Trust Factory Fact based analysis for Domino and Lotus Notes

1. Trust Factory Fact based analysis for Domino and Lotus Notes

2. Table of Contents • What is DNA? What are the ‘wins’? • Problem statement • Delivarables linked toProblem Statement • Overall Health Check of entire Domino environment described • Sample Reports

3. What is DNA? • DNA collects information • Log data & configuration elements • Off-site processing & analysis • Applied business intelligence • Comparison with industry averages • Interpretation • In line with customer scope & objectives • Presentation

4. What does DNA offer? • In-depth understanding of: • User demand & system activity • Resources & capacity • Performance issues • Reduce cost & increase efficiency: • Quick Wins • Project Wins

5. What are Quick Wins? • Reduce traffic footprint • Increase quality & efficiency • Minimum investment in resources • Short term • Example: network compression, internet passwords, group cycles, duplicate replicas

6. What are Project Wins? • Identify & eliminate project risks • Taking corrective action before project instead of during or after • Capacity planning • Prevent over- & under-capacity in server, network, Applications & storage sizing • Based on factual evidence versus assumptions • Project Execution • Fast & risk free • Project results verified with DNA facts

7. Reduce Lotus Notes overcapacity and it’s costdrivers No insight in key cost drivers No detailled fact based view of total application landscape No facts on the real end user demand on those Applications No understanding of Application usage per office location No understanding of the cost reduction opportunities within Lotus Notes in general Detect chunks of ‘overcapacity’ in the Notes Environment, in and outside the Application landscape No inside info on the real end user demand and patterns No fact based info available to determine new hardware requirements (if any) No information on user concurrency worldwide or per office location No ‘what if’ data available for server placement scenario’s (assumed) Problem Statement

8. Deliverables linked to Problem Statement • Measure and highlite the end user bandwidth usage per office location • Do a complete Integrity Check to score on Operational wins • Check user Concurrency and session time for office locations • Compare the Network usage aswell as User concurrency with all the internal office locations • Compare overall performance with Trust Factory’s datawarehouse of 700K Corporate end users (Trust Factory Bench Mark) • Compute per office location the concurrent user levels • Report on the real end user demand of applications and compare this with the capacity in place • Deliver facts about current usage of hardware and determine ‘clean up’ roadmap for Application landscape • Provide fact based data to achieve internal consencus

9. Overall Health Check • Operational Health Check (Deployment Integrity Checks) • Intergrity check - Duplicate Replica on same server • - Duplicate template on same server • - Replicas acting as different template • - Same replica but different enheritance • Consistency Check - Same file name but different Replica ID • - Same Replica ID different filename • - Same Replica ID different filepath • - Same filepath but different Replica ID • Missing Data in Addres Book • Group Cycles • Unsupported Characters in NAB • Conflicting/Duplicate replica's • HTTP Password Integrity check

10. Overall Health Check Continued… Benchmarks • Active users • Network Bandwidth Consumption per user • Document I/O per user • Time spent online by users • Overall User demand characteristics (Notes sessions, Document reads, etc) Other • Storage Analysis and its trend growth • Heavy user highlite • Heavily used databases (!) • Heavy databases • Demand per database type • Optimization opportunities in Server to Server replication • Server utilization (User Concurrency), per region or office location • Mail Routing overview and email top 50 users • Recommandations…

11. Next: Report SamplesPlease note that each report has the actual core data behind it. We can zoom in to every minute of the day allowing great discovery opportunities to investigate anomalies or match a user complaint with the actual performance measured…Following is just a shorlist of examples…

12. Consolidation Potential Example Actual Potential Domino Server locations: 120 39* Domino Servers: 216 4** Registered Users: 58,691 25,250 Nr. of Domino Versions: 14 1 OS Platforms: 6 1 * After executing recommendations ** Depends on server placement strategy

13. Consolidation Potential • Consolidation Potential • Today 54 server locations • 89 servers in scope • Results: • Sites / servers that can consolidate 100% scenario is not realistic, meant for reference only

14. Migration Effort for Applications • All datases, minus: • Mail Files • From person documents in Domino directory • Including replicas of these mail files on other servers • Address Books • Directories and Directory Catalogs • System Databases • DNA’s list of ‘known’ filepaths

15. Migration Effort for Applications The tabel left comes with the actual factsheets that allows forensic verification of each ‘touch’done on apps by the end users.

16. Active users versus registered users

17. User Profiles (time spent online) Relative many Remote users for this Customer

18. DB Volume Growth (nr of databases)

19. Bandwidth Consumption, avg per hour Peaks in demand, Monday morning

20. Demand Characteristics

21. Type user sessions: Users working on mail file or applications Mail/Calendar Notifications Background replication

22. Existing Situation – Concurrency

23. Zooming in on an issue – Concurrency Service Degradation on MiamiHub1

24. Demand per DB Type (IMPORTANT) Most network demand on mail files for this Customer

25. 8.5: Network Compression will save > 40%

26. Heavy Users (shortlist) username Db Transactions Network IO Document IO CN=LEI Funktion/OU=GT/O=anonymized 66.09% 64.05% 72.81% CN=OutBackService/OU=Glostrup/O= 4.05% 2.40% 3.34% CN=Notes-Kp Administrator/OU=System/OU=Admin/O= 2.51% 1.36% 3.31% CN=Funktion/OU=GT/O= 1.12% 0.57% 0.35% CN=Funktion/OU=GT/O= 0.13% 2.26% 0.09% Addressing Heavy Users will save 54%

27. Db Storage Distribution

28. Storage Analysis

29. Server Platforms & Releases

30. Deployment Integrity • High number of issues • > 1,000 in databases deployed • > 2,000 in domino directories

31. Database Deployment Integrity Significant nr of issues identified. Recommended to clean up to reduce HelpDesk calls. Causes Risks. Use data spreadsheets to follow-up and clean up.

32. Weak HTTP Passwords * 7 % of the internet passwords are insecure

33. What are DNA Benchmarks and how should we interpret them? • Provide an objective comparison of key performance indicators • Consist of more than 700,000 corporate users from medium to large companies worldwide • Developed / Owned by Trust Factory

34. DNA BASELINE: Time Spent Online by Users 50.0 50.0 45.0 45.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 35.0 30.0 30.0 Hours Minutes 25.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 - - Time spent online Customer users spent less time per week while sessions appear to be faster ACME Lowest Customer DNA Average Highest Customer 16.2 5.4 29.2 61.7 Hours per Week 3.7 1.2 9.6 28.4 Minutes per Session

35. DNA BASELINE: Document I/O Per User 5,000 1,000 4,500 900 4,000 800 3,500 700 3,000 600 2,500 500 2,000 400 1,500 300 1,000 200 500 100 - - ACME Lowest Customer DNA Average Highest Customer 3,584 304 1,701 3,652 Documents Read 354 152 326 906 Documents Written Document Reads and Writes Customer users read & write LARGE amounts of documents.

36. DNA BASELINE: Network Bandwidth Consumption Per User 30.00 8.00 7.00 25.00 6.00 20.00 5.00 kbps - server to client kbps - client to server 15.00 4.00 3.00 10.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 - - ACME Lowest Customer DNA Average Highest Customer 13.98 1.89 6.12 24.60 Server to Client 3.13 0.46 0.84 6.90 Client to Server Network Bandwidth Consumption

37. Some References