Year

ITIC 2014 Reliability Survey: IBM Servers Most Reliable for Sixth Straight Year, Cisco UCS Comes on Strong, HP Reliability Rebounds

For the sixth year in a row, corporate enterprise users said IBM server hardware delivered the highest levels of reliability/uptime among 14 server hardware and 11 different server hardware virtualization platforms. A 58% majority of IBM servers achieved “five nines” or 99.999% availability – the equivalent of 5.25 minutes of unplanned per server downtime compared to 46% of Hewlett-Packard servers and 40% of Oracle server hardware.

Those are the results of the latest independent ITIC 2014 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability Survey which polled C-level executives and IT managers at over 600 organizations worldwide during March and April 2014.

The survey results showed that the overall reliability HP’s servers increased significantly in 2014 compared to the 2012 and 2013 polls and surpassing the uptime of rival Oracle servers which remained the same or declined slightly compared to prior polls. Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) servers, which appeared for the first time in this year’s ITIC Reliability poll, made a very strong showing, posting uptime equal to or better than HP (depending on the category) and bested only by IBM server reliability. Half – 50% – of Cisco UCS server hardware users said they achieved 99.999% of per server/per annum availability. …

ITIC 2014 Reliability Survey: IBM Servers Most Reliable for Sixth Straight Year, Cisco UCS Comes on Strong, HP Reliability Rebounds Read More »

IBM Offers Rock Solid Reliability, Best in Class Server Performance

Big Blue Hardware is Rock Solid

IBM hardware retains its status as being best in class in terms of reliability, stability and performance and customer satisfaction. IBM’s System z mainframes recorded the least amount of downtime of any hardware platform. In the server hardware category systems with relatively small market shares, including Stratus Technologies ftServer 6300 and 4500 series and Fujitsu’s Primequest and Primergy Servers continue to score very high reliability.

Stratus Technologies of Maynard, MA offers Intel Xeon-based systems with mainframe-like fault tolerance and reliability with 99.999 % reliability. The Fujitsu Primergy and Fujitsu SPARC systems similarly deliver a high level of reliability and fault tolerance with 48% of reporting 99.999% or just over five minutes of per server/ per annum downtime due to unplanned outages.

The length and severity of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 unplanned outages and the patching actions related to each correspond to specific line item capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) costs for the business. Reliability, measured by downtime, can positively or negatively impact TCO and accelerate or delay ROI. …

IBM Offers Rock Solid Reliability, Best in Class Server Performance Read More »

Human Error, IT Staff Shortages and Aging Hardware Undercut Reliability

To reiterate, ITIC’s fifth annual reliability survey results indicate that the inherent reliability and uptime of nearly all of the 14 major server hardware and 18 server operating system distributions continues to improve. But at the same time, user error is becoming more of a factor undercutting overall reliability.

This is based on technical advances in the underlying processor technology from companies like Intel Corp. and Advanced Micro Devices, memory and disk technology, as well as improvements to the core server hardware and server OSs that improve performance, scalability, security and the ability to support heavier workloads.

As organizations strive to accomplish more with fewer resources, IT departments must rely even more heavily on their vendors to deliver more reliable servers and server OS platforms and top notch technical support in the form of regular patches and documentation. …

Human Error, IT Staff Shortages and Aging Hardware Undercut Reliability Read More »

Security is Imperative for BYOD, Mobile Deployments

Nearly two-thirds of businesses – 62% — now allow their end users to “bring their own devices (BYOD)” and use them as their corporate desktops or mobile devices to access organizational data including Email, applications and sensitive data. However, 71% of businesses that allow BYOD, have no specific policies and procedures in place to support BYOD deployment and ensure security.

That’s according to the latest independent joint survey conducted by ITIC and KnowBe4.com, a Clearwater, Florida company that specializes in security awareness training. The ITIC/KnowBe4.com survey, polled 550 companies worldwide in July and August. The survey survey found that only 13% of respondents said their firms have specific policies in place to deal with BYOD deployments, while another nine percent indicated they were in the process of developing BYOD procedures.

