Leaving... or just a wider circle of work colleagues?

Ok so this isn’t a blog entry I wanted to write, nor is it one that feels good but…

My long term manager @nicsut is leaving our company today in order to work both in a different company and country. The thing is that this location and new role is fantastic for Nick & his family, both personally and professionally - so you have to be happy for him no matter how sad you might feel.

Now over the years Nick hasn’t just been a colleague, then manager, but he’s been a mentor to me on both a personal & professional level. Certainly, and by no means least, Nick’s been a good friend, confidant, very very tolerant of my regular rants - I've certainly learnt something from him every day.

If you are lucky enough to meet or work with Nick, spend some time with him, listen, learn and enjoy – it most certainly will be worth your time!

So Nick, just remember, Paris is only a quick phone call or train journey away for me to ask for your advice, as your shoes really are very big ones to fill…

Bon Voyage, le vin est pour moi la prochaine fois!

ps Do you think below might be an acceptable excuse for me? :)

Cloud "Everything As A Service" - the latest "abused by all, confuse all" phrase!

OK so there are many people abusing the word 'cloud' like crazy - sadly no new news there.

Personally I'm more aligned to the NIST definitions re cloud (http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/cloud-computing/)- now these aren't perfect, but rather a common reference point. Sadly even those are being 'interpreted' conveniently by many now...

Couple of things I'm fairly clear about in my mind :-

• Virtualisation /= Dynamic Data Centre /= Cloud
• Virtualisation is often used currently for 'tin stacking' with existing provision & operations processes, nothing wrong with that but a short term capex and facilities opex benefit only.
• Dynamic Data Centre is taking virtualisation to the next step, embracing automation and dynamic integration with other infrastructure support and management toolsets, this could be related to 'private cloud' if combined with a service model & opex accounting/recharging to the business customer
• Cloud includes a wider set of topics relating to ownership, finance, roles/responsibilities, managed services, commodity and scale that are typically not address by the above points
• Shared Infrastructure /= Cloud
• 'pool' would be better term for shared infrstructure, and yes these are a good idea in enterprises (should be the default option for everything in the infrastructure stack)
• But having an array with 15 different applications using it isn't a cloud, it's an array with multiple consumers, yes this forces a service mentality but that's hardly anything new...

I'm also of the view that a cloud service can be built without need for virtualisation, DDC or cloud optimised technologies, however in order to scale or be as cost optimised as possible clearly DDC & cloud optimised technologies are needed - so are open source, very different licensing models and very different processes but they are different topics.

Some of the questions I use as a litmus test for people telling me they are offering 'cloud services/technologies' is :-

• Are the actual purchase prices (not RRP etc, but actual buy prices) made available publicly for anybody to access?
• Are the prices the same for everybody (other than consumption based tiers)?
• Are the SLAs published publicly for anybody to access?
• Does the supplier publish a full TCO/ROI model for the customer to examine / adapt etc?
• What type of standards does this operate with / under?
• What's different to the past? (eg 'outsourcing', 'managed service', 'HP UDC', 'Egenera BladeFrame & PAM' etc)
• What is different between this and classic enterprise IT usage?
• Is the minimum duration of engagement hours, days, weeks, months or years?
• What is the 'startup latency' of the engagement?
• What are the metric elements for cost?
• What is the level of granularity of cost (consumption & change)?
• Do I need to meet/talk with a human in order to setup, purchase & use the technology or service?
• Is the technology or service fully controllable by a published API?

Clearly there are different questions / relevance between consuming cloud services, and utilising technologies in order to provide cloud services - but I find above an interesting starting point for both. Similarly there is no defined right or wrong answer to above, but the combined answers help frame my understanding (I have a very long list of other questions but that's for another day & blog entry).

Naturally consumption of cloud services tends to have a very different financial model & aspects that need to be accounted for when comparing (but that's a subject for a much bigger blog entry). Whilst internal company recharging can alter the appearance of financials for some it doesn't for the company as a whole (other than help to drive behaviours).

What I am getting really cheesed off with is people marketeering classic data-centre technologies as 'cloud' simply because they can be used as a component within a 'cloud service' - if I were to follow that analogy would I be able to buy 'cloud screws' from http://www.screwfix.com/?

Honestly, look its really simple, as usual quiet action & genuine cost reduction talks not hype, marketing or bluster - if you want to ride the 'cloud bubble' be clear how your technology genuinely relates to 'cloud' and in what context, or please I beg of you STHU and focus on what you're good at?

Dell - Red card for green and environment!

So those who know me will realise I'm certainly no left wing, flower in hair, sandal wearing hippy - but I just had to write a complaint about a delivery one of our team had today from Dell.

