I've made it through the 2nd day of EMC world, and am starting on the third. Tuesday brought some interesting talks on Networker and enterprise apps performance tuning (specifically MSSQL).
But the driving theme of the conference has me a bit confused. "IT As A Service" sounds great, and we keep hearing about how ITAAS can deliver benefits through standardization (aka service catalog)
At least in my experience, though, there's a problem- The service catalog is never "good". That is to say, it's either incomplete (sorry, we don't have MySQL in the catalog), or overly restrictive (pick a different DB platform for your LAMP app), or forces the business into shadow-IT operations (run your own d*** database). And in the case of business-driven tool selection, this is a problem.
The service catalog as I see it will cover maybe 90% of the requirements, and every process/function will need a slightly different 10%. In order to deliver to those processes, ITAAS has to deal with those 1-off "oh yeah, MySQL had to be installed in /usr/local instead of the standard /apps/mysql-version to make this OOTB app work" kind of gotchas that plague sysadmins.
And, of course, technology moves ahead faster than the service book. In particular, marketing to business decision makers moves a helluva lot faster. Think about iPhone/tablet/Android adoption- IT has had to completely rethink what kind of device a user will be coming from-- It's not a corporate-owned laptop running an image-deployed copy of Windows XP with IE 6, it's now the iPad the CEO bought for his daughter.
So how does ITAAS respond to these shifting sands? That's the brazilian-dollar question. Do we chase the business's tail and add too many poorly-supported products to our service catalog? Do we lock the business into the properly-blessed old way of doing things, and out of the innovation that drives us?
--Joe
Showing posts with label soapbox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soapbox. Show all posts
2011/05/11
2010/11/16
Global networks
At work, each network segment is classified with a color based on its access list. We have brown, green, red, purple, blue, orange, and firewalls all over the place. This has inspired...
The Network Connection
Why are there so many damn network colors,
And routers and firewalls?
Show them on pow'r point, but only to man'gers
And they will approve the change.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it
I know that I'll wait and see
Someday they'll make it
My Network Connection,
The cables, the VLANs, and me...
Who said that every server needs IP
A link to one thousand base T
Somebody thought of that, approving the purchase
Except for the cabling
A WAN so amazing, with OC-3's blazing
Sometimes the pings make it through.
Someday they'll make it,
A global connection,
The cables, the VLANS, and me...
All of us scanned by Nessus,
We know that it's probably magic
Have you been half-routed? Dropped by Rule Zero?
Lost packets silently
This is annoying, quit making changes
On Friday at end of the day.
Some of us do work, even on weekends, we need the network to flow.
Someday I'll have it
A working connection,
The cables, the VLANS and me...
--Joe
The Network Connection
Why are there so many damn network colors,
And routers and firewalls?
Show them on pow'r point, but only to man'gers
And they will approve the change.
So we've been told and some choose to believe it
I know that I'll wait and see
Someday they'll make it
My Network Connection,
The cables, the VLANs, and me...
Who said that every server needs IP
A link to one thousand base T
Somebody thought of that, approving the purchase
Except for the cabling
A WAN so amazing, with OC-3's blazing
Sometimes the pings make it through.
Someday they'll make it,
A global connection,
The cables, the VLANS, and me...
All of us scanned by Nessus,
We know that it's probably magic
Have you been half-routed? Dropped by Rule Zero?
Lost packets silently
This is annoying, quit making changes
On Friday at end of the day.
Some of us do work, even on weekends, we need the network to flow.
Someday I'll have it
A working connection,
The cables, the VLANS and me...
--Joe
2009/11/09
IT Reporting
A recent "Ask Slashdot" asked what information a sysadmin should take to an executive. Here's what I think. I've picked this up from a variety of sources, including a very-skilled manager.
--------------------------
There are three key things that executives want to hear:
1) What has the department done in the past? The core of this point is to get to the question "Does the past justify continued investment?" and its correlary "We've sunk so much money into IT, what have we gotten from it?" This is where usage statistics (website hits, business transaction data, dollars-per-downtime and Nines, return on cost-saving measures, etc) are presented. This should be in high-level terms with drill-down slides available, but only presented on request. Focus on the trends of service delivery vs. IT budget and/or headcount.