“These survey findings should act as a wake-up call to galvanize corporations into proactively managing and securing corporate data accessed by mobile BYOD devices before they suffer an expensive and potentially crippling loss or hack,” said ITIC principal analyst Laura DiDio. She continued, “Every firm regardless of size should conduct a risk assessment review and adopt strong security and management policies to deal with increasingly mobile BYOD deployments.” …

Security is Imperative for BYOD, Mobile Deployments Read More »

IBM Powers Up New PowerLinux Products, Strategy

IBM this week unveiled its latest generation of industry standard Linux-only servers optimized for its Power architecture along with a new strategy targeting specific x86 applications and workloads.

IBM has been a longtime Linux proponent, supporting industry standard distributions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and SUSE Linux Enterprise – on its Power Systems line for the last 12 years. This week’s announcement reaffirms Big Blue’s commitment to Linux and broadens its scope with offerings designed to drive more growth for the Power platform in the lucrative x86 arena. IBM will fuel this growth via its mantra, “Tuned to the task,” which emphasizes delivering higher quality and superior economics than rivals.

According to Scott Handy, vice president of IBM’s PowerLinux Strategy and Business Development, “This is an extension to our overall Power strategy to address the Linux x86 space and drive more growth for our Power Systems servers.” …

IBM Powers Up New PowerLinux Products, Strategy Read More »

National Advertising Council Tells Oracle to Discontinue Misleading IBM Ads

The always heated ongoing rivalry between Oracle and IBM, just got more contentious, with the recent news that the National Advertising Division (NAD) has called out Oracle for publishing misleading ads in The Wall Street Journal and The Economist claiming Oracle’s T4-4 server is 2x faster and 66% cheaper than IBM’s comparable P795 server.

NAD, a division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, based in New York City recommended that Oracle discontinue “certain comparative performance and pricing claims” in the national newspaper ads and on the www.Oracle.com website. Specifically, the NAD took exception to Oracle advertisements claim that “Oracle’s SPARC SuperCluster T4-4 system retails for $1.2 million whereas IBM’s P795 high end server costs $4.5 million – an improbable $3.3 million price discrepancy.

The NAD functions as an objective and impartial self-regulatory forum for the advertising industry. In its official determination, the NAD took pains to remain objective. It noted that both the advertiser (Oracle) and the challenger (IBM) produce high quality computer systems. …

National Advertising Council Tells Oracle to Discontinue Misleading IBM Ads Read More »

IBM STG Group Posts Positive Gains, Offers Strong Strategy & Growth Roadmap

Vendor sponsored Analyst conferences are oftentimes long on self-congratulatory hyperbole and short on substance. That wasn’t the case with IBM’s Systems and Technology Group Analyst conference held last week in Rye Brook, NY.

The STG conference, led by Rod Adkins, Senior Vice President of the STG Group, showcased the division’s solid accomplishments over the last several years and detailed the current and future product roadmap and investment strategy. Investments focused around three major areas: Systems, growth markets and strategic acquisitions. Adkins could have easily added a fourth category: patents. The U.S. Patent Office granted IBM’s STG division 2,680 patents in 2010 and it could exceed that number in 2011. One only has to scan the headlines and peruse the ongoing patent purchasing frenzy and the plethora of lawsuits involving all of the major vendors to realize the pivotal role patents play as both and offensive and defensive weapon. IBM, in its Centenary year, holds more patents than any other U.S. technology vendor.

STG 2011 Milestones

Noting that STG is aligned with IBM’s overall growth strategy, Adkins detailed the division’s milestones throughout the first three quarters in 2011. They included: …

IBM STG Group Posts Positive Gains, Offers Strong Strategy & Growth Roadmap Read More »

SQL Server Most Secure Database; Oracle Least Secure Database Since 2002

Ask any 10 qualified people to guess which of the major database platforms is the most secure and chances are at least half would say Oracle. That is incorrect.

The correct answer is Microsoft’s SQL Server. In fact, the Oracle database has recorded the most number of security vulnerabilities of any of the major database platforms over the last eight years.

