A White Paper

Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine for Mainframe FOCUS and WebFOCUS A Benchmark of Significant CPU Cost Reductions

WebFOCUS iWay Software Omni Information Builders helps organizations transform data into business value. Our business intelligence, integration, and data integrity solutions enable smarter decision-making, strengthen customer relationships, improve performance, and drive growth.

WebFOCUS iWay Software Omni Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1 Information Builders and the Z/Architecture 1 Leveraging the zIIP Specialty Engine

3 ZIIP Benchmark Tests Recap

4 Advantages of the zIIP Specialty Engine

5 Mainframe FOCUS Utilization of the zIIP

6 Is Implementing the zIIP for FOCUS Beneficial? 6 Local Adjustments That Improve zIIP Usage

7 Benchmark Tests and Statistical Rewards

8 Benchmark: Database Variations 8 Database Variations Analysis

10 Benchmark: Report Size Variations 10 Report Size Variations Analysis

11 Benchmark: Typical Application Activities

12 Typical Application Activities Analysis

13 Conclusion

14 Appendix I 14 zIIP Usage Statistics

15 Appendix II 15 IBM Tuning

16 Appendix III 16 Glossary

Introduction

Information Builders and the z/Architecture

According to an IDC White Paper, sponsored by CA Technologies and IBM, “The Business Value of the Connected Mainframe for Digital Transformation,”1 the mainframe is at an inflection point from being a supporting platform of transaction revenue to becoming a source of revenue growth and innovation”.

Information Builders FOCUS (Mainframe) and WebFOCUS products have been architected to take advantage of constantly evolving mainframe z/Architecture. First introduced in 2000, this z/Architecture is now the foundation of the IBM Z Systems family of mainframes., named for their most salient characteristic – “availability” – the ‘Z’ standing for zero downtime.

The z/OS is the 64-bit that supports this z/Architecture across the z System family. Each z/OS leverages the z/Architecture and can address a 64-bit address space as well as support real and virtual spaces of 16 exabytes!

The IBM Z family also supports the System z Integrated Information Processor (zIIP) processor. This processor was designed to operate asynchronously with general processors to help improve utilization of computing capacity and control costs by offloading CPU-intensive work. The System z includes the newly introduced mainframe the z14, introduced in Q2 2017, and the z13 first introduced in 2015. Both of these systems can be upgraded to take advantage of the zIIP Processor.

Most importantly, FOCUS and WebFOCUS can take advantage of the z/Architecture, it can take advantage of underlying z/OS, and zIIP processor across the entire System z family including the current z13 and the new z14.

Leveraging the zIIP Specialty Engine

Mainframe FOCUS* and WebFOCUS can both leverage the system z Integrated Information Processor (zIIP) engine. This white paper demonstrates the types and approximate amounts of FOCUS workload transferred to the zIIP under various conditions, and the resulting cost reductions.

The zIIP specialty engine from IBM offloads CPU-intensive workloads from the central processors (CPs). Since the MIPS capacity of the zIIP engine is not included in the overall rating of the mainframe, all work incurred using the zIIP engine is free from IBM. Installing a zIIP can be a way to delay a system upgrade. It may also be a performance enhancer for products enabled to run there and for the overall system.

About 80 percent of FOCUS code is able to run on the zIIP, which accounts for as much as 95 percent of CPU capacity, though it will more generally be in the 30 to 80 percent range. These estimates are above the already documented 20 to 40 percent performance improvement of Release 7.6 and 7.7x over prior releases due to our continuous improvement program using all

1 “The Business Value of the Connected Mainframe for Digital Transformation,” IDC, December 2016. * Current Mainframe FOCUS releases are 7.6.13, 7.7.03M and 7.7.06M with 7707M anticipated in 2018.

1 Information Builders of the newer technologies available. During the zIIP enablement development effort, all of the technical and legal implementation restrictions imposed by IBM were rigorously respected.

Some internal processes must continue to run on the central processor due to IBM specifications regarding the types of workload the zIIP may process. Productive zIIP activity is monitored by FOCUS, and FOCUS reacts accordingly to ensure that IBM-billable CPU charges are minimized against zIIP-related overhead.

