Page II: Linux is sought to save money and add flexibility. However, improperly addressing support and management needs will negate such benefits.
Patch management is one example of an area where organisations have addressed Linux as a silo. Currently, there are numerous patches for all Linux distributions. As Linux matures (2006), it will receive fewer patches, and processes will become more mature. All will reduce the cost of support. Organisations should not treat Linux patching as a separate patch process. Rather, it is part of the formal configuration management process and must be aligned with enterprise patch efforts. Although true Linux patching requires some different technologies, it does not mean that a separate process should be created. Organisations must use a common process that leverages platform-specific tools as necessary. Addressing it as a silo effort will increase the cost of support.
It is not recommended to treat Linux as a separate silo, nor is it advisable to invest in Linux-specific tools when they can be avoided (device administration is an area where Linux-specific tools cannot be avoided). Areas such as performance monitoring should not be addressed separately. Intelligent configuration management (e.g., provisioning) may require specific Linux tools, primarily if the vendor offers integration testing for distributions and third-party components. If it is not critical for that level of Linux-specific testing, a common tool can be leveraged. Such tools are usually supplied by the hardware vendor, and in the case of Linux, they are from the distribution vendor. In addition, numerous open source options are available.
A Unix system administrator team should be expanded to include Linux, and existing operational processes should be expanded to encompass Linux where necessary (e.g., change, incident, configuration management), but separate processes should not be created. Moreover, with Linux on Intel (Lintel) deployments, Linux leverages shared Windows on Intel (Wintel) platform configurations and adaptive resource management tools capabilities.
Should Linux be managed with shareware or enterprise-class tools?
This question can be easily answered if Linux is added to mainstream support, making use of the same enterprise-class tools that have been used across the organisation. However, that is not the answer for all devices. We advise that all server resources be categorised and identify which carry mission-critical processing versus which are supporting functions (e.g. print servers). Leveraging lower-cost or open source management for lower-priority devices is advisable. The Linux community offers a plethora of low-cost or free management tools that can be explored (specifically for device-level administration), but most are not enterprise class and are better for small or non-critical environments.
For many small and medium businesses (SMBs), Linux may become the dominant platform. With fewer enterprise-class tools being used within SMBs, it makes sense to explore open source/shareware management technology for Linux. This assumes there are no conflicts with previously deployed management technologies.
Bottom line: Linux is sought to save money and add flexibility. However, improperly addressing support and management needs will negate such benefits.
Business impact: Linux will save an organisation money only if it is handled properly across its entire life cycle.
 | ||||||||||
| More from META Group | ||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
| | ||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
1%
4%