This is not a subjective statement. The data comes directly from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Since 2002, Microsoft’s SQL Server has compiled an enviable record. It is the most secure of any of the major database platforms. SQL Server has recorded the fewest number of reported vulnerabilities — just 49 from 2002 through June 2010 — of any database. These statistics were compiled independently by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency that monitors security vulnerabilities by technology, vendor, and product (see Exhibit 1). So far in 2010, through June, SQL Server has a perfect record — no security bugs have been recorded by NIST CVE.

And SQL Server was the most secure database by a wide margin: Its closest competitor, MySQL (which was owned by Sun Microsystems until its January 2010 acquisition by Oracle) recorded 98 security flaws or twice as many as SQL Server.

By contrast, during the same eight-and-a-half year period spanning 2002 through June 2010, the NIST CVE recorded 321 security vulnerabilities associated with the Oracle database platform, the highest total of any major vendor. Oracle had more than six times as many reported security flaws as SQL Server during the same time span. NIST CVE statistics recorded 121 security-related issues for the IBM DB2 platform during the past eight-and-a-half years.

Solid security is an essential element for many mainstream line-of-business (LOB) applications, and a crucial cornerstone in the foundation of every organization’s network infrastructure. Databases are the information repositories for many organizations; they contain much of the sensitive corporate data and intellectual property. If database security is compromised, the entire business is potentially at risk.

SQL Server’s unmatched security record is no fluke. It is the direct result of significant Microsoft investment in its Trustworthy Computing Initiative, which the company launched in 2002. In January of that year, Microsoft took the step of halting all new code development for several months across its product lines to scrub the code base and make its products more secure.

The strategy is working. In the past 21 months since January 2009, Microsoft has issued only eight (8) SQL Server security-related alerts. To date in 2010 (January through June), there have been no SQL Server vulnerabilities recorded by Microsoft or NIST. Microsoft is the only database vendor with a spotless security record the first six months of 2010.

ITIC conducted an independent Web-based survey on SQL Server security that polled 400 companies worldwide during May and June 2010. The results of the ITIC 2010 SQL Server Security survey support the NIST CVE findings. Among the survey highlights:
• An 83% majority rated SQL Server security “excellent” or “very good” (see Exhibit 2, below).
• None of the 400 survey respondents gave SQL Server security a “poor” or “unsatisfactory” rating.
• A 97% majority of survey participants said they experienced no inherent security issues with SQL Server.
• Anecdotal data obtained during first-person customer interviews also elicited a very high level of satisfaction with the embedded security functions and capabilities of SQL Server 7, SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005, SQL Server 2008, and the newest SQL Server 2008 R2 release. In fact, database administrators, CIOs and CTOs interviewed by ITIC expressed their approbation with Microsoft’s ongoing initiatives to improve SQL Server’s overall security and functionality during the last decade starting with SQL Server 2000.

Strong security is a must for every organization irrespective of size or vertical industry. Databases are among the most crucial applications in the entire network infrastructure. Information in databases is the organization’s intellectual property and life blood.

Databases are essentially a company’s electronic filing system. The information contained in the database directly influences and impacts every aspect of the organization’s daily operations including relationships with customers, business partners, suppliers and its own internal end users. All of these users must have the ability to quickly, efficiently and securely locate and access data. The database platform must be secure. An insecure, porous database platform will almost certainly compromise business operations and by association, any firm that does business with it. Any lapses in database security, including deliberate internal and external hacks, inadvertent misconfiguration, or user errors can mean lost or damaged data, lost revenue, and damage to the company’s reputation, raising the potential for litigation and loss of business.

It’s also true that organizations bear at least 50 percent of the responsibility for keeping their databases and their entire network infrastructures secure. As the old proverb goes, “The chain is only as secure as its weakest link.” Even the strongest security can be undone or bypassed by user error, misconfiguration or weak computer security practices. No database or network is 100 percent hack-proof or impregnable.Organizations should consult with their vendors regarding any questions and concerns they may have about the security of ANY of their database platforms. They should also ensure they stay updated with the latest patches and install the necessary updates. Above all, bolster the inherent security of your databases with the appropriate third party security tools and applications. Make sure your organization strictly adheres to best computer security computing practices. At the end of the day only you can defend your data.

