Systems Administration Sub-Committee - UVU by pptfiles

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 29

									    Systems
 Administration
 Sub-Committee


Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability
      For Fiscal Year 2010-2011
         Committee Membership
 Brett McKeachnie (Chair)
   IT Systems Administration
 Darel Hawkins
   IT Center for Student Computing
 Kevin Young
   School of Technology and Computing
 Mike Duffin
   IT Automation and Integration
 Kurtis Olsen
   Telephone Services
 Gerald Bunker
   IT HelpDesk
 Daniel Hutchison
   IT Systems Administration
Mission, Scope, and Responsibilities

 The Systems Administration Sub-Committee exists to
 evaluate and recommend criteria for Best Practices,
 Strategic Directions, and Interoperability of Technology
 Systems at UVU. The scope of the committee includes
 decisions and recommendations regarding Hardware,
 Operating Systems, Data Storage, Backups, and Critical
 Application Level Software. The responsibilities of the
 committee include the development and implementation
 of PBA initiatives that support the IT Strategic Directions,
 the development of accountability measures, and the
 evaluation of outcomes.
        Department Personnel

 Systems Administration   Automation & Integration
 Brett McKeachnie         Mike Duffin
 Roark Fisher             Chris Jones
 Daniel Hutchison         Dave Nielsen
 Ted Blaney               Wayne Wilson
 Paul Nuffer              Landon Conover
 Alan Castle              Brett Partridge
               Competencies

 Servers (Hardware, Operating Systems)
 Systems (Automation, Integration, Design, Security)
 Data Storage (Performance, Allocation)
 Disaster Recovery (Backups, Replication)
 Data Center Resources (Needs, Access)


 Making it all “work together, work right, work even
 when parts of it fail”
                 (http://www.sysadminday.com/whatsysadmin.html)
                Vision

  A robust systems environment and
ecosystem that is flexible and customer
  oriented, that provides security and
resiliency, that simplifies integration and
masks complexity, and that is fiscally and
        environmentally efficient.
                Guiding Values

 Customer Service      Best Practices
 Flexibility           Efficiency
 Collaboration         Robustness
 Best Effort           Reliability through
                        stability
                Challenges

 Growth in demand for services and systems has
  not been matched by growth in employee
  headcount – Need more people and to keep the
  people we have.
 Operating under a historical paradigm which
  includes structural (training, mindshare,
  infrastructure) dependencies upon specific
  technologies that are becoming less capable of
  meeting the demands of our users – Need a
  paradigm shift.
                       Agenda

 SWOT Analysis
 Cost Reductions
 Urgent Needs
 Pain Points
 Strategic Planning
 Requests
     SWOT Analysis: Strengths

 Team (quality people)
 Identity Management System
 Hardware (largely new or newer)
 Centralization/Core (efficiency)
 New Data Center
 Internal Communication (within IT)
   SWOT Analysis: Weaknesses

 Microsoft Training/Experience
 Apple Training/Experience
 User Communication
 User Training
 Staff Numbers
 Support for Mobile Devices
 Disaster Recovery
 Documentation
  SWOT Analysis: Opportunities

 Centralize in DLC
 Virtualization - Server
 Virtualization - Desktop
 Linux / Open Source Software
 Disaster Recovery Equipment Grant
      SWOT Analysis: Threats

 Novell Dependencies
 User Demands
 Phishing/MalWare
 Funding
 Apathy/Lack of Participation
 User Security Training
            Cost Reductions?

 Outsource?
 Cloud?
 Software Licensing?
 Virtualize Servers
 Virtualize Secure Servers
 Virtualize Desktops
 Transfer Servers to DLC Data Center
                     Urgent Needs

 Automation and Integration Staff
 Disaster Recovery Equipment
   Progress is being made
    • Banner database and app server in Richfield
   Needed
    • Off-Site Backup
    • Disk Space Usage Reduction
    • Improved Data Transfer to Richfield
    • Critical Systems/Processing for Emergencies (Virtualized)
      • Communications
      • Urgent Financial Needs
                     Pain Points

        AKA   “What Keeps Brett Up at Night”

 Can't Get Enough Done
 Possible Loss of Key Staff
 Novell
   Company Policies / Relationships
   Future Directions / Questionable Viability
   User/Administration Perceptions/Support
            Strategic Planning

 Microsoft (Discovery, Training, Planning)
 Disaster Recovery (Planning, Equipment)
 Use DLC Data Center (Increase Efficiency)
                  Microsoft

 Proactive Discovery Process to Determine
   Costs of Changing
   Benefits to be Gained
   Pitfalls to Avoid and/or Be Aware Of
   Methods to Employ
   Changes Required
   What do we expect to learn?

