While it may seem that with Integrien VMware has acquired yet one more piece of the puzzle (a puzzle whose final form no one knows), this acquisition is perhaps one of the most significant if not the most significant that VMware has done. To understand the significance of this acquisition, one has to step back and examine a bit of history in the Systems Management business.
For as long as there have been computers, operating systems and business critical applications, there has been monitoring of these items to make sure they were working (available) and performing well for their constituents. In the early days of the computer industry (through about 1982) computer systems were vertical monoliths where a customer would buy “an accounting system” and that purchase would include hardware, systems software, and applications software. All of this usually came from one vendor so there was one throat to choke when it did not work.
Starting with the delivery of the PC, thenÂ EthernetÂ LAN’s and Novel Netware, and finally Windows Servers and the Internet, the industry reorganized along horizontal dimensions. A computer system was now a multi-layer cake and you could buy each layer of the cake from one of many vendors whose products were largelyÂ interchangeableÂ with each other, and compatible with adjacent layers. So you could buy an Intel based server from one of N vendors, