Service units not only better reflect the work being done, but also gives us a
better idea how that work could map to a different box.
Considering that LSP is what derives service units, then I would say that you
are incorrect.
Service units are almost as meaningless as MIPS.
(Yes, I know
Agreed. Also, consider that the only Chargeback-related SMF data source
providing service units is the SMF type 30 data for address space usage.
Better to calculate and use a normalized (using a user-defined
speed/conversion factor) CPU time metric, derived from the specific SMF / log
data
Agreed.
Try including an extract from the post you're agreeing to.
Or, at least the name.
It makes this response easier to follow.
Thanks.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
Thomas Kern writes:
There is a difference between the 'Intro to Chargeback' reports that lowly
sysprogs might give to management as their first look at computer
accounting
and the high-powered What-If modeling done by capacity planning scientists
trying to show the outcome of buying a zIIP this
Thomas Kern writes:
I would use CPU seconds rather than Service Units. Managers can understand
that there are only 86400 CPU seconds per engine per day. If you can get
the
price paid for your z9, take 1/4 of that and divide by 365*86400 to get a
price per CPU second. This would recover the cost of
There is a difference between the 'Intro to Chargeback' reports that lowly
sysprogs might give to management as their first look at computer accounting
and the high-powered What-If modeling done by capacity planning scientists
trying to show the outcome of buying a zIIP this month and a zAAP next
Different places adopt different philosophies. Having been the MVS chargeback
administrator in the past, I can say that no method is perfect. My suggestion
is to familiarize yourself with the research of those who have gone down this
road before. A good place to start would be the Web site
I don't havean pointers to books or documentation but I can make a few
suggestions.
I would use CPU seconds rather than Service Units. Managers can understand
that there are only 86400 CPU seconds per engine per day. If you can get the
price paid for your z9, take 1/4 of that and divide by
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:19:26 -0500, Thomas Kern wrote:
I would use CPU seconds rather than Service Units. Managers can understand
that there are only 86400 CPU seconds per engine per day. If you can get the
price paid for your z9, take 1/4 of that and divide by 365*86400 to get a
price per CPU
luck.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thomas Kern
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Chargeback reporting
I don't havean pointers to books or documentation but I can make a few
Agreed, Service Units are a better measure for full-fledged chargeback and
capacity planning. They work very well with managers who already understand
SUs. If your management is less than the IBM trained management, they might
not understand Service Units at the beginning.
The move from computer
11 matches
Mail list logo