So my colleague ordered a 14.1" privacy screen from Dell for his laptop on our internal purchasing system, guess how it was packaged for delivery :-

Utterly astounding! An A4 sized envelop that is featherweight somehow required a box slightly greater than 1 foot cubed in size, stuffed full of packing paper - just how many trees, polar bears & penguins were felled for this???

The final irony, despite the order being for a 14.1" Dell actually shipped a 12." filter - so the filter has to be returned in it's original packaging, now who wants to take a bet as to just how big a box Dell ship a real 14.1" filter in???

** Edit ** It would appear that The Register has a running theme on this here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/29/aboxalypse_now/ 

Management tools - command & control risk?

So those who know me, understand just how much I loathe FUD but here's a question I've been posed for some time, and have been asking each IT vendor I meet.

The more common silo'd IT infrastructure is (thankfully) rapidly consolidating and moving to a 'shared infrastructure' approach, with individual assets providing service to more and more concurrent application. Naturally there is a push to improve the management tools for such things (well lets face it they couldn't get much worse), to enable fewer people to manager wider logical estates, combined with a much more dynamic & agile configuration time-frame.

We hear lots about these management tools being based upon a role based access & security model (in effect domaining/sharding the size of the risk an individual can create), but :-

"How many of these tools allow for a 'peer approval required' model ('4 eyes better than 2') against certain actions?"

The request here is to be able to restrict certain destructive and/or disruptive management configuration actions to require two (or more) administrators to 'sign' the change before the system accepting & enacting the action. Thus allowing a small quantity of administrators in a company to continue to have a very wide view of the estate, but to hopefully mitigate against the risk of a lone admin actions (malicious, accidental or otherwise). The role based approach appears to either drive up the overall quantity of FTEs needed or a significant compromise of the role segregation model.

Think here about just how many SAN/LAN switch ports, LUN configurations, virtual servers or backup/recovery jobs can be impacted in 10 minutes with these centralised tools, by a lone sysadmin with legitimate password & authorisation?

Time for the technology to match the human issues and processes?

TCO - Why is it so hard for some?

Now per as my previous blog entries show-me-money-information & tco-time-for-opensource-framework discuss, I have to make architecture & standards changes & decisions based upon tco & roi calculations. Accordingly we require vendors to be able to demonstrate to me that they understand the TCO/ROI of their products & architectures (I have my views but need to understand theirs and validate / align forecasts), and of course provide me with copies of their models & values.

Okay, so 4 months ago I renewed my simple request to EMC for a TCO model comparing DMX+CX with VMax (in essence to compare 'between box' vs 'within box' tiers). A simple enough request I thought - and one I made initially several years ago (at that time comparing DMX to DMX+CX), but never got anywhere. This time a specific project planning to purchase PB+ of capacity drove me to renew this request.

Now four months on and, despite me chasing, I still haven't received anything from EMC, nor have I even been given an estimate as to when / if I might see something. So I'm forced to conclude that Uncle Joe and the Elusive Mathematical Calculators are either: -

• Ignoring the request
• Don't understand (or care) about TCO & ROI, preferring to focus on leasing or 'regular technology refresh purchase justification business cases'
• Aren't able to explain the customer value of their different products and architectures
• Are hiding something
• Prefer slick & vocal marketing to facts
• Trying to hire somebody to work on the topic

To me nowadays EMC are a company of conflicts, some of the things they do (& have) are the best bar none, other things sadly are the worse. As @storagebod pointed out here social-climbing that EMC are indeed changing for the positive but I suspect not as fast or thoroughly as they/we would like. Which means unltimately, despite changes, they are still a monthly/quarterly financial engineering orientated engine with a sales & target structure that 'reverts to past form' when deals are being discussed.

Now EMC aren't alone in this, to compare this with how some other companies have reacted to similar requests :-

• Netapp are sadly still trying to understand the question for a couple of years ago.
• Cisco are still searching for unicorns to breed, and admitted at NetWorker2010 that it will be a couple more months before anything surfaces. I've been requesting the ROI & TCO of the California/UCS platform for over a year (yes well before it went public), so I'm mystified that nothing yet exists as a model.
• However on the positive front, HDS immediately answered, providing David Merrill and his team, how arrived with a variety of information, models and reviews. Lots of dialogue and transparency, and a variety of TCO & ROI models provided. So the request is possible and some do understand.

What some companies (or parts of companies) still appear to fail to grasp is that the 1990s tactics of poorly marketing, shouting loudly, 'special for you today only' sales negotiations, 'influencing' ISVs or mngt simply won't work any more. Customers need more data & benefit forecast models nowadays in order to justify usage or purchase decisions, and I fail to believe that these models aren't used when a dev team is seeking approval to create the product in the first place! I'd like to be less cynical or disappointed, but without the information to support the claims from some vendors its hard not to be...

