Thursday, 09 September 2010 07:43

There’s data and there’s more data. How does an ordinary person or enterprise sift through volumes of data and analyze them and use the information to power the business? Big data, like almost anything big, is difficult to handle.

But with technologies like real-time SQL, NoSQL, and Hadoop, big data analytics just might get easier. Although these technologies enable easier data handling, data mining is a whole different ball game.

Typically, data center managers and information analysts will have to figure out at the first step what kind of data management tool they need in place. Are they handling highly complex data or just simple statistics? Will the speed of data processing determine the usefulness of data analysis? Consider, for instance, the stock market. A data analyst here will need real-time data and therefore will need a data management tool that works at lightning-fast speeds. The volume of data also is a factor in the choice of data analytics tool. Depending on the volume gathered, speed of processing also is crucial.

Consider, for instance, Hadoop, one of the players in this domain. It allows a data scientist or analyst to quickly scan through data and transform it to usable form with the Datameer Analytics Solution.

Thursday, 09 September 2010 07:43

Being prepared with a map, a plan, and proper tools ensures you reach the destination without backtracking and lost time. This is true whether you are flying through a cloud or moving your infrastructure to one. Without the proper combination of people, process, and technology, you can and will get lost. But with the proper planning and tools, you can successfully navigate this new environment.

A newly released report by the consulting firm BroadGroup indicates that enterprise adoption of private clouds will accelerate over the next five years. According to the June 3, 2010, report, Competing in the clouds: emerging strategies for enterprise data centers, “Private Cloud will be the fastest growing segment in the enterprise market. However, migrating to cloud services represents a new way of operating, and will require a change in mindset by enterprise IT leaders because ‘IT as a Service’ introduces very different business and operational models.” Technology solutions that automate processes and provide knowledgeable personnel enable the cloud and allow organizations to access the benefits this new technology platform has to offer. Before moving to a private cloud, however, discovery is the important first step of the journey in understanding the architectural landscape. Mapping the current storage environment is critical to gaining a complete understanding of not only where information resides, but how applications and management systems will be affected by the move.

Thursday, 09 September 2010 07:43

The United States has long been the dominant nation in technological development. Throughout the 20th century, many inventions that drastically altered the technological landscape originated in the U.S.; examples range from development and application of nuclear fission to the invention of the microchip. The U.S. has also been seen as the center of higher education in such areas, with millions of individuals from around the world having come to America’s universities in a quest to develop their skills (whether to apply them in America or to do so in their home countries). But this situation may well be changing: the future of technological development may now reside beyond the borders of America.

A recent CNET article (“Intel CEO: U.S. faces looming tech decline”) cites a number of technology executives who fear that the climate for incubation of innovations in the U.S. is darkening. Needless to say, the recent economic slowdown is enough of a burden on innovation, since it has put a damper on companies’ ability to invest in research and development (of course, this situation varies somewhat from industry to industry and from company to company). But according to Intel CEO Paul Otellini, the main problem for innovation in America lies elsewhere: CNET states that at the Technology Policy Institute’s Aspen Forum, Otellini claimed that “unless government policies are altered, he predicted, ‘the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here.’” Thus, although the economy may be a burden on innovation, the government may be a far worse problem.

Thursday, 09 September 2010 07:43

Despite the faltering economy, demand for IT services continues to rise. Correspondingly, the need for resources provided by data centers is increasing, which is good news for IT professionals seeking employment in an overall dismal job market. For data center facility engineer positions, the question that many such IT professionals must ask themselves is whether they have the skill set that employers are looking for.

Today’s data center facility engineer must wear a number of hats. Although specialization is the key to success in many jobs, most companies require their facility engineers to perform a number of different types of tasks. Naturally, then, the engineer must have a broad skill set. To get an idea of what companies are looking for, simply scan the job advertisements on any job board, or use an Internet search engine. The job descriptions are often nearly identical.

Thursday, 09 September 2010 07:43

In February of this year, Douglas Farquahar, Head of Sustainable Outsourcing at Capgemini U.K., wrote on how “intelligent IT can help save the planet, lowland gorillas, and money.” The company has quite literally put money down for each of these reasons.

Capgemini, a consulting, technology, and outsourcing company, operates out of Paris and has clients in more than 30 countries.

The statistics on how much a data center contributes to the world’s carbon footprint are well known. As much as 2% of global carbon emissions are courtesy of the data center industry. With demand for data processing and storage increasing steadily and swiftly, the IT industry is set to rank alongside the oil industry as a “major polluter.”