Registered ITIC site users can Email me at: ldidio@itic-corp.com for a copy of the full report.

SQL Server Most Secure Database; Oracle Least Secure Database Since 2002 Read More »

Cloud Computing: Pros and Cons

Cloud computing like any emerging new technology has both advantages and disadvantages. Before beginning any infrastructure upgrade or migration, organizations are well advised to first perform a thorough inventory and review of their existing legacy infrastructure and make the necessary upgrades, revisions and modifications. Next, the organization should determine its business goals for the next three-to-five years to determine when, if and what type of cloud infrastructure to adopt. It should also construct an operational and capital expenditure budget and a timeframe that includes research, planning, testing, evaluation and final rollout.
Public Clouds: Advantages and disadvantages
The biggest allure of a public cloud infrastructure over traditional premises-based network infrastructures is the ability to offload the tedious and time consuming management chores to a third party. This in turn can help businesses:
• Shave precious capital expenditure monies because they avoid the expensive investment in new equipment including hardware, software, and applications as well as the attendant configuration planning and provisioning that accompanies any new technology rollout.
• Accelerated deployment timetable. Having an experienced third party cloud services provider do all the work also accelerates the deployment timetable and most likely means less time spent on trial and error.
• Construct a flexible, scalable cloud infrastructure that is tailored to their business needs. A company that has performed its due diligence and is working with an experienced cloud provider can architect a cloud infrastructure that will scale up or down according to the organization’s business and technical needs and budget.
The potential downside of a public cloud is that the business is essentially renting common space with other customers. As such, depending on the resources of the particular cloud model, there exists the potential for performance, latency and security issues as well as acceptable response and service and support from the cloud provider.
Risk is another potential pitfall associated with outsourcing any of your firm’s resources and services to a third party. To mitigate risk and lower it to an acceptable level, it’s essential that organizations choose a reputable, experienced third party cloud services provider very carefully. Ask for customer references; check their financial viability. Don’t sign up with a service provider whose finances are tenuous and who might not be in business two or three years from now.
The cloud services provider must work closely and transparently with the corporation to build a cloud infrastructure that best suits the business’ budget, technology and business goals.
To ensure that the expectations of both parties are met, organizations should create a checklist of the items and issues that are of crucial importance to their business and incorporate them into Service Level Agreements (SLAs) Be as specific as possible. These should include but are not limited to:

• What types of equipment do they use?
• How old is the server hardware? Is the configuration powerful enough?
• How often is the data center equipment/infrastructure upgraded?
• How much bandwidth does the provider have?
• Does the service provider use open standards or is it a proprietary datacenter?
• How many customers will you be sharing data; resources with?
• Where is the cloud services provider’s datacenter physically located?
• What specific guarantees if any, will it provide for securing sensitive data?
• What level of guaranteed response time will it provide for service and support?
• What is the minimum acceptable latency/response time for its cloud services?
• Will it provide multiple access points to and from the cloud infrastructure?
• What specific provisions will apply to Service Level Agreements (SLAs)?
• How will financial remuneration for SLA violations be determined?
• What are the capacity ceilings for the service infrastructure?
• What provisions will there be for service failures and disruptions?
• How are upgrade and maintenance provisions defined?
• What are the costs over the term of the contract agreement?
• How much will the costs rise over the term of the contract?
• Does the cloud service provider use the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) to transmit data?
• Does the cloud services provider encrypt the resting data to prohibit and restrict access?
• How often does the cloud services provider perform audits?
• What mechanisms will it use to quickly shut down a hack and can it track a hacker?
• If your cloud services provider is located outside your country of origin, what are the privacy and security rules of that country and what impact will that have on your firm’s privacy and security issues?
Finally, the corporation should appoint a liaison and that person should meet regularly with a representative from the cloud services provider to ensure that the company attains its immediate goals and that it is always aware and working on future technology and business goals. Outsourcing all or any part of your infrastructure to a public cloud does not mean forgetting and abandoning it.
Private Clouds: Advantages and Disadvantages
The biggest advantage of a private cloud infrastructure is that your organization keeps control of its corporate assets and can safeguard and preserve its privacy and security. Your organization is in command of its own destiny. That can be a double-edged sword.
Before committing to build a private cloud model the organization must do a thorough assessment of its current infrastructure, its budget and the expertise and preparedness of its IT department. Is your firm ready to assume the responsibility for such a large burden from both a technical and ongoing operational standpoint? Only you can answer that. Remember that the private cloud should be highly reliable and highly available – at least 99.999% uptime with built-in redundancy and failover capabilities. Many organizations currently struggle to maintain 99.9% uptime and reliability which is the equivalent of 8.76 hours of per server, per annum downtime. When your private cloud is down for any length of time, your end users (and anyone else who has access to the cloud) will be unable to access resources.
Realistically, in order for an organization to successfully implement and maintain a private cloud, it needs the following:
• Robust equipment that can handle the workloads efficiently during peak usage times
• An experienced, trained IT staff that is familiar with all aspects of virtualization, virtualization management, grid, utility and chargeback computing models
• An adequate capital expenditure and operational expenditure budget
• The right set of private cloud product offerings and service agreements
• Appropriate third party virtualization and management tools to support the private cloud
• Specific SLA agreements with vendors, suppliers and business partners
• Operational level agreements (OLAs) to ensure that each person within the organization is responsible for specific routine tasks and in the event of an outage
• A disaster recovery and backup strategy
• Strong security products and policies
• Efficient chargeback utilities, policies and procedures
Other potential private cloud pitfalls include: deciding which applications to virtualize; vendor lock-in and integration and interoperability issues. Businesses grapple with these same issues today in their existing environments. At present, however, the product choices from vendors and third party providers are more limited for virtualized private cloud offerings. Additionally, since the technology is still relatively new, it will be difficult from both a financial as well as technical standpoint to switch horses in midstream from one cloud provider to another if you encounter difficulties.
There is no doubt that virtualized public and private cloud infrastructures adoptions will grow significantly in the next 12 to 18 months. In order to capitalize on their benefits, lower your total cost of ownership (TCO), accelerate return on investment (ROI) and mitigate risk your organization should take its time and do it right.

Cloud Computing: Pros and Cons Read More »

