HP Software

Jun 23 2008   3:00PM GMT

So let’s talk a little about Traffic Flow Reporting and Analysis

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
DataCenter, Alcatel-Lucent, Compuware, Accellent, Application monitoring, HP Software, InfoVista, NetScout, Solarwinds, Network monitoring, Packet Design, Performance management, NetQoS, Opnet, Xangati

Next up, I plan to dig into this sector a little deeper (as always from a purely data center centric perspective - aka no End-User Monitoring that requires a desktop agent).

The priority for these products is to provide an end-to-end service/application perspective on traffic performance and capacity. The goals; help quickly troubleshoot from an application or end-point perspective OR better understand what/where traffic levels are going across the infrastructure. All this from a network-centric control point (no loading of agents on a server or client - since the network team doesn’t own the responsibility for those).

So on the surface I see two main categories (each has subcategories that I’ll dig into during follow-up posts)

Flow Reporting-centric (these vendors gather Cisco NetFlow, J-flow, sFlow from infrastructure agents and report in various ways)

• Netscout, Solarwinds, CA eHealth, NetQoS, Mazu Networks, Xangati, InfoVista, Opnet, Lancope, Packet Design, Q1 Labs. Alcatel-Lucent VitaNet, HP Performance Insight - to name a few

Flow Self-Collection & Reporting (these vendors span/tap actual traffic flows and report in various ways)

• NetQoS, Mazu Networks, InfoVista (through acquisition of Accellent), Lancope, CA Wily, Q1 Labs, Compuware - to name a few

I quickly notice now that many of the vendors actually support both - which I assume is about flexibility as some customers don’t have NetFlow type capabilities enabled or don’t wish to enabling them for a variety of reasons.

So my first set of questions/experiences I’m now reading/researching about are:

1) What are the key benefits to going the self-collection route over the Reporting only route? Unique metrics? Scalability? Limitations around NetFlow (e.g., Performance)

2) When it comes to reporting only using Netflow, etc - what metrics are being used these days.

I remember first integrating and being able to report on RMON2 probes and early Cisco NetFlow data back in 2001 within the Lucent VitalNet product…so where are things 6 years later now that NetFlow is much more pervasive and I’m sure improved.

My assumption on some of these are as follows (vendors & users please leave comments to help educate me for my follow-up posts),

When it comes to reporting, there are historical/capacity centric reports & their are real-time/troubleshooting centric views. My assumption (again, currently an assumption..I haven’t read to much on this topic yet) is most the reporting centric vendors (that don’t also offer their own passive flow monitoring capability) are focused more on those historical/capacity reports (e.g., eHealth, Solarwinds, InfoVista). These reports are how much data is going where and what type of data is it over a day/week/month etc. Once this data is archived, they slide & dice in a variety of ways. But, basically it’s about looking at it for trends over time.

Now, when it comes to real-time, since so much data is coming in so quickly their needs to be extra intelligence/automation helping out - building a “what looks normal” model and then focusing on identifying and then alerting someone when something “odd” is noted. Of course, they need to store/report on much of the same data as the historic/capacity centric products as they build credibility and trust in their users.

So when it comes down to it..much of the same data is being used for 2 unique users…one focused on planning improvements and the other focused on quickly resolving issues. So now that I’ve finished writing this post a better way to probably organize the field of play is not by technology (NetFlow vs. Self-Collect) but by usage. I’ll read some more and do that next time.

Another angle to ponder on this topic will be around the WAN acceleration/optimization vendors…but again, for another day.

Jun 2 2008   5:00AM GMT

Mapping HP Software to the Data Center Automation Blueprint - take 2

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
DataCenter, CMDB, HP Software, Symantec, EMC

I recently took a pass at mapping HP Software’s offerings to the Data Center Automation Blueprint after a call I had with a product executive from the Business Service Automation group (majority of the Opsware products went here). I also attempted to use the HP software website to piece together the Business Service Management side of things (where legacy OpenView and many Mercury products are). Recently, I had a chance to talk with a product executive from the Business Service Management side and learned while my mapping was close, it was slightly off. So now it’s time to take a pass at updating things.

