web-based infrastructure strategy

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Web Based Infrastructure Strategy

Final Report

April 23, 2004

Prepared by: Robert O'Connor

Project Acknowledgments

The project team would like to thank the many individuals who helped to make this project a success. Without the cooperation of many groups and individuals this could not have happened.

Tom Albitz Mike Belinc Allen Cheung Kathy DeMartino Richard Dumm Mark Earnest Gary Gentzel Kelly Hartzfeld Ed Hayes Aaron Hofelt Mike Kauffman Steve Kellogg Jim Leous Marta Miguel Phil Pishioneri Barry Phelps Dave Reed Rick Rhoades Anissa Rupert Carl Seybold Scott Smith Char Wilusz

Special thanks are also in order to Academic Services and Emerging Technologies (ASET), Administrative Information Services (AIS) and Emerging Technologies Advisory Group (ETAG). The cross organization cooperation was both valuable and appreciated during the course of the investigation.

Table of Contents:

Project Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................................3

Table of Contents:........................................................................................................................................5

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................7

Project Background......................................................................................................................................9

Project Team...............................................................................................................................................10

Project Objectives..................................................................................................................................................10

Potential Outcomes................................................................................................................................................10

Project Strategy..........................................................................................................................................11

Project Deliverables...............................................................................................................................................11

Assumptions:...............................................................................................................................................12

Investigative Areas:................................................................................................................................................12

Investigative Area 1:...................................................................................................................................13

Linux running on Intel based hardware..............................................................................................................13Advantages.............................................................................................................................................................................13Disadvantages........................................................................................................................................................................13


Linux running under VM on a zSeries IFL processor.......................................................................................14Advantages.............................................................................................................................................................................14Disadvantages........................................................................................................................................................................14


Windows – Supporting multiple applications on a single Windows OS instance............................................16Advantages.............................................................................................................................................................................16Disadvantages........................................................................................................................................................................16Current development..............................................................................................................................................................16


VMWare – Running multiple Windows Operating Systems on single hardware platform...........................17Advantages.............................................................................................................................................................................17Disadvantages........................................................................................................................................................................17


Using Large Multiprocessor Intel Based Servers for Application Concentration...........................................18Advantages.............................................................................................................................................................................18Disadvantages........................................................................................................................................................................18


Business as Usual: Continue running single purpose Web applications on small Intel servers.....................19Advantages.............................................................................................................................................................................19Disadvantages........................................................................................................................................................................19

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................20

Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................21

Appendix A: Projected Resource Requirements.....................................................................................22

ZLinux under zVM on an IFL processor Implementation Requirements..............................................................................22Hardware requirements.....................................................................................................................................................22Software.............................................................................................................................................................................22Training.............................................................................................................................................................................22

Windows on VMWare Implementation Requirements..........................................................................................................22Hardware requirements.....................................................................................................................................................22Software.............................................................................................................................................................................22Training.............................................................................................................................................................................22

Appendix B: Projected Time Frames.......................................................................................................23Timeframe for zLinux............................................................................................................................................................23Timeframe for Windows........................................................................................................................................................23

Appendix C: Potential Results...................................................................................................................24zLinux running under VM on zSeries....................................................................................................................................24Windows environment...........................................................................................................................................................24

Appendix D: Supporting Data...................................................................................................................26List of Issues by platform......................................................................................................................................................26Benchmark Results................................................................................................................................................................27zSeries Installation.................................................................................................................................................................30Server Inventory.....................................................................................................................................................................30

Appendix E: Estimated Cost and Cost Avoidance..................................................................................34zLinux under zVM on an IFL Processor Implementation cost.............................................................................................34

VMWare with Windows Implementation costs............................................................................................................34

Executive Summary

In March 1997, the Comprehensive Academic Advising and Information System (CAAIS) made its production debut. CAAIS represented the first high-volume, Web-based application system managed by Penn State’s then Office of Administrative Systems. Over the seven years that have passed since the debut of CAAIS, the quantity of production Web-based applications has grown at an extremely fast rate, to the point that Administrative Information Services now manages more than 100 Web-based servers. The majority of these servers are relatively small, entry-level servers and accommodate but a single application.

While running relatively small, single-purpose Intel servers using the Windows operating system continued to be an option, managing this fast-growing environment quickly became a burden on our limited resources. Therefore, it was the intention of this imperative to thoroughly investigate the following five alternatives for establishing, operating and managing our Web-based infrastructure:

Linux running on an Intel platform

Linux running as a Virtual Machine (VM) ‘Guest’ on a zSeries1 platform

Consolidation of existing Intel-platform servers

Continue running single-purpose Web applications on relatively small Intel servers (‘Business As Usual’), with a particular focus on improving the environmental management efficiency

Some reasonable combination of the above four alternatives

This investigation concludes that we can indeed do better than ‘Business As Usual’ in managing our Web-based infrastructure, but that we will need to employ a combination of the alternatives investigated. The only alternative that we completely eliminated was that of running Linux on an Intel platform. While running Linux on Intel has some advantages, they are not great enough to warrant a wholesale move of current applications.

Our recommendations are to take the following actions:

1. Purchase and install Integrated Facilities for Linux processor (IFL) to run Linux under the control of VM. Move the non-Microsoft specific databases, eCommerce and other WebSphere development to this new environment. If Cincom completes the port of their VisualWave to Linux on zSeries, then our numerous Smalltalk applications should also be moved to this environment.

2. Some vendor applications will continue to be available only on a Microsoft server. Efforts should continue to consolidate these applications where possible. Work should also continue to further develop or purchase management tools to reduce the need for manual intervention in the running of these applications servers. Future purchases of applications should also include open standards as part of the evaluation process.