The actual amount of processing diverted to the zIIP is largely dependent on the goal settings declared locally to the IBM Workload Manager (WLM), which specifies the priority of FOCUS access to the zIIP in competition with other software. FOCUS provides methods for the user to query zIIP- related CPU information and improve zIIP-related processing. There are also techniques available to adjust the application to best take advantage of the zIIP engine when running FOCUS.

If you do not have a feel for how much a zIIP engine installed at your site can reduce the cost of FOCUS processing, you may simulate the presence of a zIIP engine if none exists, or you may simulate giving full access to FOCUS processing on an existing zIIP. System statistics will then tell you how FOCUS would perform with full zIIP advantage.

As mentioned above, WebFOCUS also makes use of the zIIP engine for Java™ processing, which is not covered in this white paper. Contact an Information Builders representative for more information.

2 Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine zIIP Benchmark Tests Recap

Information Builders designed benchmark tests to evaluate the amount of workload transferred to the zIIP under specific conditions and test scenarios. The results summarize as follows: DB2 results vary, depending upon the local configuration of FOCUS and DB2.

CPU Savings Type of Report or Activity Using zIIP Interpretation Executive Summary Report 77% Roll-up, out to PDF Operational Report 64% Medium size Extract Report 66% Show 100% of file Exception Report 51% Extract a few records Database Type Variations 1-88% Various sort methods and destinations** Reporting Scenarios 59-99% One million records, various complexities Transaction Processing 42-95% One million records, load, update, etc. Actual Applications 46% Weighted average of five applications’ usage Performance Benchmarks 76% Weighted average of targeted internal processes

** Several database types generate low zIIP advantage due to imposed record retrieval methods.

3 Information Builders

Advantages of the zIIP Specialty Engine

IBM’s zIIP specialty engine is one of several specialty engines that IBM has implemented for mainframe consumption. The zIIP engine offloads Java™ workload and specific CP-intensive workload. The MIPS capacity of the zIIP engine does not count toward the overall MIPS rating of the mainframe image, so all CPU usage incurred on the zIIP is not chargeable from IBM. Effectively, all workload run on the zIIP is free.

The zIIP engine is factory-identical to a central processor (CP). It is restricted at installation time via micro-code to perform specific types of workloads, but always runs at 100 percent of processor capacity. The zIIP offloads heavily CPU-intensive workloads, leaving the CP more time to absorb otherwise queued workloads as well as to perform its dedicated tasks of running the operating system, handling I/O interrupts and timer interrupts, initiating jobs, and controlling user interactions with the operating system. Therefore, some overall performance improvement can be perceived across all mainframe activity. The true benefit of the zIIP is its cost reduction effect and its potential contribution to delaying a system upgrade.

The actual zIIP benefit achieved for FOCUS, WebFOCUS, or any product depends on the response time goals declared by the local system administrator to the WLM when defining the priority of the software’s access to the zIIP in competition with other software.

4 Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine

Mainframe FOCUS Utilization of the zIIP

Beginning with FOCUS 7.6.10, the zIIP engine has been accessible to FOCUS for processing much of the typical workload associated with a FOCUS request. zIIP activation begins upon user issuance of a SET command if all applicable conditions for zIIP use pass properly. If the zIIP is not available to the lpar, then processing simply continues on the CP; FOCUS continues to run. (See the Benchmark Statistics section of this white paper that examines the gains achievable by use of the zIIP.)

FOCUS diverts eligible workload to the zIIP by switching from TCB mode (for instructions that can run only on the central processor) to SRB mode that engages a preemptible enclave for secure execution of enabled workloads on the zIIP engine. Though a large percentage of the workload is eligible for execution on the zIIP, the actual amount permitted to run on the zIIP at any moment (therefore the benefit achieved for the FOCUS user) largely depends on the response time goals declared in the WLM by the local system administrator. (See the IBM Workload Manager appendix.)

