ITS-ITANA

• Review ITANA Charge & First Year Goals

• Updates from Focus Groups

• Brief break for lunch

• Review of Common Themes

• Discussion Points

• Next Steps

Agenda

• establish understanding of what each other does and how they do it

• understanding how to help each other accomplish goals with greater ease

• make decisions with better accuracy• seek out opportunities to achieve cost and effort

efficiencies

• GOAL #1

- Establish a community of people who understand each other pressures, needs, and desires in information architecture

• GOAL #2

- Develop an ITS/Penn State roadmap for information architectures

Initial Charge

• Data Centers/Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity (Mark Saussure)

• Identity and Access Management (Renée Shuey)

• Storage Strategies (Mike Burns)

• Service Oriented Architecture (Carl Seybold)

• Collaborative Technologies (Christian Vinten-Johansen)

• Virtualization (Matt Scott)

• Networking Futures (Phil Devan)

Focus Groups

Data Centers/Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity Focus Group

History and Health Check• 3 Raised Floor Data Centers

• 2 in basements• Lots of expensive raised floor space

• No AC or Power• CB, Shields, Paterno in tier order

Take a Holistic Approach•Focused on ITS needs (ITANA Charge) •Allow other work units to be folded into this plan

Dave Beyerle, Mike Burns, Mike Kauffman, Steve Kellogg, Jeff Reel, Mark Saussure, Scott Smith

Data Center and Server Room Master Plan Project• Results must become part of strategic planning

Create Collaborative Opportunities• Virtual groups that share data

• Server, storage, network• Resources• Funding

Data Centers/Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity Focus Group

Data Centers/Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity Focus GroupBusiness Continuity and Disaster Recovery

• Facility needed outside of UP• Altoona or other site

• Current site not acceptable• Other buildings near networking

• OPP and ITS must be more tightly integrated• Subgroup of suggested infrastructure collaborators

• OPP to be more informed about DC needs• Networking needs to be at table to be able to react

Renée Shuey, Lynn Garrison, Randy Hegarty, Steve Kellogg, Carl Seybold, Marta Miguel, Mark Miller, Phil Devan, Jim Vuccolo

Two Architectural AnalysisInCommon Silver (LoA2) Gap Analysis

ITS Response to IAM Strategic Recommendations

Collaborative TechnologiesFocus Group

Cole Camplese, Joni Barnoff, Jim Leous, Terry O'Heron, Jeff Reel,Christian Vinten-Johansen

<http://tinyurl.com/5ukndn>

Empowerment and accountability

Three lenses• Structure

• Culture

• Tools

Use Cases

• Where we are now

• Some knowledge sharing

• Little sharing of storage resources

• Common security, compliance, and retention policies

• Storage can be location and vendor independent

Storage Strategies Focus Group

Mike Burns, Gary Gentzel, Randy Hegarty, Jason Holmes,Mike Kauffman, Phil Pishioneri, Mark Saussure, Matt Scott

• Create a storage group• Virtual organization / new initiatives

• Pools knowledge and expertise

• Encourages revolutionary changes to storage architecture

• Consolidate storage systems• Reduce costs

• Increase storage capacity and resource utilization

• Easier to provide tiered storage

• Implement an Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) strategy• Automates processes, procedures, and policies for data access

• Follow security, regulatory, and retention policies

• Provides cost effective access to data

Recommendations

• Implement an Institutional Repository• Scholarly output freely available on-line

• Reduce costs for journal subscriptions

• ITS instead of Department level

• Implement a Data Transformation system• Preserve data in a usable format

• Support data retention policies

• Recover floor space through retired equipment

• Use vendor neutral storage standards• Leverage existing infrastructure

• NFSv4, CIFS using our Kerberos 5 service

• SNIA standards like SMI-S and XAM

Recommendations

S = Discovering and selecting business processes that are encapsulated and reusable

O = Inclination of service discovery during design A = Management, Governance of application

implementation - to ensure adherence to the principles

Carl Seybold (Chair) Renée Shuey

Lynn Garrison Christian Vinten-Johansen

Al Williams Mike Halm

Service Oriented Architecture(SOA)

StrengthsProvides interoperability through enforcement of the

architecture

Enables reuse of services by providing a single version of the a business process (truth)

Empowers efficiency of automation of complex processes

Decreased time to deliver new applications

Reduces maintenance costs

Increases reliability and believability

Reduces errors through process standardization

Improves agility through (single version of the truth )

OpportunitiesPotential new/improved career path

Training

Sharing/cooperation

Integration

Standards

Build systems of best practices

WeaknessesComplexity

Barriers to adoption

Governance

Lack of skilled/trained people to build this

Service levels (can be a weak link)

ThreatsBarriers to adoption

Lack of executive support

Requires design before implementation

Existing business silos

Information stewardship

Standards (can change)

SWOT Analysis

• Evangelize– SOA is identified as a Strategic Direction (Vision Statement)

– How to identify when an application should be a Service? • If you are dealing with PSU data

• Service discovery is a mandatory step in application development

• Implementing a reusable business process

– What will ITS provide to help • Provide an expert team to evangelize

• Provide guidance for developers

• Governance– Committee to recommend and review

– Policy for the committee to follow

– Select and recommend standards

– external interface for communities

– Service coordination (orchestration)

Recommendations

• Data Centers, Desktops, even smart phones

• Touches all areas of IT, storage, networking, IT architecture core

• mushrooming in IT circles and outside IT

VirtualizationUbiquity

Use Cases• well known:

- power, cooling

- space, consolidation

• less known:

- virtual laboratories

- security and management

- virtual sessions to access institutional data (abstraction)

- aggregation for central management (personnel)

Suggestions

• general strategy within ITS for evaluating virtualization technologies in most if not all areas of the organization.

• (external) software vendors need to have clear, consistent licensing models.

Networking Futures Focus Group

Rich Cropp, Phil Devan, Randy Hegarty, Jason Holmes, John Kalbach, Mark Linton, Derek Morr, Jeff Reel

• IPv6 (It's time)• Agility (not just commodity)• High BW (100Gb > cat 5/6)• Survivability (e.g., physical and virtual redundancy)• Mobility/Wireless (norm, not exception)• Non-IP (dark fiber, lambda?)

Some Key Points Discussed:

IANA Pool

Exhaustion

!"#$%&'%()

*+,+!!((-

.('/-!/$$"#00!$#1/)$

!"#$%&'($"

)*+"#$%&'($"

,-,!.//0

• Odds are someone else in the world will need to access our services via v6 before we run out of space.• Time to light the fire.• Transport in IB and 3ROX is ready, so v6 in services could and would be used now.

• Stimuli:• Mandates & Legislation (firewalls, monitoring, capturing)

• New & special needs

• Allow ITS central service "cloud" to push outwards

• Reduce feeling of need to run local internets

• Organizational vs physical networking

• Approaches:• VLANs

• QoS?

• Lambdas?

• MPLS?

Agility

Thank You!

Common Themes

• need for governance

• need to get closer to customers and their requirements

• focus groups brought people together to think about IT architecture from a much higher view (organizationally as well institutionally)

Feedback?

• How would you like us to communicate with you?

• How would you like to communicate with us?

• Feedback on focus groups?

• Suggestions for future work?