2) What is the department doing now? Here we focus on what is happening with their current business. This is where a primary element of capacity planning comes in: The Headroom Metric. How much additional user load can we support on our current systems and network, before the service is degraded? In concrete terms, ignoring everything except CPU, if you're delivering 100 pages per second, and using 40% of the server's CPU, you have a headroom of 150 additional pp/s. By extrapolating this to the business need - say the marketing department has launched 5 campaigns this year, the current systems may be able to support 10, but should not be expected to support 20 without additional investment. Note that this headroom metric must look at the end-to-end utilization, like disk, memory, network, and most importantly administration effort in order to be accurate.
3) What will the department do in the future? What are the business-focused projects that the department is working on? How will the investment in these projects result in money coming into or staying in the business? What is the Return on Capital, Return on Investment?
As far as timing, there should be at least an annual "full report" on the state of IT. Depending on the dynamics of the business, quarterly updates should be sufficient, unless something changes significantly. And depending on the team and scope of the projects. You don't want to face this with a "we haven't done anything since the last report" status. But it's also important to reconnect with the executives regularly so that they don't forget about what you're doing, and also so that you can react and change to meet their changing business plans.
The most important thing we in IT can do is to be aligned to the business. This means focusing on the things that matter: delivering the product or service in exchange for money. Everything else is overhead. And the better your IT department is at aligning itself, the better you look when an outsourcer tries to talk your executives into cutting everything except the "core competancies".
--Joe
--------------------------
There are three key things that executives want to hear:
1) What has the department done in the past? The core of this point is to get to the question "Does the past justify continued investment?" and its correlary "We've sunk so much money into IT, what have we gotten from it?" This is where usage statistics (website hits, business transaction data, dollars-per-downtime and Nines, return on cost-saving measures, etc) are presented. This should be in high-level terms with drill-down slides available, but only presented on request. Focus on the trends of service delivery vs. IT budget and/or headcount.
2) What is the department doing now? Here we focus on what is happening with their current business. This is where a primary element of capacity planning comes in: The Headroom Metric. How much additional user load can we support on our current systems and network, before the service is degraded? In concrete terms, ignoring everything except CPU, if you're delivering 100 pages per second, and using 40% of the server's CPU, you have a headroom of 150 additional pp/s. By extrapolating this to the business need - say the marketing department has launched 5 campaigns this year, the current systems may be able to support 10, but should not be expected to support 20 without additional investment. Note that this headroom metric must look at the end-to-end utilization, like disk, memory, network, and most importantly administration effort in order to be accurate.
3) What will the department do in the future? What are the business-focused projects that the department is working on? How will the investment in these projects result in money coming into or staying in the business? What is the Return on Capital, Return on Investment?
As far as timing, there should be at least an annual "full report" on the state of IT. Depending on the dynamics of the business, quarterly updates should be sufficient, unless something changes significantly. And depending on the team and scope of the projects. You don't want to face this with a "we haven't done anything since the last report" status. But it's also important to reconnect with the executives regularly so that they don't forget about what you're doing, and also so that you can react and change to meet their changing business plans.
The most important thing we in IT can do is to be aligned to the business. This means focusing on the things that matter: delivering the product or service in exchange for money. Everything else is overhead. And the better your IT department is at aligning itself, the better you look when an outsourcer tries to talk your executives into cutting everything except the "core competancies".
--Joe
2009/08/27
FSF Windows 7 sins
I don't normally post political messages here, but this one's important, I think.
The Free Software Foundation has posted 7 Windows 7 "sins" at http://windows7sins.org/, and I think they left out what in my mind is the most important issue. It's sorta covered in "Corrupting Education" and "Lock-In", but not really:
With Windows 7 (and Office 2003 before that, and Vista before that, and XP before that, and Windows 9x/W2K before that) users will have to retire/obsolete all of their existing training in the Windows user interface in favor of the newest cosmetic decisions Microsoft has made for its products.
I don't argue that there aren't significant productivity benefits to the current Windows shell (vs. Program Manager in NT and 3.x) or in the improvements from '95 to XP. I haven't seen much of Vista's Aero, or the new Windows 7 UI, and I'm sure all of the changes have been run by major interface testers.
