<snarky answers>

RSM (Real Storage Manager) & VSM (Virtual Storage Manager).

Questions: Are these using GPCPU?

Yes, but I would suspect that some RSM/VSM functionality occurs on a zIIP when the unit of work needing storage management is running on a zIIP.  When there are parts of RSM/VSM that require running on GP, then the system will undispatch and redispatch the work to the GP.

If yes, can't it not use zIIP or SAP?

That's a heckuva sentence, "If yes, can not it not use zIIP or SAP?"  I'll assume this is a double-negative, so:

If yes, can it use zIIP or SAP?

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No" for SAP, other than what SAPs are already doing for storage management today (paging or swapping data to/from DASD).  <opinion>I don't think IBM has any interest in trying to figure out how to offload storage management to SAPs.</opinion>

I'm pretty sure the answer for zIIP is, "Yes, it is possible for any operating systems (or any code, for that matter) to be made to run on a zIIP (subject to the rules for running on zIIP)."  

If it can't, Why not?

<opinion>Somewhere, IBM has a backlog of things that ought to be "zIIP-ified."  The items on this list are very likely based on the business value they might bring.</opinion>  For example, they just zIIP-ified Python.  Clearly, this is to promote greater use of Python on z/OS, similar to the advent of zAAP way back when for Java.  You can always submit a requirement/request (whatever they are called now) to ask for RSM and/or VSM to be in the zIIP-y family.

</snarky answers>

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your time to respond. What instigated this curiousity is my monitoring of zIIPs from the HMC Dashboard. We also use SMT (Simultanious Multi threading).

zIIP is so underutilized at almost always at 1-2% & rarely spike to 24-26% on thread 0. Also, consistently at 1% on thread 1 & would rarely spike to 2%. 

Are you suggesting a DCR/RFE by using the IDEAS portal to suggest/propose this change? 

Thanks again,

Ed 

<snarky answers>

RSM (Real Storage Manager) & VSM (Virtual Storage Manager).

Questions: Are these using GPCPU?

Yes, but I would suspect that some RSM/VSM functionality occurs on a zIIP when the unit of work needing storage management is running on a zIIP.  When there are parts of RSM/VSM that require running on GP, then the system will undispatch and redispatch the work to the GP.

If yes, can't it not use zIIP or SAP?

That's a heckuva sentence, "If yes, can not it not use zIIP or SAP?"  I'll assume this is a double-negative, so:

If yes, can it use zIIP or SAP?

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No" for SAP, other than what SAPs are already doing for storage management today (paging or swapping data to/from DASD).  <opinion>I don't think IBM has any interest in trying to figure out how to offload storage management to SAPs.</opinion>

I'm pretty sure the answer for zIIP is, "Yes, it is possible for any operating systems (or any code, for that matter) to be made to run on a zIIP (subject to the rules for running on zIIP)."  

If it can't, Why not?

<opinion>Somewhere, IBM has a backlog of things that ought to be "zIIP-ified."  The items on this list are very likely based on the business value they might bring.</opinion>  For example, they just zIIP-ified Python.  Clearly, this is to promote greater use of Python on z/OS, similar to the advent of zAAP way back when for Java.  You can always submit a requirement/request (whatever they are called now) to ask for RSM and/or VSM to be in the zIIP-y family.

</snarky answers>

Ed,

What I think you're observing is that there just isn't much zIIP enabled workload running on your system.  I have no idea how many GPs or zIIPs you have, but I think you'd have better luck looking at the workloads that IBM and your ISVs have enabled to see if maybe you haven't turned on some switch that enables them at a software or configuration level.

In terms of "stuff in the operating system and subsystems that might be helpful to run on zIIP," I don't think that RSM/VSM is a really big hitter (unless you have a very minimal central store and memory hungry applications).  You could probably look at your performance monitor for better suggestions.  If RSM/VSM is problematic for you, then I think you have different problems to solve for.

Additionally, an IDEA that states, "Make more of the operating system and subsystems zIIP offloadable" is probably too generic, as I surmise before, I'm sure they have a list of things that they want to zIIP-ify.

Scott 

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your time to respond. What instigated this curiousity is my monitoring of zIIPs from the HMC Dashboard. We also use SMT (Simultanious Multi threading).

zIIP is so underutilized at almost always at 1-2% & rarely spike to 24-26% on thread 0. Also, consistently at 1% on thread 1 & would rarely spike to 2%. 

Are you suggesting a DCR/RFE by using the IDEAS portal to suggest/propose this change? 

Thanks again,

Ed 

<snarky answers>

RSM (Real Storage Manager) & VSM (Virtual Storage Manager).

Questions: Are these using GPCPU?

Yes, but I would suspect that some RSM/VSM functionality occurs on a zIIP when the unit of work needing storage management is running on a zIIP.  When there are parts of RSM/VSM that require running on GP, then the system will undispatch and redispatch the work to the GP.

If yes, can't it not use zIIP or SAP?

That's a heckuva sentence, "If yes, can not it not use zIIP or SAP?"  I'll assume this is a double-negative, so:

If yes, can it use zIIP or SAP?

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No" for SAP, other than what SAPs are already doing for storage management today (paging or swapping data to/from DASD).  <opinion>I don't think IBM has any interest in trying to figure out how to offload storage management to SAPs.</opinion>

I'm pretty sure the answer for zIIP is, "Yes, it is possible for any operating systems (or any code, for that matter) to be made to run on a zIIP (subject to the rules for running on zIIP)."  

If it can't, Why not?

<opinion>Somewhere, IBM has a backlog of things that ought to be "zIIP-ified."  The items on this list are very likely based on the business value they might bring.</opinion>  For example, they just zIIP-ified Python.  Clearly, this is to promote greater use of Python on z/OS, similar to the advent of zAAP way back when for Java.  You can always submit a requirement/request (whatever they are called now) to ask for RSM and/or VSM to be in the zIIP-y family.

</snarky answers>

Scott,

Exploitation of zIIPs by subsystems, batch applications & others are NOT within my control. I have suggested this for many years already to my users. my support role is limited to z/OS.  I have provided LFAREA (1MB & 2GB sizes) which they hesitate to use. Ironically, even the IBM DB2 3rd level support is afraid of getting into the LFAREA territory. don't ask me why & how.

For some important reasons we have to add more real memory about 300GB & more to the system. The LFAREA might decompose back to 4k frames if the demand arises. This is where RSM (with VSM even) might do more work mostly for updating UICs, paging & other housekeeping. 

At any rate, I believe RSM & VSM are overhead processing for almost all workloads in z/OS. why not offload RSM & VSM to zIIPs? That makes more sense to me.

I am aware z/OS core tech developers has huge backlogs, however, a DCR/RFE will always be welcome if justified & feasible. I had a bunch of DCR & RDF that were already released to the latest versions of z/OS. 

The site I support are exploiting Subcapacity (SCRT) to reduce costs & I am looking for ways for the user/customer to save more on costs & improve performance within my support scope. 

Thanks,

Ed

Ed,

What I think you're observing is that there just isn't much zIIP enabled workload running on your system.  I have no idea how many GPs or zIIPs you have, but I think you'd have better luck looking at the workloads that IBM and your ISVs have enabled to see if maybe you haven't turned on some switch that enables them at a software or configuration level.

In terms of "stuff in the operating system and subsystems that might be helpful to run on zIIP," I don't think that RSM/VSM is a really big hitter (unless you have a very minimal central store and memory hungry applications).  You could probably look at your performance monitor for better suggestions.  If RSM/VSM is problematic for you, then I think you have different problems to solve for.

Additionally, an IDEA that states, "Make more of the operating system and subsystems zIIP offloadable" is probably too generic, as I surmise before, I'm sure they have a list of things that they want to zIIP-ify.

Scott 

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your time to respond. What instigated this curiousity is my monitoring of zIIPs from the HMC Dashboard. We also use SMT (Simultanious Multi threading).

zIIP is so underutilized at almost always at 1-2% & rarely spike to 24-26% on thread 0. Also, consistently at 1% on thread 1 & would rarely spike to 2%. 

Are you suggesting a DCR/RFE by using the IDEAS portal to suggest/propose this change? 

Thanks again,

Ed 

<snarky answers>

RSM (Real Storage Manager) & VSM (Virtual Storage Manager).

Questions: Are these using GPCPU?

Yes, but I would suspect that some RSM/VSM functionality occurs on a zIIP when the unit of work needing storage management is running on a zIIP.  When there are parts of RSM/VSM that require running on GP, then the system will undispatch and redispatch the work to the GP.

If yes, can't it not use zIIP or SAP?

That's a heckuva sentence, "If yes, can not it not use zIIP or SAP?"  I'll assume this is a double-negative, so:

If yes, can it use zIIP or SAP?

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No" for SAP, other than what SAPs are already doing for storage management today (paging or swapping data to/from DASD).  <opinion>I don't think IBM has any interest in trying to figure out how to offload storage management to SAPs.</opinion>

I'm pretty sure the answer for zIIP is, "Yes, it is possible for any operating systems (or any code, for that matter) to be made to run on a zIIP (subject to the rules for running on zIIP)."  

If it can't, Why not?

<opinion>Somewhere, IBM has a backlog of things that ought to be "zIIP-ified."  The items on this list are very likely based on the business value they might bring.</opinion>  For example, they just zIIP-ified Python.  Clearly, this is to promote greater use of Python on z/OS, similar to the advent of zAAP way back when for Java.  You can always submit a requirement/request (whatever they are called now) to ask for RSM and/or VSM to be in the zIIP-y family.