3. During our research and evaluation, we learned a great deal about a software product known as VMWare. VMWare provides virtualization of application servers much like the VM product on the mainframe. The use of this product would allow multiple operating instances on a single large server. For low volume applications it would be possible to eliminate a substantial number of test and acceptance servers while providing capabilities for disaster recovery and load migration services.

1 IBM Mainframe class hardware

Project Background

In March 1997, the Comprehensive Academic Advising and Information System (CAAIS) made its production debut. CAAIS represented the first high-volume, Web-based application system managed by Penn State’s then Office of Administrative Systems. Over the seven years that have passed since the debut of CAAIS, the quantity of production Web-based applications has grown at an extremely fast rate, to the point that Administrative Information Services managed more than 100 Web-based servers. The large majority of these servers were relatively small, entry-level servers and accommodate but a single application.

The platform for these Web-based servers was Intel based hardware running the Windows operating system. The management of each of these servers, while sophisticated, well organized, and thorough, required a multitude of carefully planned and executed steps.

For each production server, the initial set-up involved server hardware installation, IP network attachment, DNS entry assignment, operating system installation, operating system patch installation, Web server installation, Web server patch installation, setting up virus protection software, application server installation, setting up content change procedures, ordering and installation of digital certificate, implementing firewall controls, establishing remote backup procedures, implementing monitoring and problem alert procedures, developing and implementing scripts to manage application log files, etc.

The work involved did not end with the initial server installation. Once the server was in production, the ongoing management of each production server involved hardware reliability monitoring, researching and applying operating system patches, researching and applying Web server patches, monitoring the stability of the Web-server environment, performing problem isolation and resolution, and numerous other steps required to effectively manage each such production server.

As the quantity of Web-based servers increased, so too did the burden of managing these environments. The environment of 100 Web-based servers required a significant personnel commitment to ensure that the environment is stable, reliable, secure, and responsive.

In the seven years that have passed since the production debut of CAAIS, new technologies and alternative techniques have surfaced for managing Web-based applications. Some of these alternatives held the promise of streamlining the introduction of new Web-based applications and simplifying the management of these applications.

While running relatively small, single-purpose Intel servers using the Windows operating system continued to be an option, the time had come to investigate other alternatives. Web servers could run natively under z/OS; Web servers could run in a Linux instance under VM; multiple Web-based applications could share a single Intel platform of sufficient capacity; and the Windows Data Center operating system provided potential multitasking opportunities for running multiple Web-based applications. Of course, there were combinations of these approaches that might make sense for AIS to adopt. Each of these alternatives presented opportunities to improve the management efficiency of our Web-based applications. A thorough investigation of these alternative approaches was needed, with a corresponding cost/benefit analysis.

Project Team

The project team consisted of the following members:

Bob O’Connor Project LeaderBrian France OSIS Liaison and zSeries PrincipalScott Neidigh NIS Liaison and Intel Server Principal

This team was augmented by various Virtual Team members that focused on researching specific alternatives in their areas of expertise.

In addition, the project team established a liaison, through the AIS Emerging Technologies Advisory Group (ETAG), with the Emerging Technologies team. The Emerging Technologies team found this project of significant interest to them to warrant participation on our Virtual Team.

Project Objectives

The specific goals of this imperative were to thoroughly investigate the following five alternatives for establishing, operating and managing our Web-based infrastructure:

Linux running on an Intel platform Linux running as a VM ‘Guest’ on a zSeries platform Consolidation of existing Intel-platform servers Continue running single-purpose Web applications on relatively small Intel servers (‘Business As

Usual’), with a particular focus on improving the environmental management efficiency Some reasonable combination of the above four alternatives

Potential Outcomes

Once these alternatives were thoroughly investigated, the results were documented for each alternative and compared to evaluation criteria established prior to the investigations. Specific recommendations on how best to support our Web-based infrastructure was documented, and includes a strategy, a recommended timeframe2, hardware and software requirements3, staff training requirements, and estimated costs of implementation4. Some projected results were documented in terms of reduced server count5.

2 Appendix B: Projected Time Frames3 Appendix A: Projected Resource Requirements4 Appendix E: Estimated Cost and Cost Avoidance5 Appendix C: Potential Results

Project Strategy

eLion was chosen as the initial application to migrate to Linux since it would be a good representative of the Smalltalk applications. At the time eLion was also the largest Web application server farm. The process was to be done in two steps.

First the application would be moved to Linux on Intel hardware to work through any application specific issues. Linux on Intel was relatively well known and a successful port to this environment would make the problem determination when moving to Linux running under VM on zSeries hardware (zLinux) easier.

The second step was to install VM and then Linux on the zSeries hardware. In this step any problems would be related to running on what was a completely new and unknown environment. Involving two new operating systems as well as a new hardware platform could potentially introduce unforeseen problems.

In the existing Windows environment there were several routes to pursue for improved efficiencies.

Consolidation of selected applications using larger or underutilized servers could result in a lower server and operating system (OS) count if the applications could coexist.

Increased use of automation to improve efficiency had the potential to reduce the total manpower requirements to operate a large server farm.

Investigation of the use of VMWare products. There are a number of components that had the potential to allow dynamic load migration, multiple OS’s on a single large server and virtualization of applications to improve disaster recovery preparedness. Some of these components had the potential to decrease physical server count as well as improve the disaster recovery readiness.

Use of Consulting services would allow the gathering of information and assist in the investigation into the use of larger servers as well as assist in making more informed decisions on the effectiveness of vertical scaling in the Microsoft Intel arena. There was a value in having our own investigations reviewed and validated by an external agency.

