Indicative

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.

Jan 21 2008   1:43PM GMT

Quick Monday Summary of events from late last week/weekend

Posted by: Ryan Shopp
Compuware, Symantec, BMC, Quest Software, NetIQ, Indicative, NetQoS, NetScout

 Symantec to sell off Application Performance Monitoring group.  Looks like Precise Software is back and the Symantec Data Center group will focus in on the configuration and change management side of things.

BarcampESM took place over the weekend.  Here are some materials to take a look at.  BSM by Doug,  Discussions around open software and open standards, the desire for an “open agent” .  From this point forward keep track of things via the Open Management Consortium discussions.

Application Performance Management(APM) rolling review continues at InformationWeek - recently highlighted, ProactiveNet (recently acquired by BMC).  Previous reviews include Quest Software Foglight (Dec 2007), Network General (Nov 2007), Nimsoft Nimbus (Oct 2007), Compuware Vantage (Oct 2007), NetIQ AppManager (Sept 2007), NetQoS SuperAgent (Sept 2007),  Indicative (Aug 2007).  As you can see this is a very congested space, pardon the pun, but it is sized to be over $2B in size by Forrester.

Now that we’ve run through the entire 6 functional areas of the Data Center Automation Blueprint we plant to discuss the impact of virtualization over the next couple posts.  Thanks in advance to those I’ve been talking with and their perspectives on this topic.