During the zIIP development effort, all of the technical and legal implementation restrictions imposed by IBM were rigorously respected. The major factor that affects zIIP’s performance is IBM’s restriction that the zIIP does not handle I/O interrupts. In applications that require significant database interrogation, high-volume sorting, or the use of third-party tools or user functions during processing (most of which are present in typical applications), passing information among these environments requires switching out of SRB (zIIP) mode into TCB (non-zIIP) mode to communicate, and then back again to continue processing. This switching can occur thousands or even millions of times during a single request. Although each switch is miniscule, the cumulative effect can absorb visible amounts of CPU on both the zIIP engine and the CP. So optimizing this communication is critical to maximizing the savings attained by using the zIIP.

FOCUS implementation of zIIP-enablement has done just that. It buffers the records passed to the system sort utility and some of the adapters, rather than performing record-by-record transmission, thus generating only one switch for each buffer-full.

FOCUS constantly monitors zIIP usage. When it detects that the cost ratio of switching modes compared to work redirected to the zIIP crosses a non-productive threshold during a task, FOCUS dynamically may decide to no longer use the zIIP just for the duration of that task or command. Such situations may include pure extracts with few calculations from certain database types where non-zIIP-able I/O is the dominant activity, or a very low aggregation ratio (such as PRINT might induce) while extracting from a highly disorganized file. In every case, FOCUS endeavors to ensure that the user spends no more on CPU cost with the zIIP than they would have without the zIIP.

5 Information Builders

Is Implementing the zIIP for FOCUS Beneficial?

If you do not have a zIIP at your site, and you are not sure how much a zIIP would benefit FOCUS processing, then add PROJECTCPU=ON to your sys1.parmlib table and run several jobs. This parm will make FOCUS believe that a zIIP is available and attempt to redirect its work there. You can then measure what the advantage of a fully accessible zIIP would be by looking at the &FOCZIIPONCP reserved amper-variable in FOCUS. This value shows the amount of CPU that would have been used by FOCUS on the zIIP, but was redirected to the CP by the system because the zIIP was unavailable. With these results, you can see how beneficial the zIIP would be if a zIIP of sufficient capacity and priority directed to FOCUS were actually available.

In another situation, you may already have a zIIP accessible to FOCUS, but FOCUS has insufficient priority access to it such that FOCUS is currently deriving limited zIIP benefit. Under this circumstance, try: SET ZIIP=SIMMAXZIIP in FOCUS. This will allow the job to run while simulating full zIIP accessibility to see how much zIIP access the job would have had if the zIIP were 100 percent available for FOCUS usage.

Local Adjustments That Improve zIIP Usage

User-controllable factors that can improve the effect of the zIIP on the FOCUS application include:

■■ Declare policy and goals of WLM to allow FOCUS to access the zIIP with sufficient priority (compared to other zIIP-competing software) to derive significant CPU benefit. Negotiate with operations to maximize the priority of FOCUS for zIIP access

■■ Maximize the block size of files that are read or written by FOCUS to reduce the number of I/Os required to access the file and therefore the number of switches to non-zIIP mode that FOCUS would have to make

■■ Move non-Information Builders 3GL functions from DEFINEs to COMPUTEs to reduce the switching to non-zIIP mode for each such call, or rewrite them as DEFINE FUNCTIONS to avoid the switch entirely

6 Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine

Benchmark Tests and Statistical Rewards

The benchmark tests demonstrate the relative amount of FOCUS workload transferred to the zIIP during processing of several scenarios varying the file-type and type of request or activity. These scenarios are selected as approximations of typical customer applications, and several tests represent more extreme boundary situations. From these results, you may project the savings for your particular application in accordance with how it parallels these examples.

Under these benchmark tests, WLM was directed to give highest priority to FOCUS, ensuring that all zIIP-eligible code actually ran on the zIIP rather than having some percentage diverted to the central processor. Note that some parts of FOCUS processing must always be done on the CP due to zIIP restrictions.

