A Fit for Purpose discussion

342 views

Published on

F4P presentation - Systems selection - at IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
342
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A Fit for Purpose discussion

  1. 1. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010“Fit for Purpose” – Systems SelectionClaude RioussetExecutive IT ArchitectIBM Systems & Technology Group « Lite version » © 2010 IBM Corporation
  2. 2. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 The right ‘tool’…All of these tools can move a person from one place to another…real fast…. Lear Jet 60 (Corporate) MD – 90 (Regional) Boeing 747-400 (Large Capacity) Capacity = 7 (8 with belted toilet) Capacity = 153 Capacity = 420 Range = 2,691 miles Range = 2,400 miles Range = 8,827 Miles Cruise Speed = 514 mph Cruise Speed = 503 mph Cruise Speed = 563 mph Each tool offers varying levels of capabilities… 2 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  3. 3. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 But…which is the right tool… to move 1 person? 100 people? 400 people? 3 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  4. 4. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Many Factors Affect Choice Car Server Purchase price Purchase price Would you purchase a family car solely Gas mileage, cost of repairs, Cost of operation, power on one factor? insurance cost consumption, floor space Reliability Reliability Safety, maneuverability, visibility, Availability, disaster recovery, vendor service vendor service Storage capacity, number of Scalability, throughput seats, towing capacity Horsepower Chip performance Dash board layout Instrumentation and skills Steering wheel location Handling, comfort, features Manageability Looks, styling, size Peer and industry recognition 4 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  5. 5. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Key Concepts and Terms 5 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  6. 6. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 How do most companies select a platform for their applications? First question is – “Will it run there?” Second question is – “How much does the hardware cost?” Done! But this is just a TCA view……Is that all we should be thinking about? 6 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  7. 7. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 What did we miss? Non-Functional requirements Shouldn’t they have asked some questions about: – Scalability? Availability? Backup? Site Disaster Recovery? – Security? Reliability? Data Integrity? Maintainability? – Volumes and Service Levels? Scale? – Space? Power? Cooling? – Operations? Scheduling? Monitoring? Server Management? – Integration? Performance and Value of Data Proximity? Fit-for-Purpose thinking leads to a holistic or TCO view? 7 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  8. 8. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Platform Selection 8 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  9. 9. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Selecting a Platform Time Horizon Scale ISV Support Non-Functional Deployment Requirements Model System System Technology z x Adoption Geographic Level Considerations Platform Power, cooling, Power floor space Architecture constraints Politics Strategic Direction and Standards Skills Cost Models 9 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  10. 10. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Local Factors are Important Platform and workload type Platform Factor (e.g. Availability) Local factors (constraints) – Skills Best of Breed – Technology adoption levels Industry Average Best of Breed Below Average – Platform management practices Industry Average – Number of servers Below Average – Organization considerations Develop comparison metrics Platform A Platform B – Consistent, collectable, usable Become best of breed 10 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  11. 11. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Strategic and Tactical Platform Choices IT Decision • Balance tactical & strategic Tactical • Develop reference architectures Strategic • Mergers and acquisitions can introduce non-strategic solutions • Balance of visionary and established patterns All Tactical Choices All Strategic Choices • Can Lower decision costs • Can lower long term costs • Based upon history, convention, • Can run afoul of legacy momentum, skills, and previous Complete Business Case • Strategic direction important strategic decisions • New technologies will change • Narrow focus can lead to sub- strategies optimal solutions 11 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  12. 12. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Reference Architectures Pattern for repeated decisions – Lower decision making cost – Lower implementation variability Larger than single decision - unlike a standard Based upon – Actual implementations – Architectural decisions Can be long term decision setting 12 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  13. 13. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Functional and Non-Functional Requirements Select or design applications based on functional requirements driven by business process, and non-functional requirements Functional Non-Functional “What it does” “How well it does it” • Correct business results • Availability requirements • Inputs • Transactions per minute • Outputs • Security requirements • Behaviors • Ease of provisioning and support • External interfaces • Disaster recovery requirements • Screen layouts • Future growth Select platforms based upon non-functional requirements driven by business value 13 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  14. 14. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Common Deployment Models OS OS OS OS OS OS OS UI App Data UI App Data UI App Data Virtualizer Centralized Virtualized Dedicated Components are all Components split across Components split across together virtual images servers Very granular resource Coarser grained resource No resource sharing sharing sharing between servers OS workload Virtualizer workload Limited workload management management management Strongly integrated and Stacked and integrated Integrated over physical stacked over network networks 14 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  15. 15. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 High Level Workload Definition Workloads are a combination of: – Application function: What it does and how it does it – Data structure: Data residency, topology, access model – Usage pattern: Utilization profile over time, mix of use cases – Service level: Non-functional requirements – Integration: Interaction between application & data components The workload requirements will create varying demands when determining server alternatives 15 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  16. 16. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Workload Attributes and Market Segmentation Transaction Processing Analytics and High Performance and Database High Transaction Rates Compute or I/O intensive High Quality of Service High memory bandwidth Peak Workloads Floating point Resiliency and Security Scale out capable Business Applications Web, Collaboration and Infrastructure Scale Highly threaded High Quality of Service Throughput-oriented Large memory footprint Scale out capable Responsive infrastructure Lower Quality of Service 16 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  17. 17. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Server Architecture - More Technical Workload View Shared Parallel Data Data & Work Q • Shared data and Structures • Parallel data work queues structures Highly Small Discrete Threaded • Small discrete • Highly threaded applications Mixed Mixed 17 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  18. 18. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Consolidating Workloads Optimizes Efficiency Single workload model As copies of this workload are assumptions: added: – Average: 21%; Peak: 79% – Average approaches peak – Random arrival rate – Total CPU grows at slower rate Single Application Server (2 CPUs) 8 to 1 Consolidation (8 CPUs) 64 to 1 Consolidation (36 CPUs) 80% 80% 80% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 0% 0% Average 21%, Peak 79% Average 39%, Peak 76% Average 61%, Peak 78% 18 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  19. 19. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Which environment would you like to _______? Not all workloads scale linearly Deployments change with size and scale Hit the earth Miss the earth 2% Server proliferation can impact operations – Patching, Clustering, Cabling, Disaster Recovery Strategies – Standardization, Virtualization, Apollo 13 Centralized Deployment, Automation 19 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  20. 20. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Scope Limitation Leads to Sub-Optimization A single application or department view is easiest to understand Issues – May be driven by politics – Runs counter to enterprise IT optimization – May make an enterprise view harder to establish – Can lead to large hidden costs – Server sprawl Enterprise wide, scope specific, reference architectures 20 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  21. 21. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Developing a Cost Model 21 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  22. 22. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Cost per Unit of Work Shared costs tend to fall Cost per Transaction – Centralized & virtualized Costs per Transaction – Level of sharing Dedicated Shared Dedicated costs tend to rise – Complexity TCA TCO – Software Workload Volume – Datacenter factors Local factors affect curves Acquisition vs. total costs 22 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  23. 23. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Cost Models have Different Purposes Selection Acquisition Chargeback All measurable costs for all Will include step costs such as Designed to recover costs environments over time new books, frames, chassis Often simple and incomplete Not based on step costs such as May ignore redeployed or on the new book, frame or chassis shelf software licenses May distort choices between alternatives Friendly to new technologies such May ignore infrastructure costs as virtualization & cloud for power, network, & space May need multiple models The choice of cost and value May ignore increased utilization Public clouds incorporate all three elements can dictate what is of existing capacity cost models considered the lowest cost IT should own IT infrastructure Would car choices be different if someone else paid for the gas? 23 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  24. 24. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Wrap Up 24 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  25. 25. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 Ask IBM for a “Fit for Purpose” discussion with your IBM Systems Architect Also: System System z x Beware hidden cost Power of sub optimization. Local Factors Matter Large reliable servers are best for virtualization • Will this platform run my solution? 8 to 1 Consolidation (8 CPUs) 64 to 1 Consolidation (36 CPUs) • How well will it run? 80% 80% 70% 70% • What will it cost me? 60% 60% 50% 50% • What is the impact on my enterprise? 40% 40% 30% 30% • Can I operate and manage it well enough? 20% 20% 10% 10% • Will my organization accept it? 0% 0% • Is this platform effective for the application scope? Scaling with Core Count • How does this platform fit into my current Don’t trust benchmark infrastructure? results that scale Ef civ C r s f e t e oe • Is this solution shared or dedicated to a single business process? “nearly linearly” • Do I know all the inherited requirements? Cores 25 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  26. 26. IBM Systems Technical University – Lyon, France - 25-29 October, 2010 When to consider “Fit-for-Purpose” Lifecycle Refresh Server Consolidation Re-Platforming Data Center relocations or Consolidation Business case development – Early in the application design process 26 © Copyright IBM Corporation, 2010
  27. 27. © 2010 IBM Corporation

×