Processor area networking

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Yesterday, I was at a very interesting presentation from Fujitsu-Siemens Computers. It doesn’t really matter who the OEM was – it was the concept that grabbed me, and I’m sure IBM and HP will also be looking at this and that Dell will jump on board once it hits the mass market. That concept was processor area networking.

We’ve all got used to storage area networks (SANs) in recent years – the concept being to separate storage from servers so that a pool of storage can be provided as and when required.

Consider an e-mail server with 1500 users and 100Mb mailbox limits. When designing such a system, it is necessary to separate the operating system, database, database transaction logs, and message transfer queues for recoverability and performance. The database might also be split for fast recovery of VIP’s mailboxes but my basic need is to provide up to 150Gb of storage for the database (1500 users x 100Mb). Then another 110% storage capacity is required for database maintenance and all of a sudden the required disk space for the database jumps to 315Gb – and that doesn’t include the operating system, database transaction logs or message transfer queues!

Single instance storage might reduce this number, as would the fact that most users won’t have a full mailbox, but most designers will provide the maximum theoretical capacity “just in case” because to provision it later would involve: gaining management support for the upgrade; procuring the additional hardware; and scheduling downtime to provide the additional storage (assuming the hardware is able to physically accommodate the extra disks).

Multiply this out across an organisation and that is a lot of storage sitting around “just in case”, increasing hardware purchase and storage management costs in the process. Then consider the fact that storage hardware prices are continually dropping and it becomes apparent that the additional storage could probably have been purchased at a lower price when it was actually needed.

Using a SAN, coupled with an effective management strategy, storage can be dynamically provisioned (or even deprovisioned) on a “just in time” basis, rather than specifying every server with extra storage to cope with anticipated future requirements. No longer is 110% extra storage capacity required on the e-mail server in case the administrator needs to perform offline defragmentation – they simply ask the SAN administrator to provision that storage as required from the pool of free space (which is still required, but is smaller than the sum of all the free space on a all of the separate servers across the enterprise).

Other advantages include the co-location of all mission critical data (instead of being spread around a number of diverse server systems) and the ability to manage that data effectively for disaster recovery and business continuity service provision. Experienced SAN administrators are required to manage the storage, but there are associated manpower savings elsewhere (e.g. managing the backup of a diverse set of servers, each with their own mission critical data).

A SAN is only part of what Fujitsu-Siemens Computers are calling the dynamic data centre, moving away from the traditional silos of resource capability.

Processor area networking (PAN) extends takes the SAN storage concept and applies it to the processing capacity provided for data centre systems.

So, taking the e-mail server example further, it is unlikely that all of an organisation’s e-mail would be placed on a single server and as the company grows (organically or by acquisition), additional capacity will be required. Traditionally, each server would be specified with spare capacity (within the finite constraints of the number of concurrent connections that can be supported) and over time, new servers would be added to handle the growth. In an ideal world, mailboxes would be spread across a farm of inexpensive servers, rapidly bringing new capacity online and moving mailboxes between servers to marry demand with supply.

Many administrators will acknowledge that servers typically only average 20% utilisation and by removing all input/output (I/O) capabilities from the server, diskless processing units can be provided (effectively blade servers). These servers are connected to control blades which manage the processing area network, diverting I/O to the SAN or the network as appropriate.

Using such an infrastructure in a data centre, along with middleware (to provide virtualisation, automation and integration technologies) it is possible to move away from silos of resource and be completely flexible about how services are allocated to servers, responding to peaks in demand (acknowledging that there will always be requirements for separation by business criticality or security).

Egenera‘s BladeFrame technology is one implementation of processor area networking and last week, Fujitsu-Siemens Computers and Egenera announced an EMEA-wide deal to integrate Egenera Bladeframe technology with Fujitsu-Siemens servers.

I get the feeling that processor area networking will be an interesting technology area to watch. With virtualisation rapidly becoming accepted as an approach for flexible server provision (and not just for test and development environments), the PAN approach is a logical extension to this and it’s only a matter of time before PANs become as common as SANs are in today’s data centres.

The new interface for Office 12

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Having just said that Microsoft needs to be better at innovating if it is to survive another 30 years in business, it seems that the next version of Microsoft Office has surprised everyone with a new, simplified user interface that removes much of the toolbar clutter. The press release includes screenshots for Office 12 core applications as well as a description of why Microsoft made the changes (there’s also a review of the interface on Office Watch).

I laughed when I read the comments about the new interface on Mark Harrison’s blog (which I was alerted to by Rory) – one which says “I hope [Microsoft] makes it easy for me to put things back the way I want” and another (from Mark) saying “[let’s] have a dinosaur button to revert… to [the] old UI”! Could this be another case where Microsoft are forced to provide a “classic” interface to please those who don’t want to move with the times? The press release indicates that there are no plans to do so at present that doesn’t mean things won’t change before the product is released and whilst I appreciate that from a user familiarity perspective, many organisations will be reluctant to change (as there will be an associated training cost), the current UI has evolved over many years and is far too complex.

Interestingly, Microsoft say that this only applies to their authoring applications – Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Access and parts of Outlook. Traditional menus and toolbars will still be used in many areas of the Office suite.

I can’t wait to see what they do to Outlook.

Happy Birthday Microsoft

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Microsoft turns 30 today. We tend to associate Information Technology (IT) with a rapidly expanding market of young start-up companies but whilst it is nothing compared to the global giants IBM, Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Fujitsu, 30 years is significant.

Microsoft has become ubiquitous – largely through its Windows operating system and Office productivity suite, but recently (and somewhat worryingly for someone who makes a living architecting solutions based on Microsoft technology), Microsoft has been drifting and MSFT stock prices (which were once rising at astronomical levels, splitting nine times between the company’s IPO in 1986 and 2003) have been virtually static in recent years leading to a number of reports suggesting that the company has lost its way. Maybe it was because Bill Gates stepped down as CEO, maybe it was just the sheer size of the giant, which employs almost 60,000 staff in 100 countries and had annual revenues of $39.75bn in 2004/5 (up 8% on 2003/4), generating profits of $12.25bn (up 50%).

On the surface, these figures look great – 8% growth and 50% increase in profits. But a look at the figures for the last 10 years shows that growth has slowed from 49% in 1995/6.

The trouble is that Microsoft has been losing ground to young upstarts like Google (mission: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”). Let’s face it, it was Microsoft that was the young upstart when Bill Gates and Paul Allen persuaded IBM to make MS-DOS the operating system for the first PC in 1981 (ousting CP/M). After being slow to embrace the Internet and a series of legal wrangles (some justified, others not), Microsoft was also late to embrace search technologies, whereas the current industry darling dominates with 36.5% of the web search market.

It didn’t help that for a period between 1995 and 2001, the flagship product (Windows) was split between the (unreliable and insecure) Windows 95, 98 and ME product line and the expensive business version, Windows NT (later Windows 2000). Since Microsoft finally converged the two product lines with the launch of Windows XP (which is still based on the Windows NT kernel) there has been a push towards delivery of a trustworthy computing platform, and despite its critics, I think Microsoft generally does pretty well there. If you have the largest market share you will get attacked my malware writers – that means Microsoft for PC operating systems and Nokia for mobile handsets!

The trouble is that since Windows 2000 and XP sorted out the security issues, operating system upgrades have been a little dull, with limited innovation. It doesn’t help that any bundling of middleware seems to result in a lengthy courtroom battle but without innovation, there is no reason for consumers to upgrade, and in the business market, where IT is a business tool (not the business itself), IT Managers are under pressure to reduce costs through standardisation. That often means standing still for as long as possible.

