CPG Virtual Meeting Notes

Uploaded on


  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. CPG Virtual Meeting Notes February 26, 2009 9:00-11:30AM & 1:30-3:30PM Morning Attendee list Bob Grant, UCR Bob Sams, ANR Brian Buckler, UCI Cliff Frost, UCB Don McLaughlin, UCSD Doug Hartline, UCSC Ed Titus, UCSC Eddie Mardon, UCSD Erik Freitag, UCOP Heidi Schmidt, UCSF Jessica Yu, UCI Jill Hishmeh, UCR Jim Warner, UCSC John Haskins, UCSC Ken Lindahl, UCB Mark Redican, UCD Matt Campbell Mike Sawyer, UCB Mike Schilling, UCLA Mike Van Norman, UCLA Paul Valenzuela, UCSB Paul Weiss, UCOP Tom Hutton Note about the virtual meeting format: In an effort to reduce travel costs, this was the first all day virtual CPG meeting, conducted with all participants located at their desk using their phone to call into a telephone conference bridge, and their personal computer and web browser to connect with the virtual meeting experience using Adobe Connect Pro. The conference bridge and Adobe Connect service were provided compliments of UCD. 1. Daptiv Update (Rose Cabral) PPT: Daptiv Pilot Review Rose gave a presentation on the Daptiv pilot project and outcome. UC Davis has terminated relationship with Daptiv since there was a bug in the system and they were unable to give us an estimate of when the bug would be fixed. The pilot confirmed the value of a project portfolio management tool for IET. We are continuing researching other project management tools to find one that fits our needs. Rose asked the group if anyone is aware of any other tools. Paul commented that he is a Professor of project management at Santa Barbara and he said finding a good tool is a constant problem. Microsoft project is one option, however there are limitations to that tool as well.
  • 2. 2. Regional data centers at SDSC and LBNL (Paul Weiss) CENIC connectivity costs: not sure what traffic/data requirements will be. Santa Cruz is first colo customer in the SDSU data center. Jim Madden- We are about to ask CENIC for quotes on additional services to San Diego. We will adjust the network accordingly. Both public and private links will be available within the colo. Usage info/bandwidth requirements: Concerns were expressed about having enough bandwidth between campuses and the SDSC colo facility. SDSC has knowledge of typical bandwidth consumption from faculty. As the colo traffic grows, it will be carefully watched. Timeline: The service will be ready and fully operational in April. More colo customers are needed to make it successful. If it ramps up too slowly, it could be a problem. Paul is trying to do a marketing campaign with David Ernst. It will be wildly successful if it fills up quickly and unsuccessful if it does not. Trying to encourage UC-wide use. Security Model: Security will be primarily the responsibility of the colo customer, but some security services will be provided by the SDSC. Q: Mike Schilling: Does this data center location have multiple internet routes or just a single route? A: Dual entrance, north/south campus on different fiber providers, redundant path up to Riverside and Los Angeles. Q: Mike Schilling: How do we know that it is going to be right price point without doing RFP to look at comparable cost of other options? It seems like we have a fiscal responsibility to make cost comparison. A: Paul W: About $25,000 per rack per year. We have completed some cost comparisons. We could do more. I find it hard to believe that an outside service provider will beat the cost. Cliff: When capital investments in UC colo facilities are required, we should be comparing the costs with outside services. Paul W?: There was a RFP issued last spring and there was an assessment of what the data center capacity demand is. A lot of computing is being housed in closets and office space which are not ideal locations. We are trying to figure out pent up demand, it is estimated that we need 80,000 square feet of data space. During the RFP process it became clear that UCSD data center is sitting there and for the short term we need to move to a regional data center. The options are to outsource or use UC space to co-locate in mass. The Oakland Scientific data center will have 10,000-12,000 sq ft of available space in 2-3 years. One of the biggest problems is it is hard to predict which direction computing is going to go in the future. Co-locating is just a step and not that end state. We should be out in the market looking at alternatives. Jessica from Irvine: Q: Is it possible to publish specification of service level so people know what kind of service they are going to get?