The amazing thing I will say about the HP Software portfolio is it has pulled together a great set of formerly standalone vendors (e.g., Mercury, Opsware, Peregrine and legacy OpenView line) to offer comprehensive coverage for automating and managing your entire IT infrastructure. Their capabilities go well beyond the Data Center.

• Configuration & Change
  • for networks - Network Automation Software (formerly Opsware, formerly Rendition)
  • for servers, applications & databases - Server Automation Software (formerly Opsware)
  • for storage - Storage Essentials Software (formerly AppIQ)
• Performance & Availability
  • Products that are Availability (event) centric for the Data Center Infrastructure
    • for networks - HP Network Node Manager software - agent-less approach
    • for servers, applications & databases
      • HP Operations Manager software - agent-based approach
      • HP SiteScope software - agent-less
      • (NOTE:  agent-based requires a proprietary agent to be installed on a system, agent-less leverages either industry standard or de-facto standard protocols or embedded management agents)
    • for applications - HP TransactionVision software - agent-based performance and availability software for services/applications/databases
  • Products that are Performance & Capacity (periodic time-series collected data) centric for the Data Center Infrastructure
    • for networks - HP Performance Insight software - agent-less approach
    • for servers, applications & databases - HP Performance Manager software - agent-based approach
    • for applications - HP Real-User Monitor software - monitors applications/services/data traffic flows
    • for end-to-end services/applications/network/databases/etc - HP Problem Isolation software - uses advanced correlations and analytics in an attempt to identify the specific problem or condition.
• Resource Reconciliation
  • Universal CMDB software (formerly Mercury, formerly AppLogic)
• Process Orchestration
  • Operations Orchestration Software (formerly Opsware, formerly iConclude)

So that means for the other functional areas of the Data Center Automation Blueprint we have:

• Analytics
  • HP Dashboard software & HP Business Service Level Management - offers a unified user interface consolidating reports and statistics spanning multiple other product lines within Performance & Availability to IT Service Desks.
• Security & Prevention
  • HP WebInspect software - web application vulnerability scanning
    • **NOTE: In my eyes, this is more a security extension to the QA and Testing products from Mercury then part of a security & prevention software portfolio like that of Symantec, McAfee or EMC RSA.

So there we have it (i think). Now please correct me if I’m wrong.  As mentioned previously, s major hole is in the area of security & prevention.  Second, would you go to HP for your storage management needs over EMC or Symantec (Veritas) when they only seem to have a single storage management product.  I don’t see offerings focused exclusively on monitoring availability and performance, but I may have overlooked it.

Bottom line after all this.  HP is the one to chase from having a comprehensive Data Center Automation strategy.  The unique thing is this can be creatively coupled with various hardware and service offerings they have.  In addition, with the pending EDS acquisition…they ARE the gorilla leading Data Center Automation sector toward the vision of someday being a “lights out data center.”  We still have a long ways to go, but HP Software is well down that road compared to others.

Apr 21 2008   3:11PM GMT

Performance and Availability vs. Analytics - Part 2 of ?

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
DataCenter, Analytics, eg innovations, Indicative, HP Software, Integrien, Netuitive, BMC, NetQoS, Opnet

So in part 1 we talked through the collection of performance/capacity/availability data. Next up is focused on where innovations using this collected data are taking us.

The next level of Performance & Availability I previously mentioned are coming from a variety of companies doing cross-metric analysis or even automated behavioral analytics. These vendors are typically classify themselves as Service Level Management, some types of Business Service Management or Analytics. They either leverage a variety of data collection entities or they themselves offer capabilities that span multiple sources to elevate and/or automate results in the hope of proactive (even predictive) identification of issues with minimal (striving for zero) false positives. Here are some more thoughts on each of these areas:

• Service Level Agreement vendors seem to focus on leveraging a variety of data sources/metrics and normalizing them into very detailed quality of service/performance agreements between a service provider and their customers (in some situations the service provider is the internal IT department themselves).
• Business Service Management vendors in the realm of performance/capacity/availability seem to focus on the mapping of each business service (e.g., application(s) and the infrastructure that supports those application(s) from and end-to-end perspective). Then, if any component in the mapped bundle shows signs of trouble, an alert is raised for proactive resolution.  NOTE:  BSM is a very broad term - I’m focusing it down here on just this functional area, I’m not talking comprehensive dashboard spanning all functional areas, service desks etc.
• Real-time Analytic vendors seem to leverage a variety of time-series metrics from various collection sources mapped together appropriately (like BSM), then using behavioral algorithms they dynamically determine normal behavior. If something deviates from that behavior then in real-time it raises an alarm (now were getting predictive).
• Historical Analytics or modeling/simulation vendors seem to leverage a variety of data sources coupled with other cross-functional details (e.g., CMDB, configuration settings) to establish a model and expected behavior. Then you can tweak, tune or even re-design to see impact of potential changes, upgrades, etc.

We could probably come up with better names for these higher level performance/capacity/availability areas but Service Level Management, Business Service Management and Performance Analytics are the ones on the marketing being advertised today.

One area of data collection and reporting that does continue to innovate  is from the end-user, passive traffic flow perspective. This first popped up on the scene back in the last 1990’s and since then there seems to have been a major resurgence in vendors focusing on specific, mission-critical applications. Since these agents typically reside and monitor from the desktop or mobile device perspective I’ve placed them beyond the scope and control of Data Center Automation. Some vendors are doing the end-to-end monitoring (as mentioned before) from an appliance in the data center making some TCP/IP assumptions (e.g., NetQoS, CA Wily).

So now we’ve discussed Performance/Capacity/Availability management and how it also has analytics occurring within that functional silo. So what does that mean to the Data Center Automation Blueprint from my perspective. Stay tuned for part 3.

Apr 17 2008   9:58PM GMT

Performance and Availability Management vs. Analytics - Part 1 of ?

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
nimsoft, cittio, eg innovations, Alcatel-Lucent, Analytics, Apparent Networks, Brix Networks, Compuware, Entuity, Fluke Networks, Gomez, Groundwork, Hyperic, Indicative, Application monitoring, DCAB, Firescope, HP Software, IBM Tivoli, InfoVista, Integrien, NetScout, Netuitive, Solarwinds, Systems monitoring, BMC, Quest Software, NetIQ, Network monitoring, Packet Design, Performance management, CA, Keynote, NAGIOS, NetQoS, Network Instruments, OpenNMS, Opnet, Xangati, ZenOSS

I’ve had an opportunity to be briefed over the past couple months by a number of current Data Center Automation Blueprint’s Performance & Availability vendors (e.g., CITTIO, eG Innovations, InfoVista, Integrien, Nimsoft).  With that and some further research I think I’m ready to take another pass at this area of the blueprint.

First up, all these vendors use a variety of techniques to collect a variety of data from as many points of view as possible.

• Their own server agents that collect data about systems, services, applications, databases, etc and then aggregate back to a centralized console
• Agent-less centralized consoles that leverage infrastructure standard communications protocols (e.g., SNMP, RPC, ODBC, WMI, SSH, TCP, UDP, HTTP) to query or connect remotely to collect data from networks, systems, services, applications, databases, etc.
• Passive traffic flow collectors (which can be an agents or appliance) that are either in-line with the traffic flows or receive an exact copy of all traffic flows traversing a network connection (e.g., switch port uplink) through hardware vendor capabilities (e.g., spanning)

These data collection points can be statistics about a specific IT infrastructure resource ; physical devices, virtual devices, physical connections, virtual connections or resources running on physical or virtual devices like services, processes, applications, databases, etc.