My most commonly used (polite) phrases

So during my many daily meetings, conference calls & VCs (I'm sorry but I utterly refuse to call a video conference a 'Telepresence session') it would appear that there are sets of increasingly common phrases I find myself uttering.

Now before I have them made up into placards or flashcards I thought I'd draft a quick list of the current (printable & less offensive) ones in no particular order :-

By far the most common one is "What are your requirements? Please show me the requirements?", naturally this is rapidly followed by :-

• Anything written down at all? (And not using imaginary paper, or written with crayons, and no a napkin/beermat/fag-packet isn't suitable delivery material)
• Any chance of the requirements staying consistent for longer than the flap of a hummingbird's wings?
• Any chance of some requirements that don't require the combined skills of Gandalf, Einstein, Bernie Madoff & David Copperfield to deliver? 
• Any requirements that aren't simply a list of vendor part numbers in a quote?
• Can you explain & justify any of those requirements at all?
• Can you explain & justify why you'd like something different from our standards?

If we're lucky the topic then moves on to things like :-

• Where is the High Level Design document / schematic?
• What about Backup & Recovery in your design?
  
• Its recovery not backup that matters!
• What about any form of RPO & RTO requirements?
• How does component backup & recovery relate to the service backup/recovery?
• HA isn't DR!
• If you want DR, can you complete the BIA (Business Impact Analyser) to see what that recommends?
• You do realise that an RPO/RTO of 0 is very difficult/expensive/not-possible at the infrastructure layer over that distance?
• What's the SLA/OLA offered or required?
• What are performance requirements? (and no saying 'the fastest' simply isn't good enough, and yes we do want to understand both storage & network IO in the performance requirements)

 Typically with partners/suppliers there will also be :-

• Where are the performance benchmarks and claim proof for your technology or product? (and no '2x faster than previous' isn't of any use if we don't have a benchmark for previous etc)
  
• What's the processes for, and how do you manage, RFQ, RFE, support etc?
• Show and provide me with the TCO & ROI models for your product, technology & architectures
  
• Show me the differentiation, unique selling point & justify your product vs other companies & products?
• Can yo explain why you're better for me than the exiting/other technology?
  

 Naturally there are also the resource related topics such as :-

• What priority is this versus other work?
• Other than yesterday or today, what's the due date for this? 
• Do you have any budget funds for this work?

And of course my all time favorite (thanks Larry T - I can't print the one from your Mother, but this one is still used a heck of a lot ) "don't be offended but, your inability to plan or think doesn't constitute an emergency on my behalf "

I'm off to mutter some more in a darkened corner... :)

Cisco - Networkers 2010 Barcelona

So just some quick & brief thoughts on Cisco's Networkers Live 2010 session in Barcelona so far :-

• Where is the session content on vBlock, UCS, MDS, FCoE specifically? Yes there's some, but reading the conference agenda there appears to be more on video conferencing than core data-centre technologies!
• Where are the Cisco Press books on MDS, UCS, vBlock, Nexus, FCoE? (heck I'd have thought that they would be selling http://www.lulu.com/content/6579826 onsite at least... - I already have a copy but)

• Where is the update on the EnergyWise programme for Nexus & MDS product lines?

• Observations re conference registration :-

• Why isn't the onsite Cisco store open today (rather than opening Tues afternoon - it's all setup and ready)?
  
• The drinks bottles that were given away FoC last year to all attendees, are instead for sale in the shop this year
• The 'limited qty' of Flip UltraHD cameras are priced at €179 which appears rather high compared to the prices on Amazon.co.uk
• Yes all delegates get given a free bag, but wouldn't it be nice if this offered some protection for carrying a laptop within? and having one of the key items insight to be a leaflet for 'visit Cisco brand fraud protection stand' gives odd impression...
• The overall price of the conference at €1795 (Conf Tues->Thurs) + €525 (Mon tech sessions) is expensive to say the least (disclaimer - my ticket to attend was funded by one of our supplier partners)
• The online session scheduler is good, but could benefit from being able to include the general sessions within the scheduler (keynotes etc) - and needs to be made easier to work with re resolving scheduling conflicts
  

Some more general Cisco related points :-

• There was clearly little point in brining my Unicorn or Dragon slaying equipment, as there is nothing in the conf at all re discussion ROI or TCO for the various technologies or products. Something even on building and justifying business cases for architecture or investments would be good - after all the technology area Cisco are covering in this space requires significant financial approvals...
 
• What's happened to Cisco re file-namespace (or FAN) since the NeoPath acquisition?

• Why Cisco has not got into the storage object market, especially given it's reliance on networking and networking technologies?

I'll update this as the week goes on...