Showing posts with label IT Operations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IT Operations. Show all posts
Friday, August 6, 2010
Being a True Business Partner as an Infrastructure & Operations Manager
Several things I have been working on lately seem to have a common theme, defining “what is enough”, enough redundancy, process, response time etc.. I have spent some time studying several of the popular Infrastructure and Operations maturity models as defined by industry leaders such as Gartner, Forrester or IDC. All of these models make the not so implicit assumption that you “should” be driving your IT department “Up” the model. In Gartner's model for example, your IT operation is not considered a “business partner” until you have ascended through all the various layers, each requiring higher levels of process discipline, scalability and business service uptime. On the surface it seems hard to argue against continuous improvement as it relates to your IT operations. I certainly believe you should always search for ways to run your IT operation or to build your IT infrastructure in better ways, however it seems an over generalization to imply that you ALWAYS need more process, more redundancy etc.. I would make the argument that to be a true partner to the business, you as an IT leader should focus on defining exactly what your business is trying to accomplish in the marketplace and target your level of IT infrastructure and operations rigor accordingly. It may be tough for the die hard technology professional to accept that a certain degree of risk is acceptable or that it is OK to not be on the latest hardware or software. What really enables you to drive value for the business is understanding the level at which your business “needs” you to operate and ensuring that you do not operate below or ABOVE that level. Operating below an acceptable level in terms of service levels, infrastructure scalability or redundancy certainly puts your business and its go to market strategy at risk. Operating above where your business needs you to be may be diverting capital and resources away from more value added activities whose value to the business outweighs the risks you may be taking in certain areas of your IT operations. So before you to go your CFO and start showing him or her charts and models outlining where you SHOULD be as an IT organization, make sure you have a clear understanding of where your business NEEDS you to be.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Software Licensing Models Must Evolve to Match Innovation in Computing Resource Delivery
Software licensing has never been one my favorite topics. It has grabbed my attention lately however as a result of what I perceive as a gap between the evolution of infrastructure provisioning models and software vendor licensing models. As infrastructure virtualization and server consolidation continue to dominate as the main trends in computing delivery, software vendors seem bent on clinging to historical licensing models based on CPU. In today’s dynamically allocated world of processing power designed to serve SaaS models for software delivery and flexible business user capabilities, software providers still insist that we as providers of computing services be able to calculate exactly how many “processors” we need to license or exactly how many unique or simultaneous users will access our systems. In addition, many software salespeople use inconsistent and confusing language that causes confusion among business people and even among some CIO’s.
Is it a CPU, a Core or a Slot?
This is where I see the most confusion and inconsistency in language, even among software sales reps. Here is a little history of how things have gotten more complex. It used to be (in the bad old days) that one slot equaled one CPU which had one core. So, when software was licensed by the CPU it was simple to understand how many license you needed. You just counted the number of CPU’s in the server that was going to run your software and there you had it. As chip makers continued to innovate, this model started getting slightly more complex. For example, when multi-core technology was introduced it became possible to have a CPU in a slot that actually constituted multiple cores or execution units. This innovation continues today and is evident in the latest six and even eight core Nehalem and Westmere architectures. So now the question had to be asked to software sales reps “what do you mean by CPU?”
Processing Power Gets Distributed
At nearly the same time that the chips inside our servers where getting more powerful and more complex, our server landscapes where getting more complex as well. Corporate enterprises began migrating away from centralized mainframe computing to client/server delivery models. New backend servers utilizing multi-core processors began to be clustered using technologies such as Microsoft Cluster Server in order to provide high availability to critical business applications. Now the question of “how many CPU’s do you have?” became even more complex.
ERP Systems Drove Complexity in Server Landscapes
In the late 1990’s, many businesses introduced Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems designed to consolidate sprawling application landscapes consisting of many different application for functions such as finance, inventory and payroll. The initial server architecture for ERP systems generally consisted of a development system, a quality system and a production system, each running on distinct computing resources. Most business users only accessed the production system while users from IT could potentially access all three systems. At this point, software sales reps began speaking of licensing your “landscape” and many ERP providers offered named user licensing. A named user could access the ERP system running on development, quality or production regardless of the fact that these where distinct systems.