  • 3. A: Information is given to IT on each campus. It is also listed on website: www.sdsc.edu/colo Tom Hutton - SDSC/UCSD: I would argue that SDSC was built for colo - more NSF type colo but still colo at a larger scale Paul W: We need to do network capacity planning, and thinks CPG should play a major role in this.. Traffic patterns are going to change. We must look at the issue holistically to make sure we don’t end up with a big mess. Computing services are going to be delivered in a much more distributed fashion. We think we’re saving money, but it would be nice to have confidence and an analysis. There is added value when we go back to leadership groups and ask for additional funding, value in having a coordinated ask. Cliff: We should have a workgroup from CPG because everyone is going to look to us to take the lead. Brian: We need to explore the scope of this more offline, and to decide who we should include and what approach to take. Action Item: Offline call with Brian, Mike S, Paul W, and Cliff. 3. UC CIO David Ernst David gave an update on regional data center. He encouraged us to take action rather than too much analysis. The Vice Chancellors and President Yudof are all on board. It makes sense to consolidate from a business perspective. ITLC and CPG can take the lead and make this work. Expect to see a letter from Katie and President Yudof to CIO’s advising them to look carefully at their data centers for use of general campus computing going forward. In addition there will be a request for a report outlining plans for utilization of services over the next 12-18 months. Burden of proof must be: Why we would not use central colo services vs. why we would. Shared Research Computing Pilot: 24 principle investigators and funding have been identified, to move research computing to UCSC and then Nor Cal. Grant proposals will include use of cycles in a shared research computing space. The pilot focused on a specific set of users as opposed to general campus computing. There has been a lot of support and some naysayers. Currently we are moving forward and it is crucial to put the best minds to use to make it effective. There is a two day planning session scheduled with IETLC end of next week. At the session there will be a discussion about what kind of mechanisms we need to have in place to identify those initiatives that can be done better and bring home more benefit. The goal is to come out of planning session with an idea of how we want to conduct affairs with IETLC and a plan for how governance should work over the next 12-24 months. Look at what kind of investments we need to look for in terms of technology. Streamline ways we do business and play a role as technology leaders. After the two day session we will engage CPG. There is a long list of things people would like to move on and we need to determine which ones to move on.
  • 4. 4. UCOP staff changes (David Ernst) A majority of the downsizing and restructuring has occurred. Restructuring has been done based on the business school management approach. Now that we have started the restructuring process we have to catch up on the consolidation aspect. There are some challenges with utilization of central services. Basically, things got restructured fast and now we are coming back around and trying to revisit where we moved too fast. On a more positive note, there is a growing understanding among leadership in the building, and the new employees are bringing new ideas. We are starting to think about the Office of the President from the ground up based on requirements the University has for the next 10 years. In the future we hope to have a better idea of what features and functions to provide to help individual campuses and be a strong headquarters for the entire system. 5. CENIC Update (Ken Lindahl) PPT: CENIC Update Ken presented a CENIC update via Powerpoint. Last mile upgrades were funded by OP, and CENIC is installing newest Cisco gear. The campus implementations are in various stages. The presentation contains a tentative schedule and status. Brian Buckler:Q: Has implementation been going at pace you were hoping? Have there been any roadblocks? A: CENIC is holding back with equipment they can’t get support for, can’t get power and space in hub sites from carriers. Campuses are not holding things up. Berkeley will be first one that comes online. Mike Schilling: Q: What is the funding strategy for future equipment refreshes? A: There is currently no funding identified for replacing gear at end of life. Last mile upgrades are campus responsibility. Over time we should all be building these upgrades and ongoing replacement costs into our budget. Mike Shannon has a spreadsheet that shows total cost of upgrade. Action Item: Ken will send spreadsheet of costs of this last mile upgrade that we can use for future cost estimates. HPR Refresh: Award went to Foundry who is now Brocade. Target completion of upgrade is May. Campuses may be able to purchase Foundry/Brocade products from the CENIC contract, or to get them to match the pricing. Layer 2 Upgrade: RFP almost complete.