Green IT and data centers are quickly becoming the norm for companies. It also makes business sense to invest in green IT for the savings and operational efficiencies it brings. According to Forrester Research, the green-IT services sector is set to grow at a rate of 60% every year until 2013. According to Chris Mines, analyst at Forrester, more and more enterprises are going green and are seeking environmentally friendly solutions from data center leaders and service providers like Capgemini.

Thursday, 09 September 2010 07:43

The Data Center Journal has in recent weeks covered the ongoing dispute between the State of Texas and IT-giant IBM over a data center consolidation project gone awry. IBM took on the contract, valued at $863 million, to help Texas “merge the data centers of 28 state agencies into two upgraded and secure facilities,” according to Statesman.com (“UPDATED: IBM says state must change to avoid recurring data center troubles”). In many contract disputes—especially contracts of the scope of the Texas data center consolidation project—each side has at least some legitimate complaint against the other. But in this ongoing dispute, who should bear the brunt of the blame?

The contract between IBM and Texas was signed in 2006 and suffered problems from the start. For instance, Texas Governor Rick Perry ordered state agencies to cease their work with IBM, citing a lack of proper data backup procedures on the part of the IT giant. Texas accused IBM of causing the loss of records, and the company ended up paying almost $1 million in fines to the state. In July of this year, Texas issued a 30-day warning calling on IBM to “cure” certain shortcomings in meeting its contractual obligations (as viewed by the state) or face termination of the contract, which could also carry certain negative ramifications for IBM. Texas then went on recently to state that it would take over contract management and would seek new bids on some portion—whether in total or in part—of the contract, suggesting that IBM may be on the losing end of this battle.

So is IBM to blame for the failure of a large government bureaucracy to consolidate? Given the extensive, complicated, and virtually incomprehensible language that composes modern-day contracts, one may never be entirely sure who is to blame. (And the precise interpretation of a contract, at least in terms of its legal repercussions, all depends on which judge presides over ensuing cases.) But some conjecture can be made in this regard on the basis of the history of these kinds of projects.

As noted above, many contract disputes involve sufficient blame to implicate both parties to one degree or another. In this case, Texas isn’t the only one complaining. Most recently, IBM’s VP and Global Project Executive Cynthia McLean responded to a July 16 letter from Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) Executive Director Karen Robinson. In her responds, McLean rebutted Texas’s claim that IBM had failed to live up to its end of the bargain. According to DataCenterDynamics (“IBM pushes back at Texas State over $860m data center consolidation contract”), McLean stated that “IBM respectfully disagrees with DIR’s contention that IBM has breached or otherwise failed to live up to its obligations...In fact, IBM has repeatedly and consistently gone above and beyond its contractual responsibilities in an effort to overcome DIR’s failures to perform its own obligations.”

So, the accusations go back and forth. But one can surmise from the nature of government bureaucracies and the history of such consolidation efforts (at least on the Federal level) that a lack of cooperation, and perhaps active resistance, on the part of Texas state agencies may have been partly to blame. According to Government Technology (“Texas Says It Will Seek New Data Center Contractors”), IBM stated that state agencies opposed the effort: “Ceding control of their individual IT environments...was (and continues to be) unpopular with the constituent agencies, and...those agencies not only failed to cooperate, but in many cases actively resisted the project.” Government jobs are lucrative and highly secure (compared with those in the private economy); thus, such resistance to a project that would likely affect (if not eliminate) some of those jobs is to be expected.

In addition to bureaucratic roadblocks, IBM was taking on a nearly impossible task to begin with. The U.S. Federal Government, for instance, initiated an attempt in 1995 to consolidate its total number of data centers. The effort was, to put it mildly, a miserable failure, with the number of Federal data centers nearly tripling between 1998 and 2010. IBM was therefore taking on a project—on a smaller scale, to be sure—that the Federal Government failed to accomplish. Needless to say, then, the troubles that have ensued in the project are not entirely unexpected. If IBM is correct that state agencies have thrown monkey wrenches into the project, then the company cannot be held entirely responsible for the projects dismal state. To be sure, the state of Texas may have some legitimate claims against IBM. The bureaucratic mentality, however, almost guarantees that Texas is also, if not mostly, to blame for the mess. Whether IBM is able to complete the contract may depend on the opinion of a judge (or series of judges); the company’s trouble in Texas may provide a stern warning, however, to any organization that thinks it can consolidate Texas’s data centers.