ERP Technical Architecture Options Drive Confusion
ERP systems still run on databases and require appropriate database licensing. ERP packages such as SAP offer technical design options allowing the database used for the ERP development, quality and production systems to be ran separately in a one for one configuration or in a clustered environment with one or two large severs providing the processing power for all the system databases. With the database licensing needed to run the ERP system there was still a breakeven point where licensing the database by “CPU” could come out cheaper than licensing the database by named user. And so as ERP implementations continued, software salespeople now spoke to technology and business managers about “licensing their landscape by named users with options for CPU based pricing based on cores”. The fog was starting to set in. In fact these options became so confusing that when asked what the letters SAP stood for many business managers would reply “Shut up And Pay”. The situation only got worse in the early 2000’s when ERP providers like SAP saw the adoption rate of new core ERP systems begin to slow. At this point, the majority of enterprise organizations already had some sort of ERP system in place. ERP providers branched out into other supporting systems such as CRM, Supply Chain Management or Business Analytics. Now the “landscape” of applications became even more complex with named users crossing development, quality and production systems across multiple sets of business systems.
Virtualization - The Final Straw
In the 2007 timeframe, a major shift in the way computing power was allocated to business systems began to appear in enterprise data centers. Virtualization technology from companies such as VMware began to gain main stream adoption in enterprise class IT operations. Virtualization gave rise to terms such as Cloud Computing meaning that the processing power for any given business application was provided from a pooled set of computing resources, not tied specifically to any one server or set of servers. An individual virtual server now depended on virtual CPU’s which themselves did not have any necessary direct relationship to a CPU or core in the computing “Cloud”.
Despite this colossal shift in the provisioning of IT computing power, many software vendors clung to their licensing models, insisting on knowing how many “CPU’s” you would use to run their software. Even today in 2010 when Virtualization has been well vetted and proven to be a viable computing delivery model at all tiers of an enterprises technical architecture, some software vendors either insist on sticking to outdated license models or simply issuing vague statements of support for virtualization. These vague statements of support often seem to be based more on resistance to change traditional licensing models rather than on any clearly stated technical facts.
After a long and storied evolution of computing power delivery from single core, single CPU machines to Cloud Computing, it seems like software providers ranging from database providers to providers of business analytics have been slow to innovate in terms of licensing models. Enterprise class providers of business software such as SAP or Oracle who claim to have embraced virtualization yet continue to either license certain product sets by CPU or issue only vague statements of virtualization support seem to be struggling to provide innovate pricing structures aligned with the new realities of computing power delivery.
I am sure they will get there, but for now I still get emails from software sales representatives quoting prices for products “by the CPU”. Sigh…..
Is it a CPU, a Core or a Slot?
This is where I see the most confusion and inconsistency in language, even among software sales reps. Here is a little history of how things have gotten more complex. It used to be (in the bad old days) that one slot equaled one CPU which had one core. So, when software was licensed by the CPU it was simple to understand how many license you needed. You just counted the number of CPU’s in the server that was going to run your software and there you had it. As chip makers continued to innovate, this model started getting slightly more complex. For example, when multi-core technology was introduced it became possible to have a CPU in a slot that actually constituted multiple cores or execution units. This innovation continues today and is evident in the latest six and even eight core Nehalem and Westmere architectures. So now the question had to be asked to software sales reps “what do you mean by CPU?”
Processing Power Gets Distributed
At nearly the same time that the chips inside our servers where getting more powerful and more complex, our server landscapes where getting more complex as well. Corporate enterprises began migrating away from centralized mainframe computing to client/server delivery models. New backend servers utilizing multi-core processors began to be clustered using technologies such as Microsoft Cluster Server in order to provide high availability to critical business applications. Now the question of “how many CPU’s do you have?” became even more complex.
ERP Systems Drove Complexity in Server Landscapes
In the late 1990’s, many businesses introduced Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems designed to consolidate sprawling application landscapes consisting of many different application for functions such as finance, inventory and payroll. The initial server architecture for ERP systems generally consisted of a development system, a quality system and a production system, each running on distinct computing resources. Most business users only accessed the production system while users from IT could potentially access all three systems. At this point, software sales reps began speaking of licensing your “landscape” and many ERP providers offered named user licensing. A named user could access the ERP system running on development, quality or production regardless of the fact that these where distinct systems.