I really hope that Windows Vista/Longhorn and Office 12 are not the death of Microsoft. Microsoft’s mission is “enabling people and businesses to realize their full potential” and this week, in an attempt to realise its own potential, a massive re-organisation was announced, with the aim of making the giant more dynamic (and hence able to respond to the industry – let’s face it, Microsoft has never been the innovator but it is very good at marketing other people’s ideas and making them work – even MS-DOS was licensed from Seattle Computer Products). Maybe the new organisation will help the timely delivery of products but it’s amazing how the rising fortunes of the Mozilla Foundation’s Firefox browser has focused Microsoft on delivering a new version of Internet Explorer after years of poor standards compliance) with very few new features and how the desktop search functionality provided by Google (and others) has focused Microsoft’s attention in this space (even if the current MSN Search strategy appears to be failing). Maybe increased competition in the operating system market (come on Apple, give us OS X for the PC – not just Intel-based Macs, which are really just Apple PCs and could also run Windows…) in the shape of the major Linux distributions (Red Hat and Novell SuSE) or free UNIX distributions like the x86 version of Sun Solaris will focus the giant on delivering great new features for Windows.

Microsoft was built on a dream of “a computer on every desk and in every home”. Despite all of the negative publicity that Microsoft tends to attract, it seems to me that (at least in the “developed” world) this dream has largely been realised. Let’s see what the next 30 years brings.

Music on the road – plug your iPod into your veedub via USB

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Readers of this blog will be aware that I am a great fan of my iPod Mini (even if I do think Apple is a touch monopolistic in the digital media market). I also like Volkswagen cars. Last year my wife and I bought a Polo; I’ve had a few Golfs (one Mk II and a couple of Mk IVs); until recently I drove a 2004 Passat Estate 1.9TDI 130PS Highline (which I really liked); and I would love to own a 1960s Microbus (or even the 21st Century Microbus if it ever makes it to market).

My new employer’s car scheme doesn’t include Volkswagen so I have a Saab 9-3 SportWagon on order and as I mentioned in my recent post about the iPod Nano, it has a 3.5mm jack for connecting an MP3 player to the audio system which should come in very handy.

Now Volkswagen have gone one better and soon all of their new cars will offer a stereo system with iPod connectivity. Paul Thurrott reports that this will let “users manage the music on an iPod or other portable audio player through the stereo’s controls and display. The devices will plug into the car through a standard USB [connection], which virtually all MP3 players and portable storage devices use these days. Apple’s iPod is specifically supported with a special menu, but any USB-based device will work”.

Could this signal the death of the in-car CD-player?

Wikimedia

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

I often link to Wikipedia as I think it’s one of the best “for further reading” information sources on the Internet; however today I stumbled across Wiktionary – a sister project which provides a online dictionary and thesaurus (although I must confess that at the time of writing the thesaurus category is currently slightly limited and I do tend to use Microsoft Word for that feature).

I think that the wiki paradigm has a tremendous potential for information sharing (one which many companies seem totally blind to at present) and it turns out that the Wikimedia Foundation has a whole load of similar open content projects.

I’ll end this post with something I picked up from Wikiquote:

“I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones”.

[Linus Torvalds (at the 1991 launch of his Linux operating system)]

Apologies for the recent lack of blog posts

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

I few minutes back I published some rules for blogging and one of the guidance notes was to post regularly. That particular guidance could be interpreted a number of ways (once a week; daily; fast and frequent; or just whenever there is time) and this blog tends to fall into the latter category but even so, regular readers might have noticed the output level drop recently. This is down to a number of things including a recent holiday; returning to work to find a greatly increased workload; and a 10-month old son with a cold (the result of which is a lack of sleep for his parents, directly impacting upon my desire to spend my evenings writing blog posts, even if it does seem to be affecting my Google PageRank).

Even if the quantity of posts has dropped slightly, I hope the quality is still there, so if you keep reading, I’ll keep blogging (but it might sometimes be a few days between posts).

Before I sign off, thanks to everyone who has left a comment against a post. As I highlighted recently when I added the rules for comments, I don’t have time to respond to every request for help; however, I do read all of the comments and it’s always good to hear when something I’ve written has been useful for someone else out there in cyberspace.