Moving existing applications to Linux on Intel could have a significant impact on total licensing costs although porting issues were largely unknown.

It was apparent that there would be a need to evaluate the potential for a mix of environments with emphasis on the number of platforms, operating systems to be supported and systems administration.

Project Deliverables The following deliverables were defined as the measurable goals for the completion of the project.

Testing and documentation of Linux on Intel and zSeries hardware

Investigation of VMWare for server consolidation

Investigation of consolidation of multiple applications on a single server

Testing of an 8 processor server to support the current environment

Identify hardware requirements

Identify software requirements

Identify staff training requirements

Recommendations on how to best support our Web-based infrastructure

Recommended timeframe

Estimated cost of implementation

Assumptions:

In order to clearly delineate the scope of this imperative, certain assumptions were made as follows:

The quantity of Web-based applications will continue to grow at a significant rate; The stability, reliability, security, and responsiveness of existing and future Web-based

applications cannot be compromised; While it was deemed important to complete this phase of the project within a specified time frame,

we also needed to minimize the impact that this project might have on removing the backlog of Web applications scheduled to go into production.

Running Linux under native zOS will not be practical from a scaling standpoint; We did not entertain running any configuration that involves a pure UNIX operating system, in

order to avoid the need to train staff on the particulars of the UNIX environment; and This project was really just Phase I of a multi-year project, where future phases will involve the

implementation of the strategy adopted.

Investigative Areas:

The following sections describe the alternatives investigated, outlined as objectives of this imperative.

Investigative Area 1:

Linux running on Intel based hardware

This investigation was to test the migration of a Smalltalk application from a Windows based server to a Linux based server both running on similar Intel based hardware.

The movement of eLion to Linux on Intel immediately exposed the first stumbling block. Although Smalltalk on Intel Linux is supported the communications mechanism to the mainframe, HYDRA, was not compiled and ready to run in the Linux environment. This program, while originally developed for Unix, was compiled to support the Windows operating environment and therefore would require modifications and a rebuild to support Smalltalk on Intel Linux.

The necessary changes could not be made in the available time, so the decision was made to instead change the application to use the generalized interface (GI). This required a change to the base image as well as a definition of eLion services to the generalized interface server. Once the changes and entries were made the application could then authenticate and receive data from the mainframe through this mechanism.

During this part of the evaluation some of the limitations of the Generalized Interface came to light. Scaling of the GI would require significant modifications to the architecture to enable it to handle any high volume applications. These limitations could be more effectively overcome by using EntireX, which we already own and has been tested in the Smalltalk environment.

The result of the testing did indicate that it would be possible to port Smalltalk applications to Linux on Intel with the appropriate changes to the communications mechanism. The possibility of porting a significant number of applications should be revisited as multiple processor support grows in the Linux on Intel space and Linux expertise develops within the department.

Advantages

Better utilization of hardware Microsoft licensing issues are eliminated Greater number of concurrent applications possible (better memory / process isolation)

Disadvantages

Limited decrease in the number of physical servers Additional support and training issues


Linux running under VM on a zSeries IFL processor

The next step was to be the porting of eLion to zLinux. To establish this environment IBM and SUSE had to be engaged to provide a trial of the IFL processor, zVM and zLinux. This portion of the project came to a halt very early due to software limitations. Cincom does not have a VisualWave engine for running on zLinux. There is a possibility that this is in their future but cannot be guaranteed. There also is not a DCE runtime for zLinux and it appears unlikely that there will be one in the future. This means that communications with the mainframe for data must occur either through the GI or EntireX. 6

WebSphere was chosen as the replacement for eLion in the evaluation process after the porting problems were discovered. WebSphere is fully supported and is currently used in our eCommerce environment and is the platform for our stated Enterprise Application Environment (EAI) direction.

During the evaluation process it was shown that the product installs and runs just like we have become accustomed to in the Windows environment. Support, required both for the Windows install and the Linux install, was excellent and compensated for the holes in the documentation. Given our load and importance of eCommerce processing coupled with the strategic programming direction of EAI this was an important trial and proof of concept. The licensing of this suite is especially attractive as it continues to have a per CPU model regardless of the processing platform.

With the per CPU model we could run development instances without the additional licensing and hardware costs associated with the current Windows environment. The zLinux environment appears to be the ideal environment for moving forward with WebSphere and the AIS EAI deployment.

Further details of this installation are in Appendix D: Supporting Data.

Advantages Known high availability hardware Single CPU for licensing Best for Disaster Recovery Best WebSphere environment for EAI and eCommerce Best for Database support – licensing and hardware Additional OS instances carry no additional costs All OS and Hardware support from a single vendor Consolidated disk management Availability of mature management tools Major decrease in environmental requirements

o Air conditioningo Floor spaceo Electrical consumption

Disadvantages High entry cost Lack of DCE although there is an ongoing migration in progress Current lack of Smalltalk support 7

6 During the course of this investigation it was determined that the assumption to avoid the Unix environment may need to be reconsidered.7 In general, application software is the slowest to adopt migration plans making us dependent on vendor decisions. In this particular case, Cincom has informed us of their intent to release a version of VisualWave that will run on zLInux

Hardware upgrades partially tied to Mainframe upgrade cycle Two new operating systems to learn and maintain Additional training and possibly personnel


Windows – Supporting multiple applications on a single Windows OS instance

Consolidation of Windows applications on a single instance of MS Windows was discussed but rejected due to both AIS and ASET experiences with this type of environment. Windows, in its current version, continues to work with pooled resources making conflicts common onto a single server. The 2003 version of the server can isolate applications but only if they are written as .net applications. Currently that is not the situation with our version of Smalltalk. Due to these limitations this approach was deemed not useful for large-scale consolidation.