Or the data collection points can be traffic flows or end-to-end specifics including passive traffic flows, synthetic transactions or even as simple as a pinging from remote points.

Metrics that are captured, typically revolve around throughput, errors, utilization, latency, up/down status, etc. (there are way to many to mention here).

After saying all this, there is a list a mile long of vendors (a number already noted on the DCAB) that capture these predominately time-series oriented data points about performance, capacity, availability using any/all these methods or vantage points (I know, passive traffic flows are not time-series data but patterns/usage/performance etc can be determined from them).

So, with all that data, what most these vendors offer are two primary types of functionality; 1) a variety graphical reports and 2)metric thresholding capabilities that produce a list of outstanding issues/alerts/alarms/events/concerns (whatever you want to call them).

Ok, so why did I organize and point all this out. So I can draw a line around where most of the innovation from my perspective is occurring. The above is for the most part in my eyes a commodity these days. Most companies have had collection/reporting/thresholding capabilities spanning multiple technology silos since pretty close to the start of the enterprise networking. The reports continue to get fancier, the number of data sources a single product collects from continues to expand, etc.  Another sign of commoditization is related to the variety of economic business models offering these products; open source, managed service providers, internet distributed products, appliances deployment models and indirect sales forces, large enterprise direct sales force, completely flexible frameworks for service providers to basically “build their own,” etc.

For the most part where the majority of technical innovation is occurring these days is the next layer above this data collection, reporting and alerting. Now let me say this, yes…there is some great innovation still occurring in the data collection realm (e.g., Xangati offering real-time Netflow down to a user level, PacketDesign monitoring routing messages, NetQoS leveraging advanced TCP/IP theory to analyze where end-to-end bottlenecks are occurring). But, for the most part these new data sources are being used to augment or replace currently deployed data sources in an attempt to see things from either as many vantage points or the best vantage points to avoid surprises within their unique enterprise IT environment.

So where is the serious innovation coming from…stay tuned for part 2.

Apr 14 2008   9:45PM GMT

Mapping HP Software to the Data Center Automation Blueprint

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
DataCenter, Analytics, CMDB, DCAB, HP Software, Integrien, Netuitive, GridApp Systems

I had the chance to recently chat with an executive at HP to breakdown what pieces and parts ended up where post Peregrine, Mercury and Opsware acquisitions. Here is my attempted and mapping them to the Data Center Automation Blueprint.

• Configuration & Change
  • for networks - Network Automation Software (formerly Opsware, formerly Rendition)
  • for servers - Server Automation Software (formerly Opsware)
  • for storage - Storage Essentials Software (formerly Appilog)
• Resource Reconciliation
  • Universal CMDB software (formerly Mercury, formerly AppLogic)
• Process Orchestration - Operations Orchestration Software (formerly Opsware, formerly iConclude)

The focus of our call was around the above areas…from here I’m trying to piece together by using the website and the knowledge that:

• The Business Service Management group is where all the monitoring products reside; Mercury (excluding QA products) and original OpenView monitoring products. There still seems like a ton of overlap here…
• The IT Service Management is where Peregrine and the original HP Service Desk products reside.

So that means for the other functional areas of the Data Center Automation Blueprint we have:

• Analytics
  • HP Dashboard software & HP Business Service Level Management - each offers a unified user interface consolidating reports and statistics spanning multiple other product lines within Performance & Availability to IT Service Desks.
• Performance & Availability
  • Products that are event/availability centric for the Data Center Infrastructure
    • HP Network Node Manager software - agent-less performance and availability software for networks
    • HP Operations Manager software - agent-based performance and availability software for servers/services/applications/databases.
    • HP Problem Isolation software - agent-less performance and availability software for servers/services/application/databases.
    • HP Process Monitor software & HP TransactionVision software - agent-based performance and availability software for services/applications/databases
  • Products that are trend/capacity centric for the Data Center Infrastructure
    • HP Performance Insight software - agent-less time series performance and capacity reporting software for networks that also consolidates data for reporting on servers/services/applications/databases
    • HP SiteScope software - agent-less performance and availability software for servers/services/applications/databases
    • HP Performance Manager software & HP GlancePlus software - agent-based time series performance & capacity statistics collected from servers/services/applications/databases.l
    • HP Real-User Monitor software - monitors applications/services/data traffic flows
• Security & Prevention
  • HP WebInspect software - web application vulnerability scanning
    • **NOTE: In my eyes, this is more a security extension to the QA and Testing products from Mercury then part of a security & prevention software portfolio like that of Symantec, McAfee or EMC RSA.

So there we have it (i think). Now please correct me if I’m wrong, but one thing I didn’t see in the portfolio was anything that does proactive performance analytics like Integrien, Netuitive or ProactiveNet (acquired by BMC)? Besides that, from an outside perspective they merely have a very confusing Performance & Availability functional category (due to Mercury/OpenView overlap) that does seem to have all the pieces. So for HP Software, it’s just about executing and tying things together based on end-to-end use cases from their customers. One other area to keep an eye on is Configuration & Change for databases (from companies like GridApp). As more and more enteprises deploy the Server Automation Software, they may start wanting to get more detailed in the world of databases, if so that may be a build/buy decision point to consider in the future. One other thing based on what I’ve read is all these products are busy making sure they extend beyond physical systems support into the virtualized world.

I guess one outstanding thing to ponder is why shouldn’t HP also offer a comprehensive security & prevention offering to help them better compete against IBM? At some point many people assume/expect security and operations to converge, why not help drive that with a comprehensive security offering?

Mar 17 2008   1:22PM GMT

BMC makes the big move, buys BladeLogic for $800M

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
BladeLogic, HP Software, IBM Tivoli, RealOps, BMC, CA, EMC

So BMC is the one, not IBM or EMC that decides to piece it all together.  Responding to HP acquiring Opsware (July ‘07); BMC, in less then a year, has acquired RealOps (July ‘07), Emprisa (Oct ‘07) and now BladeLogic pulling together the critical components for their DCA strategy that all tie in nicely with Remedy, Atrium etc.  Very impressive!  They have most the pieces, now it’s about execution on the vision/strategy.

So HP & BMC have acquired the major pieces, IBM has many of the pieces too, but some are showing their age versus the newer products that were acquired by their competitors.  CA has been the quietest of all players, so I would expect for them to make some moves to shore things up ASAP (but most likely at this point having to pay premiums based on previous CCM valuations).  Meanwhile, EMC has been methodically building themselves up in the hope to make a run at knocking off one of the big 4 in IT Infrastructure Management, but they still have some serious work based on the recent moves of some of the current big 4.

Data Center Automation is about to hit the major growth curve now that multiple big guys have strong portfolio’s in the game.  As predicted, 2008 is going to be hot for Data Center Automation!

Mar 11 2008   1:27PM GMT

EMC adds Service Desk to Data Center Management portfolio

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
BladeLogic, DCAB, HP Software, BMC, NetIQ, Performance management, Symantec, EMC, NetQoS, Packet Design, Xangati

EMC made a move yesterday that continued to show their intent and desire to compete against the Big 4 in IT Infrastructure Management (e.g., BMC, CA, HP, IBM).  All those other players have their own Service Desk offering, so it was time to join those ranks.

Infra Corporation, was acquired by EMC’s Resource Management Software Business Unit for undisclosed financial terms.

