pricing program (MWP). The new program allows those implementing sub-capacity AWLC, AEWLC or zNALC to run a new tool, the Mobile Workload Reporting Tool (MWRT), which acts like SCRT but for mobile workloads.
When it was first introduced, IBM’s sub-capacity pricing was a boon for capacity planners from a financial standpoint—allowing them to be more proactive in their planning. In the pre-sub-capacity era, all upgrades had to be carefully managed because of the huge potential impact on software pricing. Now, you can right-size your hardware and worry less about software costs—until you hit a soft cap, that is.
When it comes to lowering your company’s Rolling 4-Hour Average (R4HA), is capping always your best option? As we’ve mentioned elsewhere, while sub-capacity pricing can immediately reduce software costs, most installations need a way to guarantee a limit to the monthly charges to experience substantial savings. IBM offers a number of ways to do this, but virtually all of them involve the notion of “capping”. Capping is incredibly beneficial in certain scenarios; but, it isn’t necessarily the best choice for every installation.