  • 5. John (UCSC): Ask Steven Benedict to try and get bulk purchase agreement with Foundry on behalf of UC that respects pricing, similar to Cisco agreement. Action Item: Mike Schilling will coordinate with Steve Benedict and Ken. IPv6 Update: https://www.ucla.net/hpr/ipv6 Green Networking: reducing carbon footprint is an important issue for CENIC. CENIC TAC Leadership changes: Ken has finished his term as chair, and Rodger Hess will become the new chair. Tom Hutton will become the vice chair/future chair. Rodger will provide future CENIC updates to CPG. 6. Funding of CPG Recommended Infrastructure Upgrades (David Ernst) David Ernst discussed the current plan to go after stimulus funding using a UC/CENIC wide approach. Chuck Rowley and David have worked with Jim Dolgonus using CPG recommendations and budget as a basis to develop the CENIC proposal to NSF and others. Initially the focus was on last mile and campus border recommendations that total about five million. David thinks we have a good shot at getting funding for this. We are trying to focus on where we can get initial funding quickly. We are looking at both UC funding and outside funding. 7. Cost saving ideas and centralized service updates (Cliff Frost) PPT: Sourcing Services to/from each other During Cliff’s presentation, which can be accessed at the link above, Cliff identified a number of current and proposed services that can be centrally hosted by one or more campuses and may be used by other campuses. Additional discussion related to this topic: UCLA likely to move towards consolidating all calendar services on campus to single instance. UCLA has a proposal to outsource student/non graduate e-mail to a third party (free source). They will not provide frontline help desk support like UC Davis which should be a cost savings. Existing POP e-mail will be shut down for the campus, and e-mails will be forwarded to campus system (Exchange) or Medical system. They are moving in this direction because most people have second e-mail accounts. Group just moved to providing 1G of storage to everyone which is unfortunate because now the service will be outsourced. $100,000 will be saved by completing moving away from POP. 35 e-mail systems have been eliminated and there are 25 left. Once everything is consolidated onto two systems we would look at future strategies. Estimated over $1M savings. UCLA recently rolled out self-provisioning VoIP option in which clients can configure and provision services on their own. They might be able to offer this to other campuses. Jim Madden: There was a discussion at the HPR TAC meeting about the implications of using the CENIC
  • 6. network for business continuity and disaster recovery. There are concerns about using HPR or DC. The HPR network is considered a non-production network so it may not be the best choice for this application. The DC network is a production network, but there are concerns about how this traffic will affect DC capacity. However, it is not clear that there is a problem. What is clear is that no one has thought this through. Action item: Explore the possibility of creating a CPG Capacity Planning task force to examine the bandwidth implications. Q: Are other campuses doing much with virtual machines? A: At UCLA, VMWare is largely the platform that is being used on virtual machines. Bob Sams- Human resources effort at UCD, wholesale redefinition of position descriptions, are there any thoughts on that? A: Career Compass is a new classification system that will be more comparable to other classification systems. It can compare and contrast salary structures within marketplace. Also seems to be much better classification system in general. HRMS, PeopleSoft Software that implements HR management and can work with any classification system. Other campuses are potentially interested in having an HRMF but the cost of implementation is enormous so there has been talk of partnering with UCB. Hesitation is enormous because of the amount of work required to change compensation systems. It has taken multiple years to implement and it is still too early to declare victory. Campus will be fully converted by end of fiscal year. Afternoon Attendee List Bob Grant, UCR Brian Buckler, UCI Charlotte Klock, UCSD Cliff Frost, UCB Connie Geraghty, UCOP Ed Titus, UCSC Eddie Mardon, UCSD Erik Freitag, UCOP Heidi Schmidt, UCSF Jessica Yu, UCI Jill Hishmeh, UCR Jim Madden, UCSD Jim Warner, UCSC John Haskins, UCSC Ken Lindahl, UCB Mark Redican, UCD Mike Sawyer, UCB Mike Schilling, UCLA Mike Van Norman, UCLA Paul Valenzuela, UCSB
  • 7. Rodger Hess, UCD 8. Funding Model Update (Eddie Mardon) PPT: Funding Update Eddie presented a PowerPoint (available at the link above) on the UCSD funding model. Brian Buckler:Q: How do you gather data needed to plan the refresh of the edge of the network? A: It is time consuming. We have autocad floor plans of every building. We give a copy of the floor plans to every MSO and tell them to mark up where they need connection. To our surprise we haven’t had many instances where people ask for 100’s of connections. If they do ask for a large number, we sit down and discuss what the need is. Once we explain the big picture people are usually understanding. Brian Buckler:Q: How insulated is funding model from budget cuts, reductions of central funding, and expense inflation? A: Our original plan included inflation estimates. Our commitment is to put in the best current standard of network. First we had 100MB to the desktop, and are now moving to 1GB. Now we are putting in 10GB to the buildings and in the risers. We have noticed that prices will slowly drop and then jump back up, then down again. A couple of months ago we were very worried because all of the buildings that were being re-cabled were coming in largely over budget because of the increase in the price of copper. Since then the price has gone down and now we are getting good bids in. Brian Buckler:Q: Do you feel this is funding model is insulating you more from budget cuts? A: Yes, except for the central funding we were receiving to augment the funding model that is being phased out. There are going to be some cost savings, from not providing merit increases. We’re still not quite sure what the impact of the budget cuts are going to be. Brian Buckler:Q: Are you using some of the funding model committees that were formed help justify the need for increased funding? A: Yes, the NGN planning committee, financial administration, and members of faculty give guidance. Brian Buckler:Q: Any problems with charging contracts and grants? A: Not an issue. We provide one year of advanced notice before charging contracts and grants. We went through office of grants and administration. Brian Buckler:Q We are seeing phone revenue dropping because people are disconnecting phones. Some departments are disconnecting all phone lines and planning to use only cell phones. Have you noticed an increase in phone disconnects? A: No, we have been carrying on with steady growth, parallel with growth in campus employees. Pau V.: Q: Do you have any phone system capacity problems caused by providing features to all
  • 8. customers in a bundle? A: No feature capacity problems on the UCSD Ericsson MD110 PBX. The conclusion is that UCSB needs a new phone system J 9. Strategic sourcing update presentation (Mike Schilling) UC/CPG Strategic Initiatives Q3 Update The link above contains Mike’s update. Audio/web conferencing: Finalized yesterday and will be a multiple award to the top two bidders. Telecom: RFI responses received. 10. 800 Mhz Update (Paul/Connie) 800 MHz Two-Way Radio Replacement In Paul’s presentation, he reviewed the draft 800 MHz report and asked CPG for feedback. The draft still needs a “recommendations section”. Conclusion is that UC will probably move away from a system- wide standardized and integrated 800 MHz trunked radio system. A radio system initiative is include in the current list of strategic sourcing initiatives. A risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis may be required at some point. Action Item: Paul V and Brian will come up with strategic questions to be included in the recommendations section of the report, and will get the report ready for presentation to ITLC. 11. Emergency Communications Systems UCB, UCSC, and UCD are using WARN. UCI went with MIR3 Brian Buckler: Since most are essentially subscribing to a fully hosted service, we could all switch to the same service when our service agreements expire. A successful strategic sourcing effort could result in a good service with attractive pricing that would be an incentive for campuses to switch to it. We should consider developing a document that shows what each campus has implemented. Work with Mike Schilling and strategic sourcing people on agenda for end of the year. UCLA, communications group does not manage, have to invite someone else in, did pretty complex investment in specialized software, multi-part program consisting of text messages, third party provider. Initial installation in regard to directional speakers, link to CATV system. Looking to buy software that facilitates everything in coordinated manner, integrates, dashboard with icons, manage all requirements from home or work or multiple locations. Coordinated notification.
  • 9. 12. Voice Mail System Planning VM- UCLA is pleased with their recent AVST system. UCI- Close to going live with new system from Interactive Intelligence. 13. Telephone System Planning UCSC just completed a major upgrade to their Ericson switch. 2 ½ years of planning. There were some problems with the upgrade implementation, but there haven’t been any significant problems with the new system. Only issue is syncing voice mail message waiting lights. There is a possibility of deploying VoIP in remote locations. The PBX now uses the IP backbone for telephone signaling data. Still using TDM trunks to carry the phone conversation data. It is a hybrid IP/TDM-PBX solution with the opportunity to do full IP implementation if desired. Allows them to save money by continuing to use the legacy TDM phones. UCSB- Departments are deploying their own IP phone systems. 14. CATV vs IPTV Solutions/Plans (Paul Valenzuela/Mike Schilling) UCLA hospital using IPTV. UCSC- Northwestern University has had IPTV for 8 years, increasing number of channels and adding features. The future of IPTV on campuses is unclear. May need a group to do some research. A strategic sourcing initiative may be appropriate. Action Item: Next CPG conference call we need to reprioritize future CPG projects and the strategic sourcing project list with appropriate input from ITLC. 15. CPG Business (Brian Buckler) Virtual experience was overall good however we need had problems with the Cisco Meet Me telephone conference bridge hosted by UCD. We need to try another telephone bridge. Consider using the VOIP bridge that is integrated in the Adobe Connect Pro solution, or to try ReadyTalk, or Elluminate. It would be useful if the web client could identify the person speaking. Action Item: Need to research options for doing this. In person vs virtual meetings: It is much easier to be engaged in a face-to-face meeting, and you are less likely to get distracted or pulled away. All campuses have travel restrictions so we need to continue to experiment with virtual meetings, but
  • 10. we should plan at least one face-to-face meeting per year. Plan the next face-to-face meeting for next fiscal year. We can’t go to the Arrowhead Conference Center June-Sept because it is completely booked. Audio background noise is a problem. Conference services such as ReadyTalk and Elluminate allow the moderator to mute everyone except the person who is talking. Continue monthly CPG calls on last Friday of the month from 10-11AM. If a meeting has to be rescheduled a Doodle poll will be sent out to determine availability.