Combined with their previous acquisitions:

SMARTS - Availability & Performance Management - Q1 2005
nLayers -  IT  Resource Reconciliation (e.g., CMDB) - Q3 2006
Voyence - Configuration & Change Management (for Network Devices) - Q4 2007

This acquisition shows a slowly increasing pace of their acquisitions (within the software group).  With that being said, looking at their portfolio, I would be surprised if we don’t see another one or maybe even two (depending on the size) before the year is out.  Areas they could benefit from (aka we could see) would be Configuration & Change Management (for Systems/Applications) or a move to strengthen their Availability & Performance Management offering; specifically more application performance centric.

On the CCM front there are numerous virtual & physical system configuration vendors sprouting up these days, versus before the primary game in town was BladeLogic (or Opsware before HP acquired them).  Meanwhile, on the Performance Management front they have a variety of options that could include grabbing a smaller application performance appliance vendor (e.g., Mazu, Xangati, Packet Design)  or something bigger like maybe a NetQoS.  Or even bigger and more interesting (but convoluted) could be buying out NetIQ who continues to innovate within Attachemate (e.g., Aegis product) or the artist formerly known as Precise Software (and now again known by the same name after Symantec spun them back out).  Probably long shots but just thoughts to ponder as the EMC Resource Management Software portfolio could use portfolio expansion in either or both functional areas of the DCAB.

Bottom line from my outsiders perspective is EMC is one or two moves away from changing conversations from the big 4 to maybe the big 5.

Mar 5 2008   7:59PM GMT

Top Enterprise Management Tools vs. Data Center Automation Blueprint

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
DataCenter, Analytics, Application monitoring, CMDB, DCAB, HP Software, IBM Tivoli, InfoVista, IT Process Automation, Netuitive, RBA, RealOps, Run Book Automation, Systems monitoring, BMC, Network configuration, Network monitoring, Networkingchannel, Performance management, CA, NetQoS, Opnet, Tideway

I was doing some “light” reading this morning and came upon this recent article:  Top 10 Enterprise Management Tools

It’s focused on Complete Enterprise Management, not specifically focused on the Data Center so I thought I would summarize and then compare/contrast/discuss:

• Network Fault & Performance: CA eHealth & Spectrum
• Consolidated Event Management: IBM Tivoli Netcool
• Service Impact Monitoring : IBM Tivoli Business Service Manage & Service Level Advisor
• Application Discovery Mapping: Tideway Foundation
• Business Intelligence: Cognos
• ITSM Workflow, CMDB and Service Desk: BMC Remedy ITSM and Atrium
• Network & Systems Configuration Managment: HP Automation (formerly Opsware SAS & NAS)
• Process Automation: BMC RunBook Automation

Since it isn’t data center centric, it’s light on automated management for applications & databases.  It also chooses to stay away from the very congested and sometimes confusing security/protection market.

Next up, I thought  it would be fun to do a quick mapping to the Data Center Automation Blueprint.

• Network Fault & Performance, Consolidated Event Management, Service Impact Monitoring = Availability & Performance
• Application Discovery Mapping, CMDB = IT Resource Reconciliation
• Business Intelligence = Analytics (maybe…Analytics is still a work in progress…need to figure out this vs. BSM etc)
• ITSM Workflow, Service Desk = outside of DCAB listed as Manual Task Orchestration

I was surprised not to see an End-User Application Performance Monitoring category.  These products either do their duty from passive agents on the endpoint or from data center appliances using slick algorithms, TCPIP theory, etc.  Maybe that could have indirectly been rolled under Network Fault & Performance as CA acquired Wily which offers that.  The other one missing was more towards Capacity Planning and Trending Analytics, either based off historical data like what Opnet offers or from real-time data patterns from Netuitive.

Needless to say I found it a really nice write-up and summary of those products/offerings.  The only thing I struggle with is all of the big 4 (BMC, CA, HP, IBM) are represented in this mix.  Which means you will have 4 sales guys all continously battling it out to grab more land.  This may be good from a cost competition standpoint, but it’s a real fiasco for making sure all parts are playing nicely with each other or simply managing those vendor relationships.  Bottom line, you’re always going to have at least one of the big 4 in there as they continue to snap-up the innovative smaller companies/ technologies to enhance their portfolio and offer differentiation.  So I’d typically recommend a strategy where you pick 2 of the big 4 and keep them in check versus each other while continually looking for those innovative start-up’s to fill in the gaps.  Here is an example of how you could do this using the categories in the original article.

