Systems Manageability - Part 1: Why Manageability Matters - Port 25: The Open Source Community at Microsoft
< Back to Blogs
Systems Manageability - Part 1: Why Manageability Matters by kishi on March 21, 2007 06:09PM

Impetus: This is the 19th year I have spent in the Information Technology business, out of which more than 15 were spent designing and implementing IT environments of various scopes, platforms and sizes. Among several similarities and differences between each implementation, a few constants always emerged, and my favorite of all: Systems Manageability. This question always got asked during every high-profile design review meeting. You know the meeting I’m talking about, the one with the CIO and the IT Director are sitting across the table and asking how we’re planning on managing the environment. The main concern you could see in everyone’s expression was “what sort of manageability needs to be built around for operations and support ?”. So why does manageability matter ? Let’s start with what people imagine, when they think of Systems Manageability. It means different things to people in different roles: the Infrastructure folks imagine uptime and redundancy, the Developers imagine reliability, the Business Managers imagine efficiency. But the answer is so overwhelmingly obvious. Had it not been for systems management toolsets, apps and frameworks, ITPro’s and Admins would be worried sick about everything from uptime to reliability to scalability. So yes, manageability matters, a lot, because it’s the knowledge that “all’s well and running smoothly” that matters to everyone from a CIO to a Developer to a IT Admin.  

Importance: Now that we have established the impetus behind why Systems Manageability matters, we should now address the importance tied to it, such as:

  1. Increasingly complex and heterogeneous environments need increased attention: Pick any environment of your choice, whether it’s where you work or the one you hear about the most. It comes with its own share of challenges and oddities. What differentiates one environment from the other is the manner in which it is “run”. The more complex you hardware, software or network stack, the greater is the manageability tied to it. This means that with every component you add to your existing system, you’re only increasing the complexity even further. So is that a bad thing – NO. Because it’s the environment that should be designed with “adaptation” in mind and not the other way round. Thus, having a complex environment simply translates to keeping an eye on more things. Systems Manageability plays a key role in this scenario
  2. Infrastructure sits at the “core” of IT: Here’s an exercise for any of you that may be interested – the next time you see or hear a technology professional being interviewed about a certain “application” or tool that they’ve developed – try to imagine an entire infrastructure that needs to support and run that “tool” or “App”. The exercise will make you think about what’s going on in the mind of an IT Admin who is responsible for running your environment implementation and why Infrastructure is a big deal. Systems Manageability plays a key role in this scenario
  3. End-user productivity has a directly proportional relationship to Performance Tuning and Optimization: Growth comes in spurts and bursts and never an even pace as we all know. This means, various pieces of your hardware, software, toolsets are implemented in various growths and phases. Simply put, growth does not follow a pre-chartered course and timeline. This makes ongoing performance tuning and optimization a necessity.  And it has its benefits - it allows you to see the app or toolkit from the eyes of the people who made it. It also gives you the “know how” to make the specific changes in thresholds and values that could mean a difference of night and day, in terms of efficiency. Systems Manageability plays a key role in this scenario
  4. Striking a balance between Manageability and Flexibility is tough: Identity Management and Security issues are now a mainstream topic of discussion and more and more attention is being paid to system security, access and authentication framework. The single reason for putting these in place to ensure that “you are who you say you are”. On the flip side, overly managed and restrictive environments can limit the flexibility of what an end-user can do. That’s why it is always tough to strike a balance between a system that is secure / well managed and one which seems more “seamless”. Systems Manageability plays a key role in this scenario

In the next seven blogs or so to follow, you will get a detailed breakdown on the Systems Manageability project that we have completed in the lab. We will be covering the Project Methodology and Project Ontology in my next blog. As always, send us your comments and feedback and THANK YOU for tuning into Port25.

Comments RSS
  1. einhverfr said:

    One of the issues of manageablility that occurs to me is that heterogeneous networks have to deal not only with the fact that different software runs on different systems, but also with the idea that the platforms themselves were designed around very different environments.

    -

    Active Directory/GPO is the ideal management framework for Windows, while something like Athena (though perhaps with diskless workstations) is the ideal management framework for Linux.

    -

    If you deploy Linux like you would ideally deploy Windows, the support and manageability issues become quite problematic for larger networks.

    -

    But you can't really deploy Windows the way you would ideally deploy Linux and have it be very useful.  I suppose if you tried hard enough you *could* but again, the support and management would become a nightmare for anything more complex than a very simple network.

    -

    So, in my view, a heterogeneous network means that you often have two very different networks which are sort of bridged together hopefully with a framework of some common tools.  Unfortunately, this rarely happens though.  (IIRC, MIT does this. though.)

    -

    So one of the issues I have never really seen covered is the mismatch of the design criteria of platforms in the area of manageability.  I don't know if this is likely to be covered this time around, and I suppose not enough businesses who run Linux take full advantage of it, but it might be something worth further consideration.

    posted at 09:20PM 03/21/2007
  2. ajaymm said:

    Hi Kish,

    You are right on. Manageability is really central to the success of any IT department. There is huge a tendency to simplify the environment to offset the risk associated with manageability and rightly so. But, the end-user demands on technology have risen sharply and they want the latest and greatest tools. Striking that balance between manageability and the user demands will the key to success. I would like to see your take on infrastructure security in association with manageability. I think you are not going to have much argument around “why manageability maters” because it has been consistently one of the top 3 concerns/challenges of the IT departments for many years. But, the key would be to understand “how to address the manageability challenge in a complex, ever changing, and highly demanding IT environments”. I work for Intel Corp. as a manageability developer community manager. We are trying to address many of the manageability challenges with Intel® Active Management Technology and I am always looking for new ideas around how to address manageability.

    Regards,

    Ajay Mungara

    Software Solutions Group

    Intel Corporation.

    posted at 11:50AM 03/23/2007
  3. kishi said:

    einhverfr - first off, thank you for your comments. I agree with what you're saying about Heterogenous manageability and why having a diverse set of platforms is what the challenge is around. And yes, Linux systems need to be maanged differently than Windows systems. However, for a large organization - that's where they need the most relief and which is why you pay more for a framework ultimately, than you do for an application

    posted at 02:24PM 03/23/2007
  4. kishi said:

    Ajay - thanks so much for posting a comment, this is very helpful. Over the next seven or eight more blogs, I will try to drill down on the ontology of how I saw and experienced manageability being approached in the Linux and open source space and I hope that sheds light on a part of what you've brought up. On a personal note, would be very interested in talking to you about your role as the manageability developer community manager for Intel. Let me know how and when we can connect.

    posted at 02:28PM 03/23/2007
  5. ajaymm said:

    Hi Kishi,

    Thanks for doing a great job in your blog dealing with Manageability. I have subscribed to your feed, so I will watch for your posts on this topic. I would love to connect with you and talk more about what we are doing. We are also looking at a lot of open source initiatives around manageability and linux. Please send me an email - ajay.mungara@intel.com and we can sync up.

    Also, check out my blog at http://www.intel.com/software/ajay

    posted at 06:03PM 03/23/2007
  6. Port 25 said:

    In my last blog called “Why Manageability Matters” I talked about why we chose to work on “Systems Manageability” as a whole and get a grassroots understanding of it within the context of Linux and Open Source space. In this blog, I’m going to address

    posted at 04:27PM 04/06/2007
Post a Comment
*
*