The following categories of tests were developed and implemented to demonstrate the degree to which FOCUS uses the zIIP in each instance:

Database Variations Full extractions from various database types, all with identical database structures, contents, and sort orders. Each test varies only one factor from the original Report Size Variations Average-sized customer reports in terms of data volume extracted and report complexity, performed against the same file Typical Application Activities Various activities of reporting, data manipulation, and file maintenance, most of which exist somewhere in a typical application, plus execution scenarios of several actual applications

7 Information Builders

Benchmark: Database Variations

Use zIIP No zIIP Benchmark Case zIIP CP CP Save (cpusec) (cpusec) (cpusec) (cpusec) FOCUS file 36.94 13.73 38.74 65% FOCUS file to Excel 52.11 07.45 60.89 88% FOCUS file (DFSORT SORT) 18.14 19.35 27.47 30% VSAM file 39.57 18.47 59.56 69% Flat file 45.26 13.22 47.98 73% IMS file 00.16 69.19 69.59 1% DB2 file (optimized) 01.91 30.60 30.31 1% DB2 file (unoptimized) 32.50 57.22 80.09 29%

Scenario: Four million records, all files with identical data, reduced down to 7,500 lines.

Database Variations Analysis

■■ Savings against a FOCUS file using FOCUS sort reach a respectable 65 percent

■■ Outputting to Excel (or other styled formats) requires intensive additional CPU. Since virtually all of that work is performed on the zIIP, the percent savings is much better

■■ Using DFSORT means that the records to be sorted are transferred between FOCUS and the sort package, requiring some buffered switching between zIIP and CP. There is still significant savings over non-zIIP execution, but not as broad a percentage drop as with FOCUS sort

■■ Newly buffered VSAM file data movement appears to be very efficient in terms of zIIP participation

■■ Flat file processing is highly effective, especially with a high-blocking factor, which has always been typical and prudent when reading or writing such files

■■ Extracts from IMS files gain virtually no benefit from the zIIP since records exchanged between IMS and FOCUS must be handled individually, i.e., there is no buffering. So switching between zIIP and CP to satisfy the I/O restrictions becomes too expensive very quickly. The FOCUS zIIP Monitor detected this situation early in the extract phase and completed the majority of the extract task on CP, protecting the user from excessive costs; note that the CP costs of zIIP versus non-zIIP were approximately the same. However, if the result had been directed to a styled output like Excel or PDF, that CPU-intensive part of the processing would have occurred on the zIIP, making the overall savings ratio of the request somewhat more skewed toward the zIIP

8 Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine ■■ Both DB2 and FOCUS are independently zIIP-enabled products; either product’s choice to use the zIIP is not directly influenced by the other product. For an optimized DB2 request, DB2 does the majority of the work (extract, sort, aggregation) and FOCUS performs the post-retrieval computations, report formatting, and any output destination processing, most of which runs on zIIP. Unoptimized DB2 requests show more FOCUS/zIIP usage because FOCUS performs more of the processing after DB2 merely returns all extracted records to FOCUS. CP usage is higher for unoptimized cases (and always has been in a pre-zIIP environment). But, assuming that a particular request must be unoptimized due to its requirements, running it via zIIP still costs much less than without it. DB2’s usage of the zIIP depends upon how it is locally configured relative to FOCUS

■■ Other database adapters supported by FOCUS (such as Adabas, IDMS, Millennium, Model 204, Oracle, Teradata) have not yet been benchmarked, but are expected to be relatively consistent with IMS results for much the same reasons as shown in the table for IMS in the first release. Continuing work is being done and improvements are expected

9 Information Builders

Benchmark: Report Size Variations

These reports were specifically designed to approximate typical customer usage in terms of data volume and report complexity. Tests were run under FOCUS Release 7.6.10.