The use of Microsoft Datacenter was also eliminated due to the high cost and limited ability to make application changes. Every application change must go through a Microsoft certification process that is very costly and time consuming. While Angel might fit the model of an application suited to this environment it is far too dynamic to recertify for every change no matter how small. The changes to applications on this platform are generally done no more than three or four times a year.

Work has continued to bring together some applications. A small subset of applications can be put together when they are each low volume. This process is trial and error with some standard being built over time.

Advantages Less OS instances Decreased environmental requirements


Disadvantages Instability – one application can affect all applications on the same server Most applications not .net so processes not isolated even if 2003 used

Current development Recent progress has been made with running multiple Smalltalk applications on a single Windows

OS. Moving to Windows 2003 may also offer improvements as applications are ported to .Net allowing for larger servers running a single OS instance. These issues should be considered in the evaluation of the need and use of server virtualization.


VMWare – Running multiple Windows Operating Systems on single hardware platform

VMWare was considered an excellent contender for making multiple Windows applications work on a single large server. Initially this was rejected due to the size and uncertain future of the company. During the project EMC purchased VMWare making support as well as the future of the products much more certain. Dell has also improved their offering in this space due to their preexisting sales relationship with EMC. It is now possible to purchase Dell servers preconfigured with VMWare ESX server.

While VMWare will not reduce the instances of the operating system (OS) it would make much better utilization of the hardware, especially for test and acceptance environments. If this approach works well it could possibly be extended to lower volume production applications.

In the process of looking into VMWare it was also determined that the applications currently being offered may provide the added benefit of improving application portability for both performance, maintenance as well as disaster recovery applications. This would require the involvement of NIS to determine how these capabilities fit with their plans.

Advantages Lower total server counts Decreased environmental requirements


Dynamic load movement Disaster recovery improvements Shared fibre channel and Ethernet connections

Disadvantages Added OS layer Additional complexity of operation and recovery Increased training


Using Large Multiprocessor Intel Based Servers for Application Concentration

Initially the IBM X445 8 processor server was brought in to trial VMWare. At the time it was determined that VMWare would not be used because of the limited resources of the company. During the trial this changed with the purchase of the company by EMC. The purchase came long after the decision to repurpose the machine as a platform to evaluate SQL 2000 running under Windows 2000 for more immediate concerns.

To accomplish this task iTech was brought in to load test the database running on the server in 4, 6 and 8 CPU configurations and compare these results with a Dell configuration with 4 processors of the same speed. 8

The results demonstrate the limitations of the Windows 2000 and SQL 2000 environment. Highest transaction rates were achieved in a 4-processor configuration. The X445 from IBM significantly outperformed the Dell server primarily due to the use of L4 cache in the IBM server.

Higher processor counts did not improve performance due to limitations in the software. Windows 2003 should improve these numbers significantly but before that transition can be made the current client access licensing issues must be resolved with Microsoft.

Advantages

Potentially better utilization of hardware using VMWare or Windows 2003

Disadvantages

Non Dell hardware required to go above four processors Additional support and training issues

8 See Appendix F: Supporting Data


Business as Usual: Continue running single purpose Web applications on small Intel servers

Business as usual does not appear to be a viable solution. The department cannot keep up with personnel, space or environmentals without an unreasonable financial commitment. Improved management software and tools can provide some relief but cannot be seen as the long-term solution. The difficulty of managing this growing server farm is increased by the needs of high availability, disaster recovery and business continuity. The underutilized resources in this environment also continue to be extremely high due to the needs for duplicate hardware environments to support test, acceptance, development and production environments.

Advantages Few new skills needed Known environment

Disadvantages No improvement of hardware utilization High environmental requirements High availability difficult on low end hardware Client Access Licensing Continue to be locked into a single vendor Closed environment

Conclusions

ZLinux provides the best environment for our long term operational and disaster recovery. The zVM environment is a very mature technology underlying a very well supported zLinux environment. The hardware platform provides advanced mechanisms for load transfer uninterrupted operations. Even without the support of the Smalltalk environment zLinux provides an excellent value for our central applications.

Since we are moving forward with the EAI plan this platform provides the best value for our developers as well as for the resulting production environment, WebSphere. Additional test or development instances can be created with no additional cost, licensing or hardware. These instances can also be recovered or recreated easily in this environment providing productivity gains for both the user and the administrator.

All of the non-Microsoft databases and applications should be moved to the zLinux environment. This move provides improvements in complexity. This move eliminates the requirements for multiple servers, network connections and san fibre channel connections. Communications to Adabas becomes a hipersocket9 call and disk access is handled through zVM and not through multiple hardware connections. The development, test and acceptance environments now are low resource instances within the same environment as the production instance mirroring our current Adabas configuration. Moving to Linux also would allow eventual movement of other applications not supported on zLinux to Linux on Intel10.

In the Windows environment a follow on project should be initiated to investigate the production implementation of VMWare. While not necessarily reducing the number of OS instances the use of this technology has the potential for reducing the hardware requirements through better utilization, eliminating many instances of stand alone servers and improving the failover and disaster recovery capabilities of the Windows servers.

For both the old and the new environments a decision must be made for monitoring and managing the applications. Currently most of the monitoring of production systems is being accomplished by systems built within AIS. In the future the time of these programmers may be better spent extending the capabilities of purchased systems. If these systems are purchased they should be a unified centralized system to avoid the creation of overlapping stand-alone systems that could impose an excessive management burden.