ERP Technical Architecture Options Drive Confusion
ERP systems still run on databases and require appropriate database licensing. ERP packages such as SAP offer technical design options allowing the database used for the ERP development, quality and production systems to be ran separately in a one for one configuration or in a clustered environment with one or two large severs providing the processing power for all the system databases. With the database licensing needed to run the ERP system there was still a breakeven point where licensing the database by “CPU” could come out cheaper than licensing the database by named user. And so as ERP implementations continued, software salespeople now spoke to technology and business managers about “licensing their landscape by named users with options for CPU based pricing based on cores”. The fog was starting to set in. In fact these options became so confusing that when asked what the letters SAP stood for many business managers would reply “Shut up And Pay”. The situation only got worse in the early 2000’s when ERP providers like SAP saw the adoption rate of new core ERP systems begin to slow. At this point, the majority of enterprise organizations already had some sort of ERP system in place. ERP providers branched out into other supporting systems such as CRM, Supply Chain Management or Business Analytics. Now the “landscape” of applications became even more complex with named users crossing development, quality and production systems across multiple sets of business systems.
Virtualization - The Final Straw
In the 2007 timeframe, a major shift in the way computing power was allocated to business systems began to appear in enterprise data centers. Virtualization technology from companies such as VMware began to gain main stream adoption in enterprise class IT operations. Virtualization gave rise to terms such as Cloud Computing meaning that the processing power for any given business application was provided from a pooled set of computing resources, not tied specifically to any one server or set of servers. An individual virtual server now depended on virtual CPU’s which themselves did not have any necessary direct relationship to a CPU or core in the computing “Cloud”.
Despite this colossal shift in the provisioning of IT computing power, many software vendors clung to their licensing models, insisting on knowing how many “CPU’s” you would use to run their software. Even today in 2010 when Virtualization has been well vetted and proven to be a viable computing delivery model at all tiers of an enterprises technical architecture, some software vendors either insist on sticking to outdated license models or simply issuing vague statements of support for virtualization. These vague statements of support often seem to be based more on resistance to change traditional licensing models rather than on any clearly stated technical facts.
After a long and storied evolution of computing power delivery from single core, single CPU machines to Cloud Computing, it seems like software providers ranging from database providers to providers of business analytics have been slow to innovate in terms of licensing models. Enterprise class providers of business software such as SAP or Oracle who claim to have embraced virtualization yet continue to either license certain product sets by CPU or issue only vague statements of virtualization support seem to be struggling to provide innovate pricing structures aligned with the new realities of computing power delivery.
I am sure they will get there, but for now I still get emails from software sales representatives quoting prices for products “by the CPU”. Sigh…..
Friday, May 28, 2010
Your Data Center Hosting Provider is Stealing Your Money
Well, stealing is a strong word. What is happening however is that traditional data center hosting providers are getting in the way of thousands of small to medium sized businesses as it relates to realizing the true energy based cost savings associated with virtualization. Virtualization has changed many aspects of the traditional IT infrastructure and fostered innovations in all areas of traditional infrastructure service provision. What has not kept pace is innovation and investment on the part of data center hosting providers in facilities infrastructure geared towards delivering services such as power and cooling in a fashion that is aligned with the new realities of virtualized IT computing loads. This is directly limiting the ability of small to midsized companies who host their IT environment in these data centers to fully realize the total energy savings that virtualization can provide. In the following paragraphs I will provide a summary of APC white Paper 118 which does an excellent job of explaining how the total energy savings from virtualization is dependent on a realignment of data center infrastructure to meet the needs of a reduced and consolidated IT load. I will point out exactly where small to midsized organizations hosting there IT load in traditional hosting providers facilities are leaving money on the table as a result of their hosting providers in-action.
The following diagram demonstrates the primary sources of energy consumption in a data center. The support power represents energy that is lost due to the inefficiency of data center physical infrastructure such as power and cooling systems. This is energy that is consumed in the operation of the equipment itself rather than being transferred to the IT load and being used for useful computing work.
After you virtualize your server environment, your IT load will decrease. This decrease will make the PUE of the data center worse due to inefficiencies caused by a physical infrastructure continuing to operate at what is now over capacity for the new virtualized IT load.
So while a decrease in energy cost due to IT load consolidation and virtualization is certainly positive, it is only a fraction of the overall savings possible. The total energy savings made possible by virtualization can only be achieved if the data center physical infrastructure is re-architected to be more allinged with the new realities of virtualized IT loads.
Specific recommendations for changes to data center physical infrastructure to achieve a closer alignment of physical infrastructure services with virtual IT loads can be found in APC white paper 126.