Use zIIP No zIIP Benchmark Case zIIP CP CP Only Save (cpusec) (cpusec) (cpusec) (cpusec) Executive Summary 2.49 0.91 3.91 77% (roll-up, out to PDF) Operational Report (medium size) 3.18 1.82 5.08 64% Extract Report (show 100% of file) 5.99 2.93 8.69 66% Exception Report 1.10 0.86 1.75 51% (extract records after table scan)

Scenario: One million-record FOCUS file

Report Size Variations Analysis

■■ Savings are consistently more than 50 percent

■■ As the Introduction noted, PDF output and aggregation are highly CPU-intensive activities, resulting in the largest savings

■■ The Exception Report does very little formatting or aggregation since it is a short-resulting report. Most of the cost is in extracting the data, which requires repeated switching to the CP, so there is relatively reduced zIIP benefit

■■ The Operational Report and Extract Report show intermediate savings and are close only by coincidence. Their major activities (in addition to a full table scan) occur in temperate doses, such as aggregation, sorting, HOLD output (in the case of extract), computations, and number of fields requested

10 Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine

Benchmark: Typical Application Activities

These tests represent characteristic requests in mainstream customer applications including TABLE, MODIFY, MAINTAIN, and other generally observed activities. As typical scenarios, they are reused here for zIIP comparison purposes.

Use zIIP No zIIP Benchmark Case zIIP CP CP Save (cpusec) (cpusec) (cpusec) (cpusec) Table Data Extract of 1M Records (Print * Hold) 3.1 4.4 7.6 42% Table using IF For nonexistent record (Full Database Scan) 1.1 0.6 1.4 57% 1M recs. SUM’ed to top level – 10 lines 2.4 0.5 3.0 87% 1M recs. SUM’ed to top level, DEFINE on every record 2.7 0.6 3.3 82% 1M recs. SUM’ed to 3rd level – 200 lines 2.4 0.5 3.1 84% 1M recs. SUM’ed to 3rd level – DEFINE on every record 3.2 0.5 3.8 87% 200K recs SUM’ed with COMPUTE 2.3 0.6 3.2 81% COUNT on keys of all 4 levels – read all pages 2.6 0.6 3.1 81% 1M records SUM’ed to 1st level using MIN. and MAX. on 4th 2.6 0.5 3.2 87% level field IF test on 4th level non-key field retrieves 10,000 records, reads 1.1 0.6 1.5 60% all 1M JOIN 100K record flat HOLD (400 bytes wide) to 1M record 1.7 0.4 2.1 81% FOCUS file JOIN 100K record FOCUS HOLD to 1M record FOCUS file 1.6 0.4 2.1 81% HOLD 100K records, then MATCH to 1M record FOCUS file 2.3 0.5 2.6 81% Table 100K 400-byte records once, then HOLD PDF, HTML, 16.2 0.3 21.0 99% EXL2K, WP Non-IF’able WHERE against 1M recs 2.9 0.5 3.37 85% Extract 50K records from VSAM file 0.3 0.4 0,7 43% Modify and Maintain COMBINE and MODIFY 21 files 0.8 1.3 2.2 41% MODIFY include 100K transactions into new FOCUS file 1.5 0.2 1.6 88% MODIFY update 100K same sorted transactions selected from 1M 2.3 0.6 3.0 80% MAINTAIN load 100K sorted 400-byte transactions 2.1 0.1 2.4 96% Utilities and Miscellaneous ? FILE and ? FDT statistics on 71,000 FOCUS pages 0.4 0.4 0.7 43% REBUILD DUMP/LOAD 1M records restrict to 100K recs 0.8 0.2 1.1 82% COMPILE four 500-2500 line MODIFYs with up to 50 3.8 0.1 5.0 93% CRTFORMs each Load flat file via 10,000 Dialogue Manager – WRITEs 6.7 0.0 8.2 99% Weighted average of 77 activities on 5 in-house production 26.7 19.8 36.6 46% FOCUS appls Weighted average of FOCUS General Benchmarks for Performance 3.3 1.3 4.4 70%

11 Information Builders

Typical Application Activities Analysis

■■ We see superior results on TABLE commands, most residing in the 80-plus percent savings range. On normal FOCUS file sizes of one million records, the effort of I/O work to read the file trades off well with average calculation density and output formatting requirements

■■ The full table scans (one for all records and one for no records) both conclude with 40 to 60 percent cost savings since they encounter few calculations and minor report formatting. Most of the cost is in performing the I/O, which incurs switching overhead