As the server environment continues to grow and change by writing our own management applications we may fall behind in our ability to keep up with the industry. The cost savings of in house coding may erode as the original authors of the software move on to other tasks while the need for maintenance and enhancements continues. The lack of a supported management suite is and will continue to be a weak link especially as we increase the complexity of the interconnections between components of our systems.

9 HiperSockets was invented to provide the highly available, high-speed network connection among multiple combinations of virtual servers and LPAR's when using server consolidation.10 See Appendix C: Potential Results

Recommendations

With the conclusion of this project we have decided to make the following specific recommendations.

Negotiate with IBM to implement zLinux under zVM running on an IFL engine. This negotiation must include a strategy to introduce the environment without any interruption to our current trial at a cost that we can manage in our budget. This may include some creative financing on the part of IBM. For example, are we expected to pay full price for an IFL processor when we are well into the life of the z800. There also is not a need to have an IFL in both mainframes initially since production is a year away given the pace of WebSphere implementation and eCommerce upgrades.

Move all non-Microsoft databases to the zLinux environment. At the same time determine which databases could be moved from SQL server and if the number of databases supported could be reduced.

Begin a follow on project within NIS to evaluate VMWare products and determine how they can help reduce server count while improving disaster recovery options.

Other opportunities are available once we have built a zLinux environment. To utilize the enhanced capabilities we should pursue functionality not currently available. Two examples of this are the use of LDAP to provide Web based alpha lookup to support the needs of Social Security Number access and using SMTP functionality to offload processing from ZOS while improving the process and functionality to include digital signing of mainframe generated email.

In the future Linux on Intel becomes more attractive as Linux skills are developed in-house. Applications not ported to zLinux could be moved to a single large Intel Linux system. This should be a project used to further consolidate non-Microsoft dependent applications.

Consolidation efforts within the Windows environment should continue for Windows only applications. As Windows 2003 is deployed and more Microsoft only applications move to .net this option may help to make more efficient use of Windows resources.

Regardless of the platforms there is a continuing need for integrated management tools which encompass all of the components on an application including the networks, both fibre and IP. Investigations should begin with a team consisting of members from each functional area to ensure the final solution meets the broadest spectrum of departmental needs.

As we suspected the resulting environment will be a combination of the original alternatives. The mix of applications and what platform they will be deployed on will continue to be dependent on Penn State’s choices of application vendors and the support choices of those vendors.

Appendix A: Projected Resource Requirements

ZLinux under zVM on an IFL processor Implementation Requirements

The following are the resource requirements to support a zLInux implementation. There are many options as to how we move forward in the development environment to the eventual production environment. Not all components are necessary for start up and some decisions may be better made after some experience is gained during the early development phases.

Hardware requirements IFL processors for z800 mainframes

o Option 1 – activate a single CPU for development with maintenance contract to activate the second machine in case of a catastrophic failure

o Option 2 – activate an IFL on each mainframe for capacity and disaster recovery

Software SuSE zLinux Operating System SuSE support IBM zVM Operating System VM Monitoring software Management software suite covering zLinux / zVM / SAN / Network / Windows / ZOS

Training Minimum of 4 zVM / zLinux administrators

Windows on VMWare Implementation Requirements

The following are the resource requirements to support a VMWare implementation. These requirements are very sparse and must be further developed during the follow on project for VMWare.

Hardware requirements 2 - Intel 4 processor servers

Software VMWare ESX server software Other components may be necessary for a well managed installation

Training Minimum of 2 VMWare ESX administrators

Appendix B: Projected Time Frames

Timeframe for zLinux

The time frames suggested may depend on the needs for additional training and availability of the needed training.

Task Name Duration Start Finish

Start Date 0 days Mon 8/30/04 Mon 8/30/04Order Components 7 days Mon 8/30/04 Tue 9/7/04Training 10 days Wed 9/8/04 Tue 10/1/04Install WebSphere 15 days Wed 9/22/04 Tue 10/1/04Developer Testing 20 days Wed 10/1/04 Tue 11/9/04Parallel eCommerce 5.1 10 days Wed 11/10/04 Tue 11/23/04eCommerce Milestone 0 Tue 11/23/04 Tue 11/23/04Database Evaluation 15 days Wed 11/24/04 Tue 12/21/04Production eCommerce 5 days Tue 1/4/05 Mon 1/10/05Developer Production 10 days Tue 1/11/05 Mon 1/24/05

Timeframe for Windows

The start times are blank because the implementation of this project is dependent on the availability of resources and the initiation of a formal follow on project.

Task Name Duration Start Finish

Start Date 0 daysOrder Components 3 daysTraining 10 days Install ESX VMWare 15 daysApplication Testing 15 daysComponent Evaluation 15 daysDecision on Use 3 daysApplication Moves 30 days

Appendix C: Potential Results

zLinux running under VM on zSeriesMoving the Databases provides an excellent payback due to the nature of the application as well as the cost of supporting the environment on Windows servers. The mainframe excels in the support of database transactions. Moving to zLinux provides the ultimate in scalable, high availability platforms.

Databases Moving DB2, Informix and Oracle removes 11 current servers. Porting Angel to Oracle or DB2 would result in an additional 4 – 5 servers being replaced as

well as a much more scalable production environment. It should be noted that the database servers are the high-end servers making them the most

expensive of our server assets.

WebSphere is another easy choice for zLinux. This is a natively supported application that currently supports our eCommerce environment. Very few applications at the university demand high availability more than payment processing.