In all fairness to hosting providers, realizing some of the efficiency gains of re-architecting physical infrastructure is a true challenge in an environment inherently designed to provide shared service across many organizations with unique IT loads, peak demand periods and degrees of virtualization and consolidation. Looking from the point of view of a mid-sized IT organization that has diligently virtualized and reduced IT load requirements only to find themselves “trapped” by existing power circuit contracts or by an inflexible hosting provider who has not invested in physical infrastructure innovation reveals a logical degree of frustration. In any market such as data center hosting where the barrier to entry is high due to large capital expenditure requirements, innovation by market leaders tends to be slow. What is needed is a new type of hosting provider built from the ground up to provide modern, flexible solutions such as “pay by the drink” for power services and individualized cooling solutions through innovations like row based cooling while maintaining independence from the overall environment of the data center.
Should traditional hosting providers fail to make these innovations then no doubt, a new breed of more agile competitors, unburdened by large historical capital investments in dated infrastructure will emerge and force fundamental change in the hosting industry. Mid-sized customers may also find the additional value hosting services provide such as physical security to longer be enough to prevent them from investing in their own facilities where they can innovate themselves and keep all the gains. Virtualization has changed almost everything with respect to IT infrastructure service delivery, it is time for hosting providers to catch up.
The following diagram demonstrates the primary sources of energy consumption in a data center. The support power represents energy that is lost due to the inefficiency of data center physical infrastructure such as power and cooling systems. This is energy that is consumed in the operation of the equipment itself rather than being transferred to the IT load and being used for useful computing work.
After you virtualize your server environment, your IT load will decrease. This decrease will make the PUE of the data center worse due to inefficiencies caused by a physical infrastructure continuing to operate at what is now over capacity for the new virtualized IT load.
So while a decrease in energy cost due to IT load consolidation and virtualization is certainly positive, it is only a fraction of the overall savings possible. The total energy savings made possible by virtualization can only be achieved if the data center physical infrastructure is re-architected to be more allinged with the new realities of virtualized IT loads.
Specific recommendations for changes to data center physical infrastructure to achieve a closer alignment of physical infrastructure services with virtual IT loads can be found in APC white paper 126.
In all fairness to hosting providers, realizing some of the efficiency gains of re-architecting physical infrastructure is a true challenge in an environment inherently designed to provide shared service across many organizations with unique IT loads, peak demand periods and degrees of virtualization and consolidation. Looking from the point of view of a mid-sized IT organization that has diligently virtualized and reduced IT load requirements only to find themselves “trapped” by existing power circuit contracts or by an inflexible hosting provider who has not invested in physical infrastructure innovation reveals a logical degree of frustration. In any market such as data center hosting where the barrier to entry is high due to large capital expenditure requirements, innovation by market leaders tends to be slow. What is needed is a new type of hosting provider built from the ground up to provide modern, flexible solutions such as “pay by the drink” for power services and individualized cooling solutions through innovations like row based cooling while maintaining independence from the overall environment of the data center.
Should traditional hosting providers fail to make these innovations then no doubt, a new breed of more agile competitors, unburdened by large historical capital investments in dated infrastructure will emerge and force fundamental change in the hosting industry. Mid-sized customers may also find the additional value hosting services provide such as physical security to longer be enough to prevent them from investing in their own facilities where they can innovate themselves and keep all the gains. Virtualization has changed almost everything with respect to IT infrastructure service delivery, it is time for hosting providers to catch up.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Keeping Your Technology Infrastructure "Modern Enough"
How modern does your infrastructure need to be? The high level, seemingly safe answer to this question is that "enough" of any given technology or process has been put in place when that particular solution matches the business need. Finding this utopian point of solution fit is often trickier than it seems. It is critical however that as a technology leader, you think hard about the solutions you propose to the business. You must ensure you are not being whipped around by the latest technology trends being hyped to you by salesmen in blue blazers while at the same time ensuring that under your stewardship your organization is not missing opportunities engendered by emerging technologies. You must balance the opposing pressures of technology staff members who always see the benefit of the latest and greatest tools with the need to meet capital and operational budgets. The balance must be reached in a way that brings tangible benefit to the business. How do you deliver? I have found that staying focused on a few basics with respect to technology evaluations, business acumen and people management go a long way.
First, separate trends from true paradigm shifts. For example, no one would argue that the advent of virtualization technologies has brought about a true paradigm shift in the creation and management of corporate infrastructures. As a technology leader, you have to identify that and understand where your particular organization can benefit. With respect to something as technical as virtualization, it will likely be up to you to help educate the business about the benefits of making the virtual transition. Make sure you understand some the basics of your organizations business model and strategies in order to help guide your proposal and thinking around such paradigm changing technologies as virtualization. Be aware however that as vendors see these fundamental paradigm shifts happening, they will rush in with products to grab market share, not all of which will have staying power. Be cognizant of the vendors long-term plans for any given technology, how it fits into their strategic portfolio, how likely they are to continue to dedicate R&D dollars to the product 5 to 10 years from now.