■■ The HOLD outputs to various styled formats are highly CPU intensive, calculation-based operations. So the vast majority of the post-extraction processing is performed on the zIIP, resulting in a 99 percent CPU cost savings MODIFY transaction processing did well, CPU savings- wise. The voluminous COMBINE structure incurred more I/O as it navigated the files, thus it produced a somewhat smaller return. The MAINTAIN test is intentionally similar to the MODIFY test, so it does not even exercise the CPU intensive strengths of MAINTAIN stacking, yet it performed impressively

■■ ? File and ? FDT are entirely I/O operations, so their CPU savings are merely respectable. REBUILD is largely an I/O operation, but the record constriction induced many calculations, so the 73 percent savings is a compromise

■■ The COMPILE of a MODIFY is entirely oriented toward syntax parsing and internal instruction flow generation, so 98 percent savings is fully expected

■■ The five in-house production applications are several of the custom tools that drive the daily business at Information Builders, and are highly complex in terms of exercising the FOCUS language and pushing its capabilities; 46 percent falls in the projected range of cost reductions for most customer applications

■■ The General Benchmarks for Performance tests intensively target low-level internal operations. Seventy percent cost reduction is in line with the application results above since the applications by definition all use some combination of these low-level operations

12 Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine

Conclusion

The zIIP engine offers tremendous cost savings to the FOCUS user by offloading FOCUS workload from the CP to the zIIP engine on which all CPU utilization is free of charge. FOCUS provides this capability as from Release 7.6.10 through the latest Release 7.7.06M.

It is important for the local system administrator to allocate sufficient WLM priority for FOCUS’ access to the zIIP engine to take full advantage of the capability and savings offered. FOCUS always ensures that zIIP usage for a specific request is of value in terms of cost, and will protect the user from incurring higher costs due to the zIIP-related resource requirements of that request.

13 Information Builders

Appendix I

zIIP Usage Statistics

zIIP-related usage statistics can indicate the benefit gained and CPU costs saved when the zIIP engine handles some or most of the job’s workload. Properly interpreting the statistics is important to this analysis. FOCUS provides several reserved amper variables that deliver pertinent statistics about zIIP processor usage:

&FOCZIIPCPU CPU incurred on zIIP engine, normalized to the speed of CP &FOCZIIPONCP CPU of work enabled for zIIP but sent to the CP by Workload Manager and the dispatcher &FOCCPU CPU incurred on CP; includes &FOCZIIPONCP

&FOCZIIPONCP indicates the amount of CPU spent by code that FOCUS had enabled for execution on the zIIP but was diverted to the CP by Workload Manager and the dispatcher due to circumstances of system load and competitive priorities at that moment. Optimally, this value should be zero for the most savings in execution time and CPU cost. Note that any non-zero amount of &FOCZIIPONCP is already included in &FOCCPU since it was actually incurred on the CP.

The total CPU for the step is the sum of &FOCZIIPCPU and &FOCCPU, intentionally excluding &FOCZIIPONCP from the calculation.

Assuming &FOCZIIPONCP is zero or very small, then high amounts of &FOCCPU compared to &FOCZIIPCPU implies that much of the processing required by the request was not eligible for zIIP execution. Examine the recommendations in the “Local Adjustments Affect Actual zIIP Impact” section for possible ways to shift more of the execution of this request to the zIIP engine.

14 Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine

Appendix II

IBM Workload Manager Tuning

WLM prioritizes queued workloads for distribution among the central processors and zIIP processors based on a complex set of goals and rules established by the system administrator for each product or other definable category. This applies to all workloads from all sources, not just for FOCUS. All of these goals described here combine to influence the probability that FOCUS requests are directed to the zIIP engine at any particular moment.