Apple, Google Grapple for Top Spot in Mobile Web

Since January, the high technology industry has witnessed a dizzying spate of dueling, vendor product announcements.
So what else is new? It’s standard operating procedure for vendors to regularly issue hyperbolic proclamations about their latest/greatest offering, even (or especially) when the announcements are as devoid of content as cotton candy is of nutritional value. Maybe it’s just an outgrowth of the digital information age. We live and breathe instant information that circumnavigates the globe faster than you can say Magellan; the copy monster must be fed constantly. Or maybe it’s the protracted economic downturn which is making vendors hungrier than ever for consumer and corporate dollars.
Whatever the reason, there’s no doubt that high technology vendors – led by Google and Apple – are engaged in a near constant game of one-upmanship.
Apple indirectly started this trend in early January, when word began leaking out that Apple would finally announce the long-rumored iPad tablet in late January. The race was on among other tablet vendors to announce their products at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas in mid-January to beat Apple to the punch. A half-dozen vendors including, ASUSTeK Computer (ASUS), Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Taiwanese manufacturer Micro Star International (MSI) and Toshiba all raced to showcase their forthcoming wares in advance of Apple. It made good marketing sense: all of these vendors knew that once Apple released the iPad, that their chances of getting PR would be sorely diminished.
I have no problem with smaller vendors or even large vendors like Dell and HP, who rightfully reckon that they have to make their announcements in advance of a powerhouse like Apple to ensure that their products don’t get overlooked.
Apple vs. Google Battle of the Mobile Web Titans
But when the current industry giants and media darlings like Apple and Google start slugging it out online, in print and at various conferences, it’s overwhelming.
Apple and Google are just the latest in a long line of high technology rivalries. In the 1970s it was IBM vs. HP; in the 1980s, the rise of networking created several notable rivalries: IBM vs. Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC); IBM vs. Microsoft; Oracle vs. IBM; Novell vs. 3Com; Novell vs. Microsoft; Cabletron vs. Synoptics and Cisco vs. all the internetworking vendors. By the 1990s it was Microsoft vs. Netscape and Microsoft vs. pretty much everyone else.
The Apple vs. Google rivalry differs from earlier technology contests in that the relationship between the two firms began as a friendly one and to date, there has been no malice. Until August, 2009 Google CEO Eric Schmidt was on Apple’s board of directors. And while the competition between these two industry giants is noticeably devoid of the rancor that characterized past high tech rivalries, it’s safe to say that the two are respectfully wary of each other. Apple and Google are both determined not to let the other one get the upper hand, something they fear will happen if there is even the slightest pause in the endless stream of headlines.
Google and Apple started out in different markets – Google in the online search engine and advertising arena and Apple as a manufacturer of consumer hardware devices and software applications. Their respective successes – Apple’s with its Mac hardware and Google’s with its search engine of the same name have led them to this point: a head to head rivalry in the battle for supremacy of the mobile Web arena.
On paper, they appear to be two equally matched gladiators. Both companies have huge amounts of cash. Apple has $23 billion in the bank and now boasts the highest valuation of any high technology company, with a current market cap of $236.3 billion, surpassing Microsoft for the top spot. Google has $26.5 billion in cash and a valuation of $158.6 billion. Both firms have two of the strongest management and engineering teams in Silicon Valley. Apple has the iconic Steve Jobs who since his return has re-vitalized the company. Google is helmed by co-founders and creative geniuses Larry Page and Sergey Brin and since 2006 and Eric Schmidt, the CEO who knows how to build computers and make the trains run on time.
Fueling this rivalry is Apple’s and Google’s stake in mobile devices and operating systems. In Apple’s case this means the wildly successful iPhone, iPod Touch and most recently the iPad and the Mac Mini. Google’s lineup consists of its Chrome OS and Android OS which will power tablet devices like Dell’s newly announced Streak, Lenovo’s forthcoming U1 hybrid tablet/notebook due out later this year. The rivalry between the two is quite literally getting down to the chip level. Intel, which has for so long been identified with Microsoft’Windows-based PC platform is now expanding its support for Android – a move company executives have described as its “port of choice” gambit. Apple is no slouch in this area, either: its Macs – from the Mac Minis’ to the MacBook Pros, ship with Intel inside. Last week Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang weighed in on the Apple/Google rivalry on Google’s side, predicting that the tablet designs will converge around Google’s operating system.
But a stroll through any airport, mall, consumer home or office would give a person cause to dispute Huang’s claim: iPads and iPhones are everywhere. Apple recently announced that it has sold over two million iPads since the device first shipped in April. During a business trip from Boston to New Orleans last week I found that Apple iPads were as much in evidence as hot dogs at a ballpark.
Ironically, Microsoft, a longer term traditional rival of both Apple and Google is not mentioned nearly so often in the smart phone and tablet arenas. That’s because Microsoft’s Windows OS is still searching for a tablet to call its own. Longtime Microsoft partner HP, abruptly switched course: after Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer got on stage and demonstrated Windows 7 running on HP’s slate, HP bought Palm and earlier this week acquired the assets of Phoenix Technologies which makes an operating system for tablets. That leaves Microsoft to promote its business centric Windows 7 phone which will run Xbox LIVE games, Zune music and the company’s Bing search engine. All is not lost for Microsoft: longtime “frenemy” Apple CEO Steve Jobs said recently that the new iPhone 4G will run Microsoft’s Bing fueling speculation that Apple will drop support for Google’s search engine. Both Google and Apple are still competing with Microsoft in other markets like operating systems, games and application software to name a few, but that’s another story.
There are other competitors in the smart phone and tablet markets but you’d hardly know it from the headlines. Research In Motion’s (RIM) Blackberry is still a market leader. But Apple and Google continue to dominate the coverage. I guess high technology just like sports revels in a classic rivalry. And this one promises to be a hard fought struggle.

Apple, Google Grapple for Top Spot in Mobile Web Read More »

Scroll to Top