Rules for blogging…

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Back in February, I blogged about the dangers of blogging without your employer’s consent. My current employer does not appear to support blogging as an information sharing tool; however when I joined the company I asked if there were any specific guidelines regarding blogging other than the confidentially obligations as part of my employment terms and conditions (i.e. is it specifically prohibited). No response suggests to me that a) there are no specific guidelines and b) it is not specifically prohibited.

As my original post suggested, such grey areas can be problematic and as my blog seems to be building a reasonable following now, I’m reluctant to stop. For any IT (or PR) managers out there who want to allow blogging but are unsure how to keep it in check, below are some guidelines (reused with permission) from a previous employer:

Policy, guidelines and instructions for using blogs.company.com

This page includes policy, guidelines and instructions for using blogs.company.com

General Rules:

  • Take care not to disclose any other information that is confidential or proprietary to company or to any other third party, including project and client names. Consult the blogmaster if you are unsure.
  • Since blogs.company.com is a public space, please be as respectful to the company, our employees, our customers, our partners and affiliates, and others (including our competitors).
  • Be especially careful about releasing partner information which is covered by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Again, if in doubt ask.
  • No profanity, no politics, no personal information.
  • We may ask you to stop if we believe it is necessary or advisable to ensure compliance with securities regulations or other laws.
  • Company reserves the right to remove any information which it believes contravenes these rules, any laws, our customer and partner relationships and agreements or shows us in an unfavourable light.

Guidance:

  • Be passionate about what you write, or don’t write it!
  • Publish as fact only that which you know to be true.
  • If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
  • Publicly correct any misinformation.
  • Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
  • Disclose any conflict of interest.
  • Note questionable and biased sources.
  • Post regularly; even if this is only once a month. Quality is better then quantity.
  • Don’t post too quickly. Take your time; spell and grammar check.
  • Once you start, don’t stop.
  • Keep it relevant.
  • Measure your effectiveness by seeing who is linking to you and who is visiting.
  • Monitor other blogs.

Guidelines for accessibility:

  • Do not use in-line font formatting – colour, size, etc. All control of font and paragraph styles should be done in the style sheet. If you are pasting formatted text in from elsewhere, go to the HTML tab and strip out any <font> tags.
  • All images must have an alt attribute. If the image is there just to look pretty, you may set the tag to null (i.e. alt=""); if however, the image has meaning (e.g. it’s a header or is not described in the text) then the tag must be descriptive. If in Internet Explorer (IE) you want to suppress the alt attribute from being displayed as a tool tip on mouse hover, simply set the title attribute to null which will override the alt text.
  • Do not use colour alone to communicate something.
  • Do not use the same text to refer to different resources on the same page (e.g. “Click here for more” at the end of every paragraph) and furthermore, make sure the link text makes sense when taken out of context (e.g. “Click here for more about .NET”).
  • Use ‘proper’ XHTML in the way it was intended to be used – i.e. don’t use markup that is intended to communicate structure for formatting. If you want something to be big and bold, don’t use the <h1> tag unless it really is a heading. Similarly if you want something to be italicised and indented, don’t use <blockquote> unless the text really is a quote. If something is a list, use the list tags to format it. Finally, use <p> to mark paragraphs, and not <br />.

For more information contact blogmaster@company.com.

iPod Nano – I want one!!!

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

A few months back I bought an iPod Mini and became an iTunes convert! Now Apple have replaced the iPod Mini with a similar (but pencil-thin), flash-based device (presumably because the miniature hard drives were sometimes hard to get hold of in sufficient numbers) called the iPod Nano. Like recent full-size iPods, the Nano has a colour screen for viewing album artwork and as my new company car has a 3.5mm jack for MP3 player input to the audio system I won’t need my iTrip any more…

The trouble is, it’s really hard to justify replacing one excellent (nearly new) device with another one that’s functionally similar but smaller and with a colour display (oh yes, and just as expensive). Maybe one day they’ll be able to bring a 60Gb flash-based iPod to market (that I could fit all of my music on) for about £100. Now that would be cool.