Types of Goals ■■ Average Response Time Goals declare that all jobs must finish within a declared average amount of time – a continually recalculated value

■■ Percentile Response Time Goals state that a certain percent (for example, 90 percent) of all jobs must finish within a given amount of time. The advantage of this type of goal is that it is not affected by rogue jobs (the other 10 percent) that run much longer and effectively skew the Average Response Time Goal toward improper expectations

■■ Discretionary Goals are for lesser priority jobs that given resources only when spare time exists among higher priority workloads

■■ Velocity Goals complement the other goals by declaring an acceptable time by which any job may be delayed once it is ready to run, ranging from “run immediately” to “keep it plodding along until it is done”

■■ System Goals do not specifically belong to WLM, rather they are general operating system targets for recognized types of work in several service classes

15 Information Builders

Appendix III

Glossary 3GL Third-generation language such as C, COBOL, PL/1, FORTRAN, or others (including Assembler, which is a 2GL) in which subroutines may be written and called from FOCUS (considered a 4GL). Central Processor The general-purpose chip of the IBM mainframe that typically handles the mainframe workload. Client SRB Created and executed like an ordinary SRB, but runs with client (scheduler) dispatching priority and is preemptible CP Abbreviation for Central Processor, also known as General Processor. See Central Processor. Dispatcher Distributes workloads among available processors, depending upon current workload conditions and target goals of WLM. Responsible for determining which zIIP-eligible tasks may be offloaded to the zIIP engine at any specific moment based on competing task priorities and goal achievement targets. Enclave Entity that encapsulates the execution units (TCBs and SRBs), which execute programs on behalf of the same work request. Enclave Service Enable workload manager to create and control enclaves Enclave SRB Created and executed like an ordinary SRB, but runs with Enclave dispatching priority and is preemptible. GP Abbreviation for General Processor. See General Processor. IFL IBM specialty processor for applications. I/O Input/Output. The act of reading or writing part of a file from disk or other storage device. That part may be an individual record, or a block of records determined by the blocksize of the file, or an entire track. Preemptible Allows the dispatcher to interrupt a task at any time to run other work at the same or higher dispatching priority. Non-preemptible units (like local SRBs), once dispatched, continue to run until they complete or incur a voluntary interrupt like suspend/page fault. SRB Service Request Block. Dispatchable unit (DU) runs at supervisory priority; not preemptible (zIIP- able). This is the mode in which FOCUS runs on the zIIP.

16 Leveraging IBM Z and the z/Architecture with the IBM zIIP Specialty Engine Switch In the context of zIIP-related workloads, the intentional movement of a portion of code processing from zIIP to non-ZIIP execution or vice versa as required by IBM zIIP processor restrictions. TCB Task Control Block. Dispatchable unit (DU) runs at dispatching priority of address space; preemptible (non-zIIP). This is the mode in which FOCUS runs on the Central Processor. Velocity The acceptable amount of delay a process can be allowed to incur when competing for execution among other tasks. WLM Abbreviation for WorkLoad Manager. See Workload Manager. Workload Manager z/OS monitoring tool that actively adjusts priorities of workload tasks so the dispatcher can effectively distribute them among available processors with the objective of achieving WLM performance goals. zAAP Engine An IBM specialty processor for Java execution and XML parsing, work that is now done on the zIIP engine. zIIP Engine An IBM specialty processor; acronym for z Integrated Information Processor. Configured from the Central Processor chip via selective microcode adjustments at installation time, the zIIP engine offloads CPU intensive workloads from the CP. The CPU capacity of the zIIP engine is not counted toward the MSU capacity of the mainframe images, thus all work processed by the zIIP engine is effectively free of charge.