But when I switched from Office 2000 to Office 2003, I had a rather steep learning curve to deal with the "Ribbon" UI. Even though I taught Office 97 to Computers 101 users in grad school (and was able to take that through to O2K) I was lost with the new "Where the h*** did the menu go" interface. (Ok, If I were an Excel developer, would I consider search&replace General (Home) thing, or a Data thing. It used to be in the Edit menu... )
But I relearned. And I was able to relearn because as I was growing up, the UI changed dramatically (from Write on my Apple ][+ to PC/Word Perfect to WPfW to vim/TeX and on to MS Office*) But for someone who's used to and has memorized the keystrokes/mouse clicks to insert a text box, this is a whole new ballgame.
When I was applying for jobs after college for example, one of the companies asked that I take an "aptitude test" which included things like typing speed and accuracy, formatting documents, generating mail merges etc. This computer-based test was graded on if you click the right menu option first. If you picked "Edit" instead of "Tools" (or if you right-clicked and chose "Format") you got the question wrong. Not that this was a good test, but it's typical for the industry. And the answers completely changed when 2K7 came out.
Of course, in my line of work, we're more concerned about the OS than about the Office apps. So it's things like the changes in networking that annoy me about Vista. Wow, the way I set up a dialup connection has changed. Hmm, I wonder what happens if I right-click here... etc. So I have to learn a whole new way to fix things that go wrong. Not to mention that Vista Home is quite different interface-wise than Vista Business.
And I'd expect that the various Windows 7 editions will look different too. After all, would the wizard that helps gramma connect to the wireless internet at Starbucks be the best way for IT professionals to diagnose an 802.1x authentication problem? If I learn how to do it with my home PC, will that apply to the real business world?
--Joe
The Free Software Foundation has posted 7 Windows 7 "sins" at http://windows7sins.org/, and I think they left out what in my mind is the most important issue. It's sorta covered in "Corrupting Education" and "Lock-In", but not really:
With Windows 7 (and Office 2003 before that, and Vista before that, and XP before that, and Windows 9x/W2K before that) users will have to retire/obsolete all of their existing training in the Windows user interface in favor of the newest cosmetic decisions Microsoft has made for its products.
I don't argue that there aren't significant productivity benefits to the current Windows shell (vs. Program Manager in NT and 3.x) or in the improvements from '95 to XP. I haven't seen much of Vista's Aero, or the new Windows 7 UI, and I'm sure all of the changes have been run by major interface testers.
But when I switched from Office 2000 to Office 2003, I had a rather steep learning curve to deal with the "Ribbon" UI. Even though I taught Office 97 to Computers 101 users in grad school (and was able to take that through to O2K) I was lost with the new "Where the h*** did the menu go" interface. (Ok, If I were an Excel developer, would I consider search&replace General (Home) thing, or a Data thing. It used to be in the Edit menu... )
But I relearned. And I was able to relearn because as I was growing up, the UI changed dramatically (from Write on my Apple ][+ to PC/Word Perfect to WPfW to vim/TeX and on to MS Office*) But for someone who's used to and has memorized the keystrokes/mouse clicks to insert a text box, this is a whole new ballgame.
When I was applying for jobs after college for example, one of the companies asked that I take an "aptitude test" which included things like typing speed and accuracy, formatting documents, generating mail merges etc. This computer-based test was graded on if you click the right menu option first. If you picked "Edit" instead of "Tools" (or if you right-clicked and chose "Format") you got the question wrong. Not that this was a good test, but it's typical for the industry. And the answers completely changed when 2K7 came out.
Of course, in my line of work, we're more concerned about the OS than about the Office apps. So it's things like the changes in networking that annoy me about Vista. Wow, the way I set up a dialup connection has changed. Hmm, I wonder what happens if I right-click here... etc. So I have to learn a whole new way to fix things that go wrong. Not to mention that Vista Home is quite different interface-wise than Vista Business.
And I'd expect that the various Windows 7 editions will look different too. After all, would the wizard that helps gramma connect to the wireless internet at Starbucks be the best way for IT professionals to diagnose an 802.1x authentication problem? If I learn how to do it with my home PC, will that apply to the real business world?
--Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)