Skip to Main Content
IBM Z Software


This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Z Software products. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).


Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.


Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.

ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Not under consideration
Categories z/TPFDF
Created by Guest
Created on Apr 4, 2014

TPFDF should utilize the RIAT

IBM Standard TPFDF uses generic prototypes for all TPFDF applications per any given pool type. SHARES uses TPFDF for roughly 75% of the database. Using IBM TPFDF standard, hundreds of millions of records per day would issue GET on the same record ID for hundreds of different applications. How do we determine the volume of daily usage per application, or per record ID?

Idea priority Medium
  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Mar 27, 2020

    IBM does not intend to implement this in the foreseeable future.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    Oct 14, 2015

    Due to processing by IBM, this request was reassigned to have the following updated attributes:
    Brand - Servers and Systems Software
    Product family - z Systems Software
    Product - z/TPF

    For recording keeping, the previous attributes were:
    Brand - WebSphere
    Product family - Transaction Processing
    Product - z/TPF

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    May 15, 2014

    Recoup, CRUISE VERIFY will only provide in-use counts. We are interested in total daily consumption by record ID. Data Collection can only provide a small sampling. We collect total daily consumption counts for all pool types for trending, forecasting, and problem diagnosis.
    As far as concern on any "out of sync" condition, we have had this happen on occasion, when short term was used instead of long, or vice versa. The result was a few lost addresses. Many record IDs need to be in the RIAT for VFA candidacy. The RIAT attributes override what ever is in the DBDEF. It is consistent with non-DF records.

  • Guest
    Reply
    |
    May 13, 2014

    As far as the daily usage per application, that information should already be available with GETFC logging, as z/TPFDF uses the application name (not the z/TPFDF segment) whenever z/TPFDF issues GETFC on behalf of the customer.

    The real issue is the record ID information. The customer appears focused on the "monitoring" aspect of this. We are wondering if perhaps alternative methods are (or will be) available to the customer without needing to implement this enhancement request. For example:
    Recoup and CRUISE VERIFY will provide pool usage per record ID.
    z/TPFDF data collection will provide rates and counts for GETFC calls per record ID

    Furthermore, there are existing requirements that z/TPFDF data collection should be integrated into z/TPF data collection as well as into continuous data collection (CDC). IBM is already investigating those requirements. If those requirements were implemented, would that provide the functionality that the customer is looking for?

    One hesitation we have with this requirement is that if record ID's used in z/TPFDF databases were defined in RIAT, then the possibility exists that the RIAT definitions and the corresponding DBDEF entries will get "out of sync", which could lead to unpredictable results. It is possible add some validation into z/TPFDF processing to check for that, but those checks would need to be constantly executed, and the benefit here is not clear.