Second, understand the real ROI potential of any new technology and take the time to analyze how your particular operation will benefit. See my post here for a discussion on calculating ROI and to download a spreadsheet model. Every particular technology operation has its specific set of characteristics that drive its cost structure. Before you recommend upgrading or changing any of them, know where you are and what your benefit will be. Don’t just use high level concepts in presentations to CFO’s such as “it will lower capital expense” or it will make us more flexible”. Dig deep and be specific, you may find there is no real benefit at all!
Third, understand your teams ability to support a new technology architecture on an ongoing basis. Think hard about what the true people cost will be when evaluating your need to move to a more modern technology infrastructure paradigm such as virtualization. Do you have the skill in house now? Do you have folks you can train? Will you need support from vendors on an ongoing basis? Make sure these “soft” considerations don’t get lost in the discussion over ROI with respect to a new technology. Training, retention, and outside support all help add the operational budget squeeze most technology managers feel. Make sure you are not putting your organization at risk with respect to available support resources just in order to introduce a newer technology or process.
Finally, make sure you are not pushing for a technology or process because you or your team “wants" to learn it. For example, many IT leaders see the value in and "want" to implement an ITIL based management process for their IT operations. This desire can easily turn into conversations with CFO's that start out as we "must" implement ITIL. Make sure any given technology or technology management practice fits the needs of your organization, that it truly has the potential to add value. Top notch technology folks crave to learn and use the latest technologies and process, harness that drive and focus it in the right places.
The above points are certainly not exhaustive but taken together they can help you think critically about technology architecture shifts or upgrades. Make sure you have truly thought out your decisions. Be willing to make hard decisions even if they are not the most popular with your team. Most importantly, be prepared to give a well thought out business case with respect to your current technology architecture state and your strategic plans for moving forward.
First, separate trends from true paradigm shifts. For example, no one would argue that the advent of virtualization technologies has brought about a true paradigm shift in the creation and management of corporate infrastructures. As a technology leader, you have to identify that and understand where your particular organization can benefit. With respect to something as technical as virtualization, it will likely be up to you to help educate the business about the benefits of making the virtual transition. Make sure you understand some the basics of your organizations business model and strategies in order to help guide your proposal and thinking around such paradigm changing technologies as virtualization. Be aware however that as vendors see these fundamental paradigm shifts happening, they will rush in with products to grab market share, not all of which will have staying power. Be cognizant of the vendors long-term plans for any given technology, how it fits into their strategic portfolio, how likely they are to continue to dedicate R&D dollars to the product 5 to 10 years from now.
Second, understand the real ROI potential of any new technology and take the time to analyze how your particular operation will benefit. See my post here for a discussion on calculating ROI and to download a spreadsheet model. Every particular technology operation has its specific set of characteristics that drive its cost structure. Before you recommend upgrading or changing any of them, know where you are and what your benefit will be. Don’t just use high level concepts in presentations to CFO’s such as “it will lower capital expense” or it will make us more flexible”. Dig deep and be specific, you may find there is no real benefit at all!
Third, understand your teams ability to support a new technology architecture on an ongoing basis. Think hard about what the true people cost will be when evaluating your need to move to a more modern technology infrastructure paradigm such as virtualization. Do you have the skill in house now? Do you have folks you can train? Will you need support from vendors on an ongoing basis? Make sure these “soft” considerations don’t get lost in the discussion over ROI with respect to a new technology. Training, retention, and outside support all help add the operational budget squeeze most technology managers feel. Make sure you are not putting your organization at risk with respect to available support resources just in order to introduce a newer technology or process.
Finally, make sure you are not pushing for a technology or process because you or your team “wants" to learn it. For example, many IT leaders see the value in and "want" to implement an ITIL based management process for their IT operations. This desire can easily turn into conversations with CFO's that start out as we "must" implement ITIL. Make sure any given technology or technology management practice fits the needs of your organization, that it truly has the potential to add value. Top notch technology folks crave to learn and use the latest technologies and process, harness that drive and focus it in the right places.
The above points are certainly not exhaustive but taken together they can help you think critically about technology architecture shifts or upgrades. Make sure you have truly thought out your decisions. Be willing to make hard decisions even if they are not the most popular with your team. Most importantly, be prepared to give a well thought out business case with respect to your current technology architecture state and your strategic plans for moving forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)