17 Information Builders A White Paper

Worldwide Offices

Corporate Headquarters International Netherlands* Two Penn Plaza Australia* Amstelveen 31 (0)20-4563333 New York, NY 10121-2898 Melbourne 61-3-9631-7900 n Belgium (212) 736-4433 Sydney 61-2-8223-0600 n Luxembourg (800) 969-4636 Austria Raffeisen Informatik Consulting GmbH Nigeria InfoBuild Nigeria Wien 43-1-211-36-3344 Garki-Abuja 234-9-290-2621 Brazil Norway InfoBuild Norge AS c/o Okonor Tynset 358-0-207-580-840 United States São Paulo 55-11-3372-0300 Portugal Atlanta, GA* (770) 395-9913 Canada Calgary (403) 718-9828 Lisboa 351-217-217-400 Boston, MA* (781) 224-7660 Montreal* (514) 421-1555 Singapore Automatic Identification Technology Ltd. Channels (770) 677-9923 Toronto* (416) 364-2760 Singapore 65-69080191/92 Charlotte, NC (980) 215-8416 Vancouver (604) 688-2499 South Africa InfoBuild (Pty) Ltd. Chicago, IL* (630) 971-6700 China Johannesburg 27-11-064-5668 Cincinnati, OH* (513) 891-2338 Peacom, Inc. South Korea Dallas, TX* (972) 398-4100 Fuzhou 86-15-8800-93995 Dfocus Co., Ltd. Denver, CO* (303) 770-4440 Czech Republic InfoBuild Software CE s.r.o. Seoul 02-3452-3900 Praha 420-234-234-773 Detroit, MI* (248) 641-8820 UVANSYS, Inc. Estonia InfoBuild Estonia ÖÜ Seoul 82-2-832-0705 Federal Systems, D.C.* (703) 276-9006 Tallinn 372-618-1585 Southeast Asia Information Builders SEAsia Pte. Ltd. Florham Park, NJ (973) 593-0022 Finland InfoBuild Oy Singapore 60-172980912 Houston, TX* (713) 952-4800 Espoo 358-207-580-840 n Bangladesh n Brunei n Burma n Cambodia Los Angeles, CA* (310) 615-0735 France* n Indonesia n Malaysia n Papua New Guinea Minneapolis, MN* (651) 602-9100 Suresnes +33 (0)1-49-00-66-00 n Thailand n The Philippines n Vietnam New York, NY* (212) 736-4433 Germany Spain Philadelphia, PA* (610) 940-0790 Eschborn* 49-6196-775-76-0 Barcelona 34-93-452-63-85 Bilbao 34-94-400-88-05 Pittsburgh, PA (412) 494-9699 Greece Applied Science Ltd. Madrid* 34-91-710-22-75 San Jose, CA* (408) 453-7600 Athens 30-210-699-8225 Sweden Guatemala IDS de Centroamerica Seattle, WA (206) 624-9055 Stockholm 46-8-76-46-000 Guatemala City (502) 2412-4212 St. Louis, MO* (636) 519-1411, ext. 321 Switzerland India* InfoBuild India Washington, D.C.* (703) 276-9006 Brugg 41-44-839-49-49 Chennai 91-44-42177082 Taiwan Israel Team Software Ltd. Galaxy Software Services, Inc. Petah-Tikva 972-54-889-9970 Taipei 886-2-2586-7890, ext. 114 Italy Tunisia North Africa Business Consulting Agrate Brianza 39-039-59-66-200 Bizerte 215-22-86-85-79 Japan KK Ashisuto Turkey Paladin Bilisim Danismanlik A.S. Tokyo 81-3-5276-5863 Istanbul 90-532-111-32-82 Latvia InfoBuild Lithuania, UAB United Kingdom* Vilnius 370-5-268-3327 Uxbridge Middlesex 44-20-7107-4000 Lithuania InfoBuild Lithuania, UAB Venezuela InfoServices Consulting Vilnius 370-5-268-3327 Caracas 58-212-261-5663 Mexico West Africa InfoBuild FSA Mexico City 52-55-5062-0660 Abidjan 225-01-17-61-15 Middle East Anel Arabia Ltd. Co. Riyadh 966-11-483-0016 * Training facilities are located at these offices. n Bahrain n Kuwait n Oman n Qatar n Saudi Arabia n United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Find Out More We can help you succeed. Talk to your local Information Builders representative to learn how. Visit us at informationbuilders.com, e-mail [email protected], or call (800) 969-4636 in the U.S. and Canada. To improve your skills, visit education.ibi.com.

Corporate Headquarters Two Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121-2898 (212) 736-4433; Fax (212) 967-6406

Copyright © 2018 by Information Builders. All rights reserved. [147] All products and product names mentioned are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. Java and all Java-based marks are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. DN7508759.0118