Google Ads
Twitter

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Search
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Friday
    Aug082008

    Living Data Center, Skanska's Tool

    A great book to read to think about Green Data Center principles is The Living Company. It has 5 stars from 21 customer reviews on amazon.com

    Here is an excerpt from a BusinessWeek post.

    After all of our detective work, we found four key factors in common:

    1. Long-lived companies were sensitive to their environment. Whether they had built their fortunes on knowledge (such as DuPont's technological innovations) or on natural resources (such as the Hudson Bay Company's access to the furs of Canadian forests), they remained in harmony with the world around them. As wars, depressions, technologies, and political changes surged and ebbed around them, they always seemed to excel at keeping their feelers out, tuned to what-ever was going on around them. They did this, it seemed, de-spite the fact that in the past there were little data available, let alone the communications facilities to give them a global view of the business environment. They sometimes had to rely for information on packets carried over vast distances by portage and ship. Moreover, societal considerations were rarely given prominence in the deliberations of company boards. Yet they managed to react in timely fashion to the conditions of society around them.

    2. Long-lived companies were cohesive, with a strong sense of identity. No matter how widely diversified they were, their employees (and even their suppliers, at times) felt they were all part of one entity. One company, Unilever, saw itself as a fleet of ships, each ship independent, yet the whole fleet stronger than the sum of its parts. This sense of belonging to an organization and being able to identify with its achievements can easily be dismissed as a "soft" or abstract feature of change. But case histories repeatedly showed that strong employee links were essential for survival amid change. This cohesion around the idea of "community" meant that managers were typically chosen for advancement from within; they succeeded through the generational flow of members and considered themselves stewards of the longstanding enterprise. Each management generation was only a link in a long chain. Except during conditions of crisis, the management's top priority and concern was the health of the institution as a whole.

    3. Long-lived companies were tolerant. At first, when we wrote our Shell report, we called this point "decentralization." Long-lived companies, as we pointed out, generally avoided exercising any centralized control over attempts to diversify the company. Later, when I considered our research again, I realized that seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century managers would never have used the word decentralized; it was a twentieth-century invention. In what terms, then, would they have thought about their own company policies? As I studied the histories, I kept returning to the idea of "tolerance." These companies were particularly tolerant of activities on the margin: outliers, experiments, and eccentricities within the boundaries of the cohesive firm, which kept stretching their understanding of possibilities.

    4. Long-lived companies were conservative in financing. They were frugal and did not risk their capital gratuitously. They understood the meaning of money in an old-fashioned way; they knew the usefulness of having spare cash in the kitty. Having money in hand gave them flexibility and independence of action. They could pursue options that their competitors could not. They could grasp opportunities without first having to convince third-party financiers of their attractiveness.

    I've been meaning to write about some of these ideas and yesterday at Data Center Dynamics Seattle, I met Jakob Carnemark from Skanska who embraces these ideas with tools they are developing for the Green Data Center by enabling the Living Data Center in the same principles used in "The Living Company".

    Skanska's approach of continuous process improvement fits what I have written in the past on being Green is not a binary decision, but a commitment.

    I am going to follow up with Jakob to get more details on how they create metrics, monitoring and modeling. His 3M's vs my M3 (monitoring, metering, managing).

    Click to read more ...

    Friday
    Aug082008

    Blogging Tip, Adding a Stock Quote Reference Increases Probability to Get Listed in finance.google.com

    In today's post http://www.greenm3.com/2008/08/vmwares-hidden.html, discussing VMware's Hidden Competition Executive, I purposely added the stock link to VMW in my post,

    One friend said Charles joined Pi Corp, Paul Maritz’s company one week before it was acquired by EMC, reporting directly to Paul. Charles had to have known he was joining EMC’s cloud computing efforts, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he know at the time that there were plans to make big changes at VMware (NYSE: VMW) like Paul’s CEO role.

    I write the Green Data Center blog as my own research notebook, and it is more efficient for me to share ideas with friends than writing emails. About twice a month I am running into friends who are thinking about blogs and can use help getting started.  I am going to start adding to my blog, tips for bloggers.

    I did this knowing I would get index'd by google finance's blog search in http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:VMW 

    image 

    This popped me up to #1 in blog posts for VMW.

    image

    I can see the click stats in TypePad's tools.

    image

    Now let me preface this with I have been blogging for a 10 months on Green Data Center, and I have been watching carefully how well my posts get index'd. One of the interesting Google Webmaster tools shows I get a high search click for "microsoft + mike"

    image

    Showing up #4 is my blog with Microsoft's Mike Manos.  I have no idea what Microsoft Mike people are searching for, but the fact I show up #4 feels weird.

    Another strange one is I beat Dell in Google search for Dell XS23. Maybe I need to get the Dell guys to post a banner ad on my site.  :-)

    image

    Click to read more ...

    Friday
    Aug082008

    VMWare’s Hidden Competition Strategy Executive, Charles Fitzgerald

    This week was a lot of face to face networking and not much time on the Internet and blogging. One of the nuggets of data found is what happened to Microsoft’s Charles Fitzgerald, a general manager who was a big thinker in planning Microsoft’s competitive strategy. As Mary Jo Foley writes.

    Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft’s General Manager of Platform Strategy, is leaving the company to join a startup.

    Fitzgerald was Microsoft’s primary spokesperson for Microsoft Java back in 1996. Ever since, he’s been helping Microsoft position itself against its enterprise competitors. On Fitzgerald’s Platformonomics blog, he skewered regularly IBM, Sun, Oracle, Google and other Microsoft competitors.

    Most recently, Fitzgerald was focused on explaining Microsoft’s Software+Services strategy to the press and analyst masses. While he was mostly a behind-the-scenes strategist, Microsoft trotted out Fitzgerald whenever the company needed to justify a new strategy/product plan or set the big-picture scene for company critics.

    Microsoft officials confirmed that Fitzgerald will be leaving Microsoft “shortly” and declined to name the startup he will be joining. I e-mailed Fitzgerald, asking him about his decision to leave Microsoft. If and when he responds (not holding my breath here), I’ll add his comments.

    One friend said Charles joined Pi Corp, Paul Maritz’s company one week before it was acquired by EMC, reporting directly to Paul. Charles had to have known he was joining EMC’s cloud computing efforts, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he know at the time that there were plans to make big changes at VMware (NYSE: VMW) like Paul’s CEO role.

    Add up Charles Platform Strategy skills, his lack of visibility to the external world, and VMware’s changes, I place bets he is Paul Martiz’s Competition Strategy Executive. Paul Maritz’s public statements of having no fear of competing against Microsoft is backed by a trusted executive he has planning the strategy.

    How good is Paul Maritz?  Valleywag has a post.

    Once a high-flyer at Microsoft, Maritz was ousted in one of the software giant's typically obscure internecine battles back in 2000. Since then, he's quietly stewed in exile, starting a small software company which was bought by EMC, VMware's parent.

    A lucky break for EMC to have Maritz on its bench. Ignore his cuddly-programmer looks; he is fearsome, and deservedly hated by enemies. Antitrust superlawyer David Boies couldn't make a dent in Maritz's armor when the executive took the stand in Microsoft's 1990s antitrust trial. VMware is up for a bruising battle with Microsoft for its software niche, which involves tools to let a computer server act like several separate ones — but I'm thinking Microsoft is the one we should feel sorry for.

    Maritz's generation of leaders has mostly retired at Microsoft, yet most of their replacements' freshly scrubbed faces are still familiar to him. He knows all of Microsoft's dirty tricks, and he will enjoy serving them back at the young ones he once taught them to. This will be fun.

    Take 2 executives who were frustrated at Microsoft and put them together in an opportunity to compete, and watch out.  Microsoft now not only has to compete on technical and marketing with VMware, they need to compete against their executive team on strategy.

    I’ve searched for Charles’s presence in VMware, but he is hidden which means either he is busy inside VMware or my facts are wrong. If I had to place a bet, Charles is staying under the radar not telling anyone what he is planning at VMware.

    Update 9:19a, Aug 7, 2008.

    I missed Mary Jo’s post that had the tip of Charles at PiCorp.

    According to a few different sources who asked not to be named, Maritz has hired Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft’s former head of Platform Strategy, to work at Smart Desktop, a division of Martiz’s Pi Corp.

    Fitzgerald resigned from Microsoft in January 2008 and neither Microsoft nor Fitzgerald himself would comment on where he was going.

    (I tried contacting Smart Desktop to see if Fitzgerald was hired, to no avail. I also tried e-mailing Fitzgerald, but so far, no reply.)

    Click to read more ...

    Wednesday
    Aug062008

    Apple’s MobileMe, a Black Data Center (not Green)

    There is a bunch of news about Apple’s MobileMe service and Steve Job’s email - http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=apple+mobileme

    The actual Steve Jobs email is published here.

    GigaOm has some interesting background check which shows how Apple’s MobileMe service exhibits the characteristics of a Black Data Center.  Not even close to being a Green Data Center which means Apple’s costs are high for their services compared to their competitors.

    I have picked up some tidbits from my Internet infrastructure sources, who tell me that:

    • There is no-unified IT plan vis-a-vis applications; each has their own set of servers, IT practices and release scenarios.
    • Developers do testing, load testing and infrastructure planning, all of which is implemented by someone else.
    • There’s no unified monitoring system.
    • They use Oracle on Sun servers for the databases and everything has its own SAN storage. They do not use active Oracle RAC; it is all single-instance, on one box, with a secondary failover.
    • Apparently they are putting web servers and app servers on the same machines, which causes performance problems.

    One of my sources opined that Apple clearly wasn’t too savvy about all the progress made in infrastructure over the past few years. If this insinuation is indeed true, then there is no way Apple can get over its current spate of problems. It needs a crash course in infrastructure and Internet services. Apple’s problem is that it doesn’t seem to have recognized the fact that it’s in the business of network-enabled hardware.