• Network Fault & Performance: HP Network Node Manager, Operations Manager, Performance Insight
• Consolidated Event Management: IBM Tivoli Netcool
• Service Impact Monitoring : IBM Tivoli Business Service Manage & Service Level Adviser
• Application Discovery Mapping: IBM Tivoli Application Dependency Discovery Manager
• Business Intelligence: Cognos (which IBM recently acquired)
• ITSM Workflow, CMDB and Service Desk: HP AssetCenter (former Peregrine)
• Network & Systems Configuration Managment: HP Data Center Automation (formerly Opsware SAS & NAS)
• Process Automation: HP Operations Orchestration (formerly iConclude that Opsware acquired)

Or, if you want to completely rebel and go the non-big 4 route, take a look at the above mappings to the DCAB and look for a name that’s not big-4.  Example:  Network Fault & Performance: InfoVista or NetQoS

Feb 1 2008   8:04AM GMT

BladeLogic announces Q1 results

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
BladeLogic, HP Software

BladeLogic announced decent quarterly results Thursday of $21.5M revenue spanning 73 customers with a nice growth mix of 32% coming from deals outside the US.  They also noted increased operational costs resulting in a negative balance sheet.  I would expect some of this is coming from increases competition beyond Opsware (now HP) as the market continues to heat up and draw attention from the influx of virtualization management vendors and vendors that historically were more security focused are now diverting more attention to DCA based on recent valuations (e.g., Blade’s IPO and HP acquisition of Opsware).

A crossroad may be upon us where we may finally see a move by BladeLogic to allow itself to be purchased (valuation is now down under $500M vs. expected annual revenues of $90M) or they will decide to increase their breadth and go it alone (aka acquire someone) for now.  At this point with all the competitive pressure I would expect to see one of these two things happen in the next 6 months.  Performing a smart acquisition based on what their current customers are asking for could also provide a nice infusion of energy and buzz that could drive them to break through the $100M revenue ceiling this fiscal year.

As always, this is simply my opinion and perspective based on public information and customer trends.  If you don’t agree, go ahead and let me know below in the comments, if you do then please share your insights as well.

Jan 18 2008   4:14PM GMT

Digging into the DCAB’s 6 functional areas: Resource Reconciliation

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
DataCenter, CMDB, HP Software, IBM Tivoli, ITIL, Symantec, BMC, EMC

 The second up and coming area goes by many names these days.  Some call it next-generation asset management, many others call it CMDB.

I’m calling it resource reconciliation as I would like to see it extend beyond a discovery engine, IT asset database, dependency mapping and the necessary graphical topology and reports.  I also believe that these tools not only should communicate directly with the infrastructure outlined in the Data Center Automation Blueprint (DCAB) - but also synchronize and provide reconciliation capabilities with the 5 other DCAB functions.

What I’m saying is I want to make sure that all my other functional products always are 100% accurate to what my IT infrastructure contains.  There is no reason my performance & capacity products don’t know about a specific IT resource.  Nor, do I want multiple discovery engines combing my infrastructure setting off false alarms in my security products or requiring me to open additional communication avenues making the infrastructure less secure.

Here are a list of the vendors I know of, this space saw some major consolidation during  2006.

BMC
CA (Cendura acquisition)
EMC (nLayers acquisition)
HP (Opsware acquisition)
IBM (Collation acquisition)
Symantec (Relicore acquisition)
Tideway

Another area I’m researching and pondering inclusion in this category are service catalogs (e.g. NewScale)  Any thoughts or opinions on how they compare to the players/products  above?