1 / 29

Systems Administration Sub-Committee

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

minor
Download Presentation

Systems Administration Sub-Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Systems AdministrationSub-Committee Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability For Fiscal Year 2010-2011

  2. 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

  3. 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.

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

  5. 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)

  6. 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.

  7. Guiding Values • Customer Service • Flexibility • Collaboration • Best Effort • Best Practices • Efficiency • Robustness • Reliability through stability

  8. 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.

  9. Agenda • SWOT Analysis • Cost Reductions • Urgent Needs • Pain Points • Strategic Planning • Requests

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

  11. SWOT Analysis: Weaknesses • Microsoft Training/Experience • Apple Training/Experience • User Communication • User Training • Staff Numbers • Support for Mobile Devices • Disaster Recovery • Documentation

  12. SWOT Analysis: Opportunities • Centralize in DLC • Virtualization - Server • Virtualization - Desktop • Linux / Open SourceSoftware • Disaster Recovery Equipment Grant

  13. SWOT Analysis: Threats • Novell Dependencies • User Demands • Phishing/MalWare • Funding • Apathy/Lack of Participation • User Security Training

  14. Cost Reductions? • Outsource? • Cloud?  • Software Licensing? • Virtualize Servers • Virtualize Secure Servers • Virtualize Desktops • Transfer Servers to DLC Data Center

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Strategic Planning • Microsoft (Discovery, Training, Planning) • Disaster Recovery (Planning, Equipment) • Use DLC Data Center (Increase Efficiency)

  18. 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

  19. 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)

  20. 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)

  21. Why Not Novell? • Policies • Maintenance Required for Patches • Maintenance Required for KnowledgeBase • ShareHolders / Board Short Sighted – Looking for Buyout? • Development Moved Offshore • Prices Increasing, Despite Market Share and Economy • Premium Attitude, Inferior Products • Wait for partners to build solutions, then re-invent the solution to sell, putting partners out of business • Support • Quality Poor / Finger Pointing • OffShore (Language/Culture Barrier) • Knowledgebase Constantly Changing, Difficult to Find Answers • Products • Quality Poor • Require Patches for Functionality • Reduced Features in New Versions • Integration of Systems and Devices Difficult • Partners (and some Novell Products) Delayed or Refused Support for Linux – Left Market • Future • Important Partners Leaving • Customers Leaving • Market Share / Mind Share • Difficult to Get Training • Difficult to Find Experienced Help • Constant Rumors about Future • Changes/Improvements? • “Too Little Too Late” –Joe Martin

  22. 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

  23. 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.”

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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

  27. 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)

  28. 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.

  29. The End

More Related