Provided by |
analysis As Linux becomes a larger force in data centres, operational support emerges as a critical factor in determining long-term success. Treating Linux as a separate technology silo requiring individual management is not the answer. However, Linux does have some unique needs.
Meta Trend: Through 2005, users will seek to minimise the number of infrastructure and application management vendors for similar technology (e.g., one monitoring vendor). Through 2006, new infrastructure and service pricing models (e.g., subscription, usage, term), continuing capacity- and version-driven cost increases, and expiring enterprise agreements will cause buyers to reassess procurement efforts. The focus will be on more function-specific, loosely coupled, "good enough" suites built around Web services protocols.
Linux is here to stay. Data centres are continuing their adoption of Linux at an accelerated pace. The basic OS and hardware are no longer in question, so other forms of differentiation have emerged. This includes which additional services the hardware provider offers, how tightly the vendor is tied to the community, how vendor support processes work, and what kind of management is available.
The good news is that clarity is emerging on all fronts. Vendors are investing heavily in creating services (e.g., installation, Level 1 and Level 2 support, migration), which by 2005 will be the primary differentiators for hardware vendors. Leading vendors are tying tightly to the Linux community by acting as contributors, not just exploiters. The community is sensitive to this. If a vendor is perceived to be profiting on Linux without contribution, it is possible to view a different level of responsiveness to the vendor's requests.
The decision organisations need to make now is where and how to get their Linux support. Do they get it from their hardware providers (e.g., IBM, HP, Dell), or deal directly with the distribution vendors (e.g., Novell, Red Hat) or a third party such as Oracle as an alternative? A contributing factor to the decision will be an evaluation of the organisation's existing support agreements with vendors. If there is a strong desire to minimise/consolidate vendors, then adding Linux to current agreements is advisable. Beyond that, the decision is based on price and perception of completeness of Level 1 and Level 2 support (e.g., call centre). The reality is that, no matter which vendor provides Level 1 or Level 2 support, Level 3 support will be delivered by the distribution vendors (Red Hat or Novell), since they have agreements with all major hardware vendors.
Organisations must educate themselves on how fixes and support are executed. When a -hot fix" is required, the support vendor can quickly get it to the organisation. However, the complexity is how the hot fix makes its way back into the mainstream distribution and how it is then tracked and delivered. The challenge is that, when a hot fix is sent back to the community, it is up to the support vendor to track when it is delivered to the distribution vendor and report it to the customer. Although this is very well-defined for the kernel, it is not as clear for other utilities. If an organisation is not educated on how its support vendor executes this process, it may end up excessively patching, or worse, running a system that is not aligned with mainstream distributions. Although management is maturing, there are still some key considerations.
Should Linux be managed as a silo?
Infrastructure and application management vendors have all addressed Linux. Most vendors (e.g., CA, Tivoli, HP) have added it to their mainstream product lines or even made it a Tier 1 platform, with some (e.g., BMC) offering Linux-focused tools. Even better news, the mainframe is also addressed (e.g., Candle, BMC, CA). Linux distribution vendors have identified management as a potential money maker, and each has management offerings that target Linux as a standalone management silo.
1%
1%