</snarky answers>

<snarky answers>

RSM (Real Storage Manager) & VSM (Virtual Storage Manager).

Questions: Are these using GPCPU?

Yes, but I would suspect that some RSM/VSM functionality occurs on a zIIP when the unit of work needing storage management is running on a zIIP.  When there are parts of RSM/VSM that require running on GP, then the system will undispatch and redispatch the work to the GP.

If yes, can't it not use zIIP or SAP?

That's a heckuva sentence, "If yes, can not it not use zIIP or SAP?"  I'll assume this is a double-negative, so:

If yes, can it use zIIP or SAP?

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No" for SAP, other than what SAPs are already doing for storage management today (paging or swapping data to/from DASD).  <opinion>I don't think IBM has any interest in trying to figure out how to offload storage management to SAPs.</opinion>

I'm pretty sure the answer for zIIP is, "Yes, it is possible for any operating systems (or any code, for that matter) to be made to run on a zIIP (subject to the rules for running on zIIP)."  

If it can't, Why not?

<opinion>Somewhere, IBM has a backlog of things that ought to be "zIIP-ified."  The items on this list are very likely based on the business value they might bring.</opinion>  For example, they just zIIP-ified Python.  Clearly, this is to promote greater use of Python on z/OS, similar to the advent of zAAP way back when for Java.  You can always submit a requirement/request (whatever they are called now) to ask for RSM and/or VSM to be in the zIIP-y family.

</snarky answers>

BTW, what does CDW stands for? the 3 letters, CDW?

I heard/read about CDW years ago but now aware of the 3 letter meaning.

Thanks, Ed

<snarky answers>

RSM (Real Storage Manager) & VSM (Virtual Storage Manager).

Questions: Are these using GPCPU?

Yes, but I would suspect that some RSM/VSM functionality occurs on a zIIP when the unit of work needing storage management is running on a zIIP.  When there are parts of RSM/VSM that require running on GP, then the system will undispatch and redispatch the work to the GP.

If yes, can't it not use zIIP or SAP?

That's a heckuva sentence, "If yes, can not it not use zIIP or SAP?"  I'll assume this is a double-negative, so:

If yes, can it use zIIP or SAP?

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No" for SAP, other than what SAPs are already doing for storage management today (paging or swapping data to/from DASD).  <opinion>I don't think IBM has any interest in trying to figure out how to offload storage management to SAPs.</opinion>

I'm pretty sure the answer for zIIP is, "Yes, it is possible for any operating systems (or any code, for that matter) to be made to run on a zIIP (subject to the rules for running on zIIP)."  

If it can't, Why not?

<opinion>Somewhere, IBM has a backlog of things that ought to be "zIIP-ified."  The items on this list are very likely based on the business value they might bring.</opinion>  For example, they just zIIP-ified Python.  Clearly, this is to promote greater use of Python on z/OS, similar to the advent of zAAP way back when for Java.  You can always submit a requirement/request (whatever they are called now) to ask for RSM and/or VSM to be in the zIIP-y family.

</snarky answers>

Correction to my previous post: 

I heard/read about CDW years ago but NOT aware of the 3 letter meaning.

Thanks,

BTW, what does CDW stands for? the 3 letters, CDW?

I heard/read about CDW years ago but now aware of the 3 letter meaning.

Thanks, Ed

<snarky answers>

RSM (Real Storage Manager) & VSM (Virtual Storage Manager).

Questions: Are these using GPCPU?

Yes, but I would suspect that some RSM/VSM functionality occurs on a zIIP when the unit of work needing storage management is running on a zIIP.  When there are parts of RSM/VSM that require running on GP, then the system will undispatch and redispatch the work to the GP.

If yes, can't it not use zIIP or SAP?

That's a heckuva sentence, "If yes, can not it not use zIIP or SAP?"  I'll assume this is a double-negative, so:

If yes, can it use zIIP or SAP?

I'm pretty sure the answer is, "No" for SAP, other than what SAPs are already doing for storage management today (paging or swapping data to/from DASD).  <opinion>I don't think IBM has any interest in trying to figure out how to offload storage management to SAPs.</opinion>

I'm pretty sure the answer for zIIP is, "Yes, it is possible for any operating systems (or any code, for that matter) to be made to run on a zIIP (subject to the rules for running on zIIP)."  

If it can't, Why not?

<opinion>Somewhere, IBM has a backlog of things that ought to be "zIIP-ified."  The items on this list are very likely based on the business value they might bring.</opinion>  For example, they just zIIP-ified Python.  Clearly, this is to promote greater use of Python on z/OS, similar to the advent of zAAP way back when for Java.  You can always submit a requirement/request (whatever they are called now) to ask for RSM and/or VSM to be in the zIIP-y family.

</snarky answers>