Automation: Not at the cost of core expertise - Port 25: The Open Source Community at Microsoft
< Back to Blogs
Automation: Not at the cost of core expertise by admin on May 22, 2006 12:47PM

We had a great week here because we all got to spend a lot of time out of the office meeting people from all over the world who came here to attend an event in Seattle. A lot of people I ran into had specific and pinpointed questions on various technologically perplexing scenarios they had encountered or were at the forefront of some hard questions from their customers on technology management. Something in these conversations always sticks in my head and today, I learnt some very surprising details on the "push" for automation, process as well as technology based. What I heard in these discussions reinforced the core fundamentals of Technology Management such as “never replace an expert with what you think is a good application”. Let me explain what I mean:

Let’s start by discussing the role of automation, in general, be it scripting or process based and the role it plays in the life of an IT Operations Professional. I uncovered two scenarios, the first where automation was a key in driving efficiencies, increasing reliability, predictability and lowering TCO. The second scenario elicits a situation where unnecessary automation was implemented instead of the need of genuine expertise, with an undesirable outcome of course.
 
Scenario 1 – Successful implementation of Automation: The need for automation is almost always driven by a business need mapping back to a simple, repeatable process. Let’s say one of the tasks you’re responsible in a large environment is maintaining and updating DNS records. Take something as simple as changing a DNS record and assigning a new address to the entry. This would be a perfectly simple AND repeatable process that screams the need to automate. To put a simple script or a comprehensive tool around such a scenario would be prudent and wise as it takes the repetition out of the job, and making the overall process less error-prone, more automated and dependable

Scenario 2 – Unnecessary use of automation: The same process can only be automated only to a certain extent, after which human expertise becomes critical. Continuing the path of the process in Scenario 1, once the DNS records get changed, it’s very easy to setup an additional script or automation around “validation”. By validation I mean double-checking the change to make sure that the prior and successive entries are accurate leaving no room for any error. Why is validation necessary – well, because once the DNS records are changed and are propagated through the environment, an incorrect entry can wreak havoc and make the busiest server unresponsive to any name resolution request. However, having a resident analyst who can validate all entries of the request, check the addresses manually before entering them into the script/tool and doing post-change validation only helps eliminates the scope of an “outage” , the one word every Operations Professional dreads

In conclusion, I’d like to say that our goal as contributors to Port25 is to always try to put forward instances and knowledge that help the IT Community run their environment/s. Therefore, if there is something specific, be it technology or operations methodology that you'd like us to dig deeper into, your ideas are ALWAYS most welcome.

Thank you all, have a great week ahead !!

Comments RSS
  1. cronos said:

    I totally agree with this post, but in MY own experience, I never met a Windows Engineer that know exactly what are he doing, or what is doing the computer with certain software or in certain situation.

    Linux (in general) is more difficult to set up than Windows, but besides the fact that you only do one setup in Linux and it doesn't get broken mysteriously, the extra complexity and manual tunning in Linux are an excelent deterrent for people that don't know exactly what are they doing, or what they want.

    Visual Studio is a good IDE, but everyone that knows how to drag and drop, thinks that he's a programmer, and everyone that knows how to install Windows, feels himself as an OS expert. I have seen many cases when some IT department has the money to buy some solution, but when things goes wrong, nobody has idea what could it be.

    From my point of view, in the Free Software community the value is in the people, but in the Windows community (if exist something like that), the value is in the licenses.

    posted at 06:43PM 05/22/2006
  2. Tio_Luiso said:

    I think cronos has his point.

    Microsoft approach is to do apps that are user friendly, easy to use, and that is OK when the app is Office or Windows XP. Users in general don't need to know the inner working of the products they use, like I don't know the inner working of a combustion engine or a TV. It simply works.

    However, the same logic can be quite dangerous when we're talking about Server OSes, Databases, and Programming. User friendly tools make people with knowledge more productive, but that same tools make people without enough knowledge fool theirselves thinking Administering or Programming is easy.

    In this way, Microsoft approach is both its best virtue and its worst sin.

    The same can be said about Linux (or UNIX). It can be so absolutely obscure and lacking of good managing tools that it can reduce productivity.

    That's my thought. Now you can yell at me.

    posted at 12:52PM 05/23/2006
  3. einhverfr said:

    In my own experience, the move to UNIX and Linux tends to improve productivity as long as the end user isn't afraid of the software.  The feeling of "I can't do such-and-such" is quite dangerous to every computer user, so unfamiliarity breeds powerlessness.

    It is indeed not a matter of lacking good management tools.  Linux usually comes with one extremely powerful all-purpose management tool called bash.  With bash, cron, and friends (ssh, for example, is really helpful, or in the alternative, I will use kerberized telnet), I can do *anything* I can imagine.  Give me a computer management problem and I can give you a solution.  And there is no environment I can imagine where such simple scripting cannot be used to manage more Linux systems than Windows.

    However, I can say this-- intermediate Windows users (including most MCSE's) have serious issues switching to Linux because they are comfortable with Windows, but not comfortable with computers in general.  Hence they say "I can't do this the same way," have to unlearn things, and get very frustrated for a while.  It is the "I can't" type thoughts that kill productivity on any platform, not the lack of management tools.

    Indeed, the first time I installed FreeBSD, I had worked with Linux for a while, and it took me three days to get a working installation!  I would have had an easier time if I was entirely new to FreeBSD.  And there were many times when I just had to tell myself "pretend it's Linux-- XFree86 can't be *that* different on both platforms."

    Of course the second time I installed FreeBSD, I had it up and running very quickly.

    Best Wishes,
    Chris Travers
    Metatron Technology Consulting

    posted at 03:37PM 05/24/2006
  4. Tio_Luiso said:

    From my point of view, Microsoft tools are superior to Linux or Unix tools in terms of learning curve. And I don't mean learning curve of Kerberos, or LDAP, or SQL, but learning curve of the tools themselves. Generally speaking they are far more intuitive.

    It's now a matter of power, of course in Linux you can do just everything with scripts, while in Windows, only recently you can do things with scripting, and from UI you cannot do everything, BUT you can do most frequent things more easily.

    And that's productivity, too.

    posted at 04:53 05/25/2006
  5. Tio_Luiso said:

    Meant "It's not a matter of power"

    posted at 11:37 05/25/2006
  6. cronos said:

    Tio_Luiso: I not agree with you; there is a lot of user-frendly visual Linux software, there is no more like ten years ago, when Linux was made for developers by developers. Simply look and interfaces like Gnome and KDE, and projects for PDA like GPE and Opie; is completely false that there is no innovation in the Free Software community:

    http://gpe.handhelds.org/
    http://opie.handhelds.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/

    But, even if Microsoft software is easy to learn, there is no gain if the software gets broken very often. Look at this article of PCWorld:

    http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,125772,pg,2,00.asp#millennium
    http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,125772,pg,3,00.asp#bob
    http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,125772,pg,3,00.asp#ie6

    Personally, I expect high quality software from a multibillion-dollar company that sells their products in hundreds of dollars each one, not like the Free Software community, where programmers write software in their spare time and with their own computers, and share their software at no cost.

    posted at 06:24PM 05/26/2006
Post a Comment
*
*