    The looks, UI and edge devices are only as good as the networking experience — whether it comes from Apple or from its partners. MobileMe could just be the canary in the coal mine as far as the Cupertino Kingdom is concerned. MobileMe isn’t that big a portion of their revenues right now, but what happens when the problems hit the iTunes store? Imagine the uproar when your 3G connections slow to a crawl because AT&T’s wireless backhaul can’t handle the traffic surge.

    These are all the indicators of inefficient data center. I am not surprised by this as why would a great Infrastructure Architect work at Apple? Apple’s DNA is about iPhone, Mac OSX, Aperture, Final Cut Pro.  IT infrastructure isn’t a credible skill.

    My Lesson’s from Apple

    It’s been 16 years since I left Apple, and had a great time working on System 7 and Mac products, but had lost track of Apple colleagues. Due to my Staycation/Backyard Beach House, I had an Apple friend track me down and found there are a bunch of the people who I worked with on System 7 are back at Apple. Which could go to explain how Apple is doing better than Microsoft in OS development – Apple has a bunch of wise, experienced, and older managers who lived through the pains of OS development.

    Working on OS’s for all those years at Apple and Microsoft taught me many lessons, and one key lesson I learned from Apple working on System 7 is the dangers of telling everybody “this is the OS we will innovative and we need to make big changes.”  System 7 had aspirations for features like a new graphics model and print model.  But how do you print some of the new graphics? How do legacy apps work with the new graphics model? Do developers/SW developers want a new graphics model? Apple eventually dropped the new graphics and print models as they didn’t work, but the pressure to be innovative was huge as that was what everyone else was doing. 12 years later at Microsoft, after finishing work on Windows XP leading a team, another group wanted to take over my group’s function for longhorn/Windows Vista, I gladly gave up the function as I knew Windows Vista was repeating the mistake of innovating the whole OS (Apple’s System 7).  I never ran Vista for the next 5 years as I knew it would be a pain, and only tried it last year when I got a new laptop.

    As the Steve Jobs’ letter points out.

    – Rather than launch MobileMe as a monolithic service, we could have launched over-the-air syncing with iPhone to begin with, followed by the web applications one by one – Mail first, followed 30 days later (if things went well with Mail) by Calendar, then 30 days later by Contacts.

    Trying to get everything to work in a complex service is a difficult path which makes failure a high probability.  Imagine what Windows Vista had been like if Microsoft released features in phases, measuring the success of features based on the downloads and activation.  Base the dev teams bonus on use metrics.  It’s game changing, and flies in the face of the status quo. I like it!

    Click to read more ...

    Tuesday
    Aug052008

    Microsoft's Christian Belady, "Energy Efficiency is More a Behavior Problem, not a Technical one"

    Christian Belady has his posted on Changing Data Center Behavior Based on Chargeback Metrics. Here is the main point and results from the post.

    Changing the Charging Model

    In my presentation, I described how Microsoft now charges for data center services based on a function of kW used. If someone upgrades to a high-density blade server, they do not reduce their costs unless they also save power. This change created a significant shift in thinking among our customers, together with quite a bit of initial confusion, requiring us to answer the stock question “You’re charging for WHAT?” with “No, we’re charging for WATTS!”

    Recording the Changes

    From our perspective, our charging model is now more closely aligned with our costs. By getting our customers to consider the power that they use rather than space, then power efficiency becomes their guiding light. This new charging model has already resulted in the following changes:

    • Optimizing the data center design
      • Implement best practices to increase power efficiency.
      • Adopt newer, more power efficient technologies.
      • Optimize code for reduced load on hard disks and processors.
      • Engineer the data center to reduce power consumption.
    • Sizing equipment correctly
      • Drive to eliminate Stranded Compute by:
        • Increase utilization by using virtualization and power management technologies.
        • Selecting servers based on application throughput per watt.
        • Right sizing the number of processor cores and memory chips for the application needs.
      • Drive to eliminate stranded power and cooling—ensure that the total capacity of the data center is used. Another name for this is data center utilization and it means that you better be using all of your power capacity before you build your next data center. Otherwise, why did you have the extra power or cooling capacity in the first place...these are all costs you didn’t need.

    I will be discussing the concepts of stranded compute, power, and cooling in greater detail in later posts.

    Christian predicts electricity based chargebacks will change the behavior of the industry to think in terms of processing capability per kilowatt used.

    Moving the Goalposts

    I think it will take quite a bit of time for manufacturers to realize that the goalposts have moved. At present, it is quite difficult to get the answer to questions such as “What is the processing capacity of your servers per kilowatt of electricity used?” However, I do believe this change will come, which will drive rapid innovation along an entirely different vector, where system builders compete to create the most energy efficient designs. The benchmarking body, SPEC, has already started down this path with their SPECpower benchmark, but this needs to be done with applications.

    Click to read more ...