Our EAI environment is also an excellent choice for zLinux. Since the application servers are priced per processor we can use a single processor license to provide multiple discrete environments for development and testing without incurring any additional licensing costs. We can also provide these low utilization instances while incurring very little additional administrative overhead. The use of VM can also control the resource utilization of these instances to prevent them from having an adverse impact on the production applications using the same hardware.

WebSphere – eCommerce and EAI 11 servers make up the current environment. EAI development will result in many additional servers as we move forward.

The Smalltalk servers have the potential for an excellent payback in server hardware. The problem with this grouping is the current lack of a Cincom VisualWave server. The company has stated that they will have an early release for zSeries in the Fall 04 release of their products. The commitment to this platform did not appear to be firm within the company. Secure Socket Layer (SSL) processing will also be an issue if we would move all of these applications to the zSeries hardware. Floating-point calculations are not the strong point of the zSeries processors so an encryption card or cards would need to be added to the z800 to offload the encryption processing.

Smalltalk Cincom has given a verbal commitment to a preview release of VisualWave for zLinux in their

scheduled November release. 24 servers could be moved with the successful implementation of the zLinux version.

Windows environment There currently exist a large number of test, development and acceptance servers that share the common attribute of very low hardware utilization. The consolidation of these servers on a large server running VMWare could have a significant impact on the servers that must remain in the Microsoft Windows environment.

Other components of VMWare, including virtualization of individual servers, should be pursued to determine their role in disaster recovery plans.

All test / development / acceptance to virtual servers on larger hardware Reduction of server count for low volume activities Server count reduction must be determined by NIS Currently 34 servers are for internal management, test, spare and domain controllers. There is

a potential for consolidation and reduction of this hardware group.

Most Windows only production applications stay on individual servers No production servers would be run in this virtual environment at this time

VMWare virtualization tools for DR portability at additional cost Evaluation of products by NIS to determine applicability

Comparison and evaluation of VMWare and the upcoming virtualization products from Microsoft as a follow on project

Appendix D: Supporting Data

List of Issues by platformThis is a list of identifiable issues with values merely representing -1 for a negative attribute, +1 for a positive attribute and 0 representing a neutral value for a particular issue for a specific platform.

Issue Windows VMWare Linux zLinux

Hardware Utilization -1 +1 0 +1

Client licenses -1 -1 +1 +1

Concurrent Apps / instance -1 +1 0 +1

Training +1 -1 -1 -1

Availability 0 +1 0 +1

Application software licensing -1 -1 0 +1

EAI Support -1 0 0 +1

Database Support 0 -1 0 +1

Smalltalk Support +1 +1 +1 -1

Startup Cost 0 -1 +1 +1

DCE Support +1 +1 +1 -1

OS Instances -1 0 0 +1

Stability 0 0 0 +1

Update / patch ease -1 -1 0 +1

# of components -1 0 -1 +1

Support for DR -1 +1 0 +1

Benchmark ResultsThe following charts show the results of a benchmark suite testing SQL Server 2000 running on Windows 2000. The servers and processors are color coded on the left while the horizontal axis indicates transactions per second.

Dell 4/8ht CPU's 4/8ht local 1 1 10/100/1K 134.656IBM-New 8 CPU's 8 shark 1 1 10/100/1K 175.18IBM-New 4/8ht CPU's 4/8ht shark 1 1 10/100/1K 225.767IBM-New 6 CPU's 6 shark 1 1 10/100/1K 193.148

175.180328

193.147537

225.766663

134.655731

0 50 100 150 200 250

SQL Exec Benchmark 1 Minute 1 Thread

Dell 4/8ht CPU's

IBM-New 4/8ht CPU's

IBM-New 6 CPU's

IBM-New 8 CPU's 175.180328

193.147537

225.766663

134.655731

0 50 100 150 200 250

SQL Exec Benchmark 1 Minute 1 Thread

Dell 4/8ht CPU's

IBM-New 4/8ht CPU's

IBM-New 6 CPU's

IBM-New 8 CPU's

Dell 4/8th CPU's exec 4/8ht local 1 6 10/100/1K 466.483IBM-New 8 CPU's exec 8 shark 1 6 10/100/1K 551.377IBM-New 4/8ht CPU's exec 4/8ht shark 1 6 10/100/1K 652.951IBM-New 6 CPU's exec 6 shark 1 6 10/100/1K 518.475

551.377075

518.475403

652.950806

466.482758

0 200 400 600 800

SQL Exec Benchmark 1 Minute 6 Threads

Dell 4/8th CPU'sIBM-New 4/8ht CPU'sIBM-New 6 CPU'sIBM-New 8 CPU's

6b Dell 4/8ht stor 4/8ht local 1 6 10/100/1K 2247.766c IBM-New 4/8ht stor 4/8ht shark 1 6 10/100/1K 2187.33

2187.327881

2247.759277

2140 2160 2180 2200 2220 2240 2260

SQL Stored Procedure Benchmark 1 Minute 6 Threads

6b Dell 4/8ht

6c IBM-New 4/8ht

Benchmark Tool: OpenLink ODBC Bench 0.99.17 (TPC-A benchmark)ODBC Driver: SQL Server Driver 03.81.9041