10,000 feet view of Microsoft Active Directory

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

Non-technical colleagues, and friends who work with Microsoft products but outside of a corporate environment often ask me “what is Active Directory” (AD). As I’ve blogged a few 10,000 feet views of Microsoft technologies, I thought I’d produce one for AD.

At the Microsoft Technical Roadshow event last May, Paul Brombley (a messaging technology specialist for Microsoft UK) gave a presentation on Exchange and the Active Directory which included an “AD 101”. As I thought it was an excellent overview I haven’t re-invented the wheel and the following is taken from my notes from that presentation, with a few items added from my own experience.

Active Directory is basically a distributed database. It is hierarchical, with a permissions model, includes a common set of objects and is integrated with Windows Security as the primary means of authentication (and hence authorisation).

AD makes use of DNS as a name service. AD cannot be implemented without DNS although it does not require a Microsoft DNS service – in fact, any DNS server supporting SRV records (RFC 2782) and dynamic DNS updates (RFC 2136) can be used to support Active Directory although there are advantages to using the Windows DNS Server (e.g. AD-integrated DNS zones).

This reliance on DNS is apparent when the logical structure of AD is examined. As for Windows NT, domains can be linked using trust relationships. The main differences with AD are that instead of using NetBIOS names, DNS is the naming service for AD domain (with NetBIOS and WINS only supported for legacy purposes) and that default trusts are two-way transitive Kerberos trusts.

Each AD server is called a domain controller (DC) and all DCs can authenticate users.

Each domain must have at least one DC. One or more domains sharing a common schema are referred to as a forest. If these domains also have a contiguous namespace then they are called a tree, and each forest may contain multiple trees; however the first domain in the forest is always the forest root domain. These concepts are illustrated in the Windows 2000 Advanced Server help documentation: understanding domain trees and forests.

DCs replicate data using a multiple master model (although there are five roles known as operations masters, or FSMOs, which dictate the master server for certain operations at domain or forest level – for more information, see Daniel Petri’s description of the FSMO roles).

There are four naming contexts (NCs) which make up AD:

  • The schema NC contains a schema of object definitions. This is common throughout the entire directory and can be changed by a domain administrator running with local system privileges – hence the reason why a forest is a security boundary and not a domain (as is commonly misconceived). The schema NC is replicated between all domain controllers.
  • The configuration NC contains details of the replication technologies, domains and servers. This is replicated to all DCs within a forest.
  • The domain NC contains objects such as users, groups and contacts. This is replicated to all DCs within a domain; however a DC can also have an additional role of a global catalog (GC) server. The GC is a subset of each domain NC in the forest, merged to form a single view of the objects in the directory (albeit without all attributes). Applications such as Microsoft Exchange make heavy use of GC servers, e.g. to create a global address list.
  • The application NC is new to Windows Server 2003 AD and contains volatile application information. This is held on specific DCs within the forest.

An AD site is a group of servers with good connectivity (generally LAN connected). A site can span domains and a domain can cross a number of sites.

In addition to my earlier post on new features in Windows Server 2003 AD include:

  • Schema deactivation, whereby certain attributes (not those added by Exchange) can be blanked out (although they are not deleted and remain present in the database).
  • Group membership replication improvements, whereby only deltas are replicated (with Windows 2000 sometimes the replication took longer than the 15 minute replication interval).
  • Domain renaming (with restrictions).
  • Application naming context (discussed above).

(Some of these features require the domain or forest to be running at Windows Server 2003 domain or forest functional level).

So, that’s AD in a nutshell. For further reading, check out Microsoft’s Windows Server 2003 Active Directory pages or Active Directory forestry: investigating and managing objects and attributes for Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003 by John Craddock and Sally Storey.

Comparing Intel processors

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 20 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

I’ve spent most of today comparing a variety of PC workstation specifications from various manufacturers. This isn’t normally a level of detail I get involved in so I found the Intel processor product numbers information particularly useful for comparing features between the various CPU types, particularly the discover processor technologies multimedia presentation.