Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>For some costs, you just can't calculate it. One example, we
>don't charge for FTP, simply there is no accurate way to try
>to guess costs.
But you are guessing. You guessed zero. As I'm fond of saying, we might not
know what the correct answer is, but zero is surely th
Timothy Sipples wrote:
>Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>>If you get your chargeback defined+setup properly, do your SMF, DCOLLECT, 3th
>>party transaction monitor, etc. properly, you can't go wrong with chargeback.
>I disagree, unless the "etc. properly" part is truly enormous in scope.
Feel free
bean counters
were still using the data to 'plan'.
-teD
Original Message
From: Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 01:19
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Does everybody use chargeback?
Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>If you get
Elardus Engelbrecht wrote:
>If you get your chargeback defined+setup properly,
>do your SMF, DCOLLECT, 3th party transaction monitor,
>etc. properly, you can't go wrong with chargeback.
I disagree, unless the "etc. properly" part is truly enormous in scope. I
notice you didn't mention anything out
Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 12:17 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: :Re: Does everybody use chargeback?
For the record, the in-storage database was not huge, but this was the late
1970s, so all resources were dearer in those days. The RYO database was
ingenious but
s/mydeveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
From: Ed Jaffe
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 09/03/2016 16:12
Subject: Re: Does everybody use chargeback?
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On 3/8/2016 9:59 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
> -- A data base application was redesigned
eveloperworks/blogs/MartinPacker
From: Ed Jaffe
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 09/03/2016 16:12
Subject: Re: Does everybody use chargeback?
Sent by:IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On 3/8/2016 9:59 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
> -- A data base application was redesigned at t
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 08:12:18 -0800, Ed Jaffe wrote:
>On 3/8/2016 9:59 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>> -- A data base application was redesigned at the last minute to read the
>> entire data base into memory at startup. The business unit noticed that they
>> were charged for I/O but not for memory
On 3/8/2016 9:59 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
-- A data base application was redesigned at the last minute to read the entire
data base into memory at startup. The business unit noticed that they were
charged for I/O but not for memory use. It was cheaper to occupy virtual
storage than to perfo
Pew, Curtis G wrote:
>Since I started this thread, I’ll jump back in.
Welcome back... ;-)
>This is why we never did chargeback; our director from 1968 through about 1993
>felt that if we did people would do the wrong thing to avoid computer charges.
>(The main “wrong thing” being continue to u
On Mar 8, 2016, at 11:18 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote:
>
> In my view a bad chargeback regime is worse than no chargeback regime, and
> it's quite easy to have a bad chargeback regime. "Bad" here means
> encouraging perverse behaviors and/or discouraging smart behaviors.
Since I started this thread
>Scott Chapman wrote:
>>Software billing is based on available/consumed capacity.
>
>IBM's is/are not. It's based on *peak* four hour rolling average
>utilization per month -- or, effectively, per subscription year for
>products that are not Monthly License Charge products.
Peak R4Ha is a measure
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson
wrote:
> Ah, bad or perverse behaviors. Two stand out in my career.
>
> -- A data base application was redesigned at the last minute to read the
> entire data base into memory at startup. The business unit noticed that
> they were charged for I/O
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
>Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>>-- A data base application was redesigned at the last minute to read the
>>entire data base into memory at startup. The business unit noticed that they
>>were charged for I/O but not for memory use. It was cheaper to occupy virtual
>>storage than to
Your first example is not necessarily bad behavior.
I bet it performed!
-teD
Original Message
From: Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 00:59
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Reply To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
Subject: Re: Does everybody use chargeback?
Ah, bad or perverse
@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 9:18 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: Does everybody use chargeback?
Scott Chapman wrote:
>Software billing is based on available/consumed capacity.
IBM's is/are not. It's based on *pe
Scott Chapman wrote:
>Software billing is based on available/consumed capacity.
IBM's is/are not. It's based on *peak* four hour rolling average
utilization per month -- or, effectively, per subscription year for
products that are not Monthly License Charge products.
You can set whatever pricing
On 3/8/2016 11:44 AM, Neil Duffee wrote:
If all my threads have to run on a single CP, don't I become singly threaded?
That is precisely the concept behind SMT (symmetric multithreading).
During the pipeline stalls that inevitably occur (e.g., interlocks,
cache misses, etc.) the other thread
8, 2016 11:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: SMT vs. chargeback [was: Does everybody use chargeback?]
The U of Zero (*grin*) hasn't charged back for more than 2.5 decades. I still
saw account numbers in job cards when I started back then but expect it was
hold-over from the
aus...ute...edu]
Sent: March 7, 2016 12:40
Subject: Does everybody use chargeback?
I’d wondered why SMT is turned off for CPs on the new z13 and z13s. I learned
at SHARE that it’s because CPU timing can’t be done as accurately when using
SMT, and since that could affect chargeback it’s not allo
On 3/8/2016 3:58 AM, Scott Chapman wrote:
Even absent the chargeback and software cost issues, how do you do capacity planning with
that level of variability? How do you do performance testing? Of course the other
platforms that have this sort of technology seem to largely just say something li
I believe that while chargeback is an important issue that SMT messes up,
that's already somewhat messed up today because there's more variance from
execution to execution. I.E. run the same exact job twice and even absent SMT
you'll get different CPU measurements. That's always been the case, b
Curtis:
At one installation we used it to get gross idea for charging for usage.
It worked well until we accidently found out that the numbers were
*WAY* off (we weren't charging for execution batch monitoring).
The *SHIT* hit the fan and the subsidiary was sold off a few years
later.
That l
hits = less CPU time.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Pew, Curtis G
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 9:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Does everybody use chargeback?
I’d wondered why SMT is turned off for
I’d wondered why SMT is turned off for CPs on the new z13 and z13s. I learned
at SHARE that it’s because CPU timing can’t be done as accurately when using
SMT, and since that could affect chargeback it’s not allowed. This is
interesting, because we’ve never done chargeback here at UT. I was wond
25 matches
Mail list logo