Test Machine Type CPU's Disk Duration Threads Records TPS1b Dell exec 4/8ht local 1 1 10/100/1K 134.6557312b Dell prep 4/8ht local 1 1 10/100/1K 162.9508213b Dell stor 4/8ht local 1 1 10/100/1K 618.7868654b Dell exec 4/8ht local 1 6 10/100/1K 466.4827585b Dell prep 4/8ht local 1 6 10/100/1K 574.3157966b Dell stor 4/8ht local 1 6 10/100/1K 2247.759287b Dell exec 4/8ht local 5 1 20K/200K/2M 124.0777058b Dell prep 4/8ht local 5 1 20K/200K/2M 151.7389839b Dell stor 4/8ht local 5 1 20K/200K/2M 532.1212161c IBM-New exec 8 shark 1 1 10/100/1K 175.1803282c IBM-New exec 8 shark 1 6 10/100/1K 551.3770753c IBM-New exec 8 shark 1 20 10/100/1K 812.8499764c IBM-New exec 4/8ht shark 1 6 10/100/1K 652.9508065c IBM-New exec 4/8ht local 1 1 10/100/1K 57.5081986c IBM-New stor 4/8ht shark 1 6 10/100/1K 2187.327887c IBM-New exec 4/8ht shark 1 1 10/100/1K 225.7666638c IBM-New exec 4/8ht shark 1 32 10/100/1K 952.9981239c IBM-New exec 4/8ht shark 1 64 10/100/1K 1421.8182410c IBM-New exec 4/8ht shark 1 128 10/100/1K 1264.8333711c IBM-New exec 6 shark 1 1 10/100/1K 193.14753712c IBM-New exec 6 shark 1 6 10/100/1K 518.475403

Test Type Descriptions:Execute: This means no form of repetitive SQL execution optimization is being applied.Prepare: This means that the parameter binding SQL execution optimization is being applied.Stored: This means that the stored procedure SQL optimization is being applied.

Description of Benchmark:OpenLink ODBC Bench is an Open source ODBC Benchmarking tool, providing real-time comparative benchmarking for ODBC Drivers, Database Engines, and Operating Systems combinations. The Benchmarks in this application are loosely based on the TPC-A and TPC-C standard benchmarks, with modifications to specifically test the performance of an ODBC Driver and/or Database Engine in a client/server environment. The benchmark results can be automatically stored to an ODBC Data source or XML file for further analysis and comparisons to be made.

Steps Taken to Correct IBM Configuration:1. Moved Dimms so memory was properly interleaved, and supported by IBM.2. Turned on all processor support in SQL3. Reserved 4 gigs of ram for Server4. Enabled 4gig ram tuning, this is part of the OS config5. Enabled awe in SQL6. Assigned SQL 8192 max server mem

Notes from Config:Windows 2000 performs best with 4 way systemsWindows 2003 performs best with 8 way systems due to better numa supportWriteback cache performs better for database creationWritethru cache performs better for database use

zSeries Installation

The following components were installed and configured on the z800 using the IFL processor. IBM provided all of the components for evaluation except SuSE Linux. The SuSE Linux license was a short-term evaluation license purchased with support and maintenance from SuSE. Novell subsequently acquired SuSE during the course of this project.

z/VM 4.3o running on a 2GB IFL (Integrated Facilities for Linux) engine

SuSE 64 bit Linuxo Currently running on 1 image

SuSE 32 bit Linuxo Currently running on 2 images

WebSphere Commerce Business Edition v5.5 - Currently running on 1 imageo IBM HTTP server (Apache)o DB2, WebSphereo JAVA Application Server

So far the WCBE appears to be identical to the Intel counter parto 5 different types of test stores running with the same look and feel o Management of WCBE is done via the same means which are a Configuration GUI and

URL based Web sites

Server Inventory

The following list is only representative of the actual production environment. The servers change often enough to render the exact inventory a dynamic list.

2/10/04 Model # Machine Name Application zLinu

x

zLinux + VW

Support

Windo

ws only 1 Blade 1a elion - student 1

1 Blade 1b elion - student 1

1 Blade 1c elion - faculty 1

1 Blade 1d Angel Web 1

1 Blade 1e eLion Student 1

1 Blade 1f eLion Student 1

Dell PE2200 1 ATSC32 vw-dev. 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L01 Webstat/FCS/ 1 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L02 VW- 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L03 WebIBIS 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L05 A.I.M.S 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L09 Registrar 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L10 OHR 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L12 FitnessMemb 1

Dell PE6400 1 B2R01 DB2- eComm 1 1

Dell PE6450 1 B2R02 (WSFTP 1 1

Dell PE1650 1 B2R11-ais END 1 1

Dell PE1650 1 B2R13 Angel Batch & FTP 1 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L01 END2 1 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L03 eLion Faculty Advisor 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L08 eLion - FAC Adv #2 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L10 GI - Axis Web/Vw 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L13 Pay Mgr 2.2 ACCEPT

- eCom1 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L16 Pay Mgr 2.2 PROD -

eCom1 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L19 eLion Student 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L20 Mail Server 1 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L22 Grads App 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L23 World 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L26 new Adis 1

Dell PE1650 1 B3L31-ais DBA – Accept 1 1

Dell PE6400 1 B3R01 BSR 1 1

Dell PE2650 1 B3R02 BSRPROD 1 1

Dell PE2650 1 B3R03 FTCAP 1

Dell PE4350 1 B4L01 FTP - 1 1

Dell PE4350 1 B4L07 App FTP 1 1 1

G6-200 1 caais5 eLION - FTP 1 1

E3100 1 CAAISTEST VWApp 'test' 1

G6-200 1 Cluster NARD-Mgt 1 1

Dell

PE1655MC1 COMPBLA Axis\GI 1

Dell PE2200 1 elionTest1 eLION - 1 1

G6-200 1 Email OAS Email 1 1

IBM xSeries

3301 IBM1 WebSphere 1 1

IBM xSeries

3301 IBM2 WebSphere 1 1

Dell PE2200 1 MGT1 1 1

Dell PE2200 1 MGT2/ Nard1 1 1

Dell PE2200 1 MGT3-ais 1 1

Netfinity5000 1 OBIEMS eComm 1 1

Dell PE1650 1 PE1650CB DB2 Failover ( 1 1

Dell PE1650 1 PE1650CB Pay Manager F 1 1

Dell PE2200 1 reo2 test email svr 1 1

Dell PE2200 1 RmCA2L1 eLionDemo 1 1

Dell

PE1655MC1 Blade2a Angel 1

Dell

PE1655MC1 Blade2b Angel WebServer-IIS 1

Dell PE2650 1 A1L02 Cosolidate I 1

Dell PE2650 1 A1L03 DFI 1

Dell PE2650 1 A1L04 DFI 1

Dell PE1650 1 A1L05 EDDS Payroll 1

G6-200 1 ADMBDC ADMIN 1

Dell OptiPlex

GX2001 atsctest 1 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L04 TermServ - 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L06 new DFS 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L07-EIS

Develop TESTEIS-cognos

Dell PE2450 1 B2L08 newDC 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L11 ASP 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L13 ASP Acceptance 1

Dell PE2450 1 B2L14 hotspare

Dell PE2650 1 B2L15 Consld. SQL 1

Dell PE6450 1 B2R03 Angel 1

Dell PE6450 1 B2R04 Angel SQL 1

Dell PE1550 1 B2R05-ais OpenManage 1

Dell PE1550 1 B2R06 Unallocated

Dell PE1550 1 B2R07 Angel Web 1

Dell PE1550 1 B2R08 Angel 1

Dell PE1550 1 B2R09 AIS 1 1

Dell PE1650 1 B2R10 EIS-cognos

Dell PE1650 1 B2R12 eCommerce- 1 1

Dell PE1650 1 B2R14 Workload / 1 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L02-ais Norton Anti- 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L04 GI 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L05 LDRPS2 1

Dell PE1750 1 B3L06 EMA-Image 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L07 eBill 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L09 MS-Project S 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L11 GI - Axis SQL 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L12 DC 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L14 ePAY PROD - 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L15 ePAY 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L17 eStore 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L18 ePAY 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L21 DC 3 1

Dell PE1550 1 B3L24 DC 1

Dell PE1650 1 B3L27 EIS-cognos_Web

Dell PE1650 1 B3L28 EIS-cognos_App

Dell PE1650 1 B3L29 EDDS1 RPM 1

Dell PE1650 1 B3L30 EDDS2 WEB 1

Dell PE2650 1 B3R04-ais Datawarehouse 1

Dell PE4350 1 B4L02 MMaker 7.5

Dell PE4350 1 B4L03 Citrix-Fit 1

Dell PE4350 1 EISTEST EISTEST 1

Dell PE4350 1 B4L05 Visio

Dell PE4300 1 B4L06-ais ANGEL TEST 1

Dell 2450 1 B4L08 1

Dell PE4350 1 B4L08 - Hershey Test 1

Dell PE2200 1 Calendar OLD]Meeting 1

D.P. ZX 6000

Series1 COLD Old test 1

Dell

PE1655MC1 COMPBLA Angel 1

Dell

PE1655MC1 COMPBLA Angel 1

Dell

PE1655MC1 COMPBL Hershey 1

Dell

PE1655MC1 COMPBLA Hershey 1

Dell

PE1655MC1 COMPBLA Ema-Image 1

Dell PE2200 1 Confer2 HersheyAdmi 1

Dell PE1550 1 CT AISDEPT DC 1

Dell PE1550 1 CT2 AISDEPT 1

Dell PE1550 1 db1550rmb dba-SQL Test 1

Dell PE1650 1 DBA1 (RM B) 1

Dell PE1650 1 DBA2 (RM B) 1

Dell PE1650 1 DBA3 (RM B) 1 1

Dell PE1650 1 DBA4 (RM B) 1 1

Dell PE2100 1 Dell2 Base OS

Dell PE2300 1 RedDot Base OS 1

Gateway G6 1 Ema-Image 1

Dell 4300 1 Ema-Image-NT 1

Dell PE2200 1 FMPRO 1

ESR504151-

Z1 GAMS 1 Grants 1

ESR504151-

Z1 GAMS 2 Grants 1

ESR504151-

Z1 GAMS 3 1

ESR504151-

Z1 GAMS 4 1

ESR202151-

Z1 GAMS 5 1

Dell 2550 1 Hershey

Dell PE2450 1 ImageSQL

Dell PE2200 1 jhd7 test

Dell PE1650 1 LDRPSCO (RM B) 1

Dell 2550 1 (Lotus) 1

Dell PE6650 1 LG3 Angel SQL 1

Dell 2450 1 Pilot

Dell 1550 1 PMTEST 1 1

Dell PE2200 1 rrr6 test

Dell PE1750 1 SSNTEST Social Secur 1

Dell PE2400 1 swn1 test 1

Dell PE2200 1 Test1 1

Dell PE2200 1 Test2 AIS 1


Dell PE2200 1 Test4 AIS DC 1


eTower 633is 1 Test6 Beta 1




UNISYS 1 Unisys Aquanta SQL 1

Dell PE2400 1 Web01. Ais Backup 1

eTower 633is 1

COMPUTER

BUILDINGDell PE2650 1 C1R01 Dateware 1

Dell PE2650 1 C1R02 HP Openview 1

Dell PE6650 1 C1R03 Angel SQL 1

Totals 154 34 66 75

Appendix E: Estimated Cost and Cost Avoidance

Confidential cost information has been removed from this public version of the final report.

web-based infrastructure strategy

Technology