Portal | Manuals | References | Downloads | Info | Programs | JCLs | Master the Mainframes
IBM Mainframe Computers Forums Index
 
Register
 
IBM Mainframe Computers Forums Index Mainframe: Search IBM Mainframe Forum: FAQ Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in
 

 

I/O Charge Confusion

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    IBMMAINFRAMES.com Support Forums -> All Other Mainframe Topics
View previous topic :: :: View next topic  
Author Message
dick scherrer

Site Director


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19270
Location: Inside the Matrix

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:32 pm    Post subject: I/O Charge Confusion
Reply with quote

Howdy,

One of my clients is on a system where they receive their Mainframe "bill" every month and they have asked that i look into the major difference in i/o rates.

Since sometime 3rd quarter '12, NO physical tapes have been mounted. During '11 - '12 nearly all physical tape was converted to virtual tape (v-tape).

The rate for "tape" i/o is about 16 times the dasd rate. Any idea why?

Also, the rate for v-tape is the same as physical tape. Does this seem proper? As far as i know, v-tape is all dasd even though there are reserved UCBs for each virtual device and these volumes can be (almost always are) managed by the Tape Management System.

Any experience / thoughts most welcome.

d
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

enrico-sorichetti

Global Moderator


Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 10203
Location: italy

PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply to: I/O Charge Confusion
Reply with quote

just guessing ...
to discourage tape usage ?
even if probably for <virtualized> tapes it does not make sense any longer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pete Wilson

Active User


Joined: 31 Dec 2009
Posts: 437
Location: London

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:44 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

I used to work for a place 15 years or so ago that charged heavily for Tape usage to discourage it. That was pre-virtual when all the tape handling was expensive and a real hassle. As Enrico says, with v-tape that essentially no longer applies.

I wonder if it's anything to do with the large block-size support. DFDSS uses 256k blocks on a DUMP for example, so maybe uses more virtual storage?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick scherrer

Site Director


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19270
Location: Inside the Matrix

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:39 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Howdy,

Thanks for the replies - 'Preciate it!

Seems like i've stirred up a bit of a hornet's net. Somehow "nobody" realized tape was ~16 times more expensive to read/write - nor was anyone aware that v-tape was being billed at the physical tape rate.

Sometime "soon" the company that does the rate calculations is to review the current rates and come up with new rates.

This may be good or bad. . . The service has to generate enough income to offset costs and if we gain one place, we'll surely lose in another(s).

Our goal is overall cost reduction and until the "new policy" is determined, we'll probably not introduce any media changes. . .

Now, if we could just find a few Tbytes that could just go away . . . icon_cool.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Sample

Global Moderator


Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 7913
Location: Bellevue, IA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:11 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote:
Now, if we could just find a few Tbytes that could just go away
Oh, this is easy .... what is hard is finding a few Tbytes that could go away without anyone screaming icon_biggrin.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick scherrer

Site Director


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19270
Location: Inside the Matrix

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:57 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Hi Robert,

What i m seeing is that there is a Lot of data that could "go away" - the Screamers are the ones who believe forever-to-date is an acceptable retention specification . . . icon_rolleyes.gif

d
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Sample

Global Moderator


Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 7913
Location: Bellevue, IA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:33 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

And the ones who scream the loudest are the ones with the most retained data (and the ones who never go back to look at it, either) ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Woodger

DFSORT Moderator


Joined: 09 Mar 2011
Posts: 7236

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply to: I/O Charge Confusion
Reply with quote

Punitive charges for data-retention beyond statutory/regulatory requirements.

I had an Auditor once who insisted everything was kept as long as it was needed (obvious), and not one day longer (no so obvious). I think it was a good idea. If no-one has the "right" to require the data to be presented, then don't keep it. And certainly don't keep "part" of it.

Yes, there was data for "trends" and "historical evaluation", but that was all extracted and held as "current data", and used.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dick scherrer

Site Director


Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19270
Location: Inside the Matrix

PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:32 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

One of my better senior IT managers (in a ddifferent life, it seems) refused turnover of anything that involved new data that did not have specific purge criteria. And that retention had to be justified.

d
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
View previous topic :: :: View next topic  
Post new topic   Reply to topic    IBMMAINFRAMES.com Support Forums -> All Other Mainframe Topics All times are GMT + 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 

Search our Forum:

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Posted
No new posts Confusion while passing data to a cal... amitc23 COBOL Programming 5 Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:36 pm
No new posts SuperC comparison confusion Ashish.Srivastava.123 TSO/ISPF 1 Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:21 am
No new posts Multiple Packages - Confusion gylbharat DB2 10 Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:23 am
No new posts Confusion on Backout MQ kratos86 Java & MQSeries 7 Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:12 pm
No new posts Confusion on Backout MQ srinut123 Java & MQSeries 5 Thu May 31, 2012 1:57 pm


Facebook
Back to Top
 
Mainframe Wiki | Forum Rules | Bookmarks | Subscriptions | FAQ | Tutorials | Contact Us