 Costs – Financially Expensive (Licensing,
  Support), Migration Costly if Consultants are Used,
  Need More Administrators, More Servers, Lots of
  Training Required, Time Investment, Parallel
  Deployment, Major Adjustments to IDM Systems
 Benefits – Increased Integration with 3rd Party
  Systems and Devices, Market Share (Easy to Find
  Help and Training)
   What do we expect to learn?

 Pitfalls – Not a Panacea, Trade One Set of Problems
  for Another, Systems Can Get Very Large, Compliance
  Issues, More Exploits (Market Share)
 Methods – Many Best Practices, Different Paradigms
  (Adapt Our Thinking), Adjust to Different Strengths &
  Weaknesses
 Changes – Few Visible Differences, E-Mail Client
  Change (Expect Detractors),
  Administration/Management Completely Different,
  Numerous Additional Systems Possible (SharePoint)
                      Why Not Novell?
 Policies                                   Products
   Maintenance Required for Patches           Quality Poor
   Maintenance Required for                   Require Patches for Functionality
    KnowledgeBase                              Reduced Features in New Versions
   ShareHolders / Board Short                 Integration of Systems and Devices
    Sighted – Looking for Buyout?               Difficult
   Development Moved Offshore                 Partners (and some Novell
   Prices Increasing, Despite Market           Products) Delayed or Refused
    Share and Economy                           Support for Linux – Left Market
   Premium Attitude, Inferior Products      Future
   Wait for partners to build solutions,      Important Partners Leaving
    then re-invent the solution to sell,       Customers Leaving
    putting partners out of business
                                               Market Share / Mind Share
 Support
                                               Difficult to Get Training
   Quality Poor / Finger Pointing
                                               Difficult to Find Experienced Help
   OffShore (Language/Culture
                                               Constant Rumors about Future
    Barrier)
   Knowledgebase Constantly                 Changes/Improvements?
    Changing, Difficult to Find Answers        “Too Little Too Late” –Joe Martin
  Why Not Apple, Linux, or SUN?

 Don’t Scale for Windows and MAC Clients
 No Collaboration Suite Available
 Similar to Novell’s Lack of Integration
                 Why Microsoft?

 Market Share / Mind Share
   Easy To Find Trained Help
   Any Problem We Have, Many More Also Have
   Same Benefits Achieved in Move to Cisco from Alcatel
 Integration
   Mobile Devices
   Enterprise Systems
   Extensive Partner Network
 Administration Support
   “Why haven’t we moved to Microsoft yet?”
   “When are we going to move to Microsoft?”
   “If we were on Microsoft, my <product> would work.”
                       Questions
 Is This Just An Emotional Reaction?
   No. We can plan now, or we can try to figure it out under
    pressure if/when it’s required.
 Won’t This Be Expensive?
   Yes. But we don’t yet know how much it will cost. That’s one
    of the things we need to learn.
 Won’t This Be a Very Difficult and Problematic Move?
   Yes. That’s why we need to plan.
 Are We For Sure Moving to Microsoft?
   No. We want to investigate, learn, plan and budget to
    determine if it’s the right move for UVU.
 When Would We Make This Change?
   Guessing, I’d say 3 to 5 years to prepare and move.
              Disaster Recovery

 Data De-Duplication Devices (Orem & Richfield)
   Off-site backup
   Improved disk space usage
   Improved data transfer between sites
 VMWare Host(s) at Richfield
   Web Server
   Critical Services/Processing (Payroll, Purchasing)
   Emergency E-Mail System, etc.
            Data Center Usage

 No financial costs
 Create a single point of contact empowered to help
  departments move in.
 This is in progress in Infrastructure Services
                       Requests

 Ongoing Funding
   Positions
   • Systems Administrator – AIS
   • Application Administrator – VMWare
   • Systems Specialist – AIS
   Equity/Career Ladder Upgrades
    • Alan, Chris, Dave, Paul
 One Time Funding
   Disaster Recovery Equipment ($250,000)
   Microsoft Discovery/Training/Planning ($30,000)
           Summary/Conclusion

 We
   Add value by creating systems that work better, meet our
    unique needs, and help people do their jobs more
    efficiently.

   Need help in the form of positions in the AIS Department
    and equity funding so we can keep key employees.
   Need to put some basic DR equipment in place to
    augment the systems we have been granted – A basic
    infrastructure we can build upon.
   Need to look seriously at alternatives to Novell
    technologies, so we have a plan to meet our needs, come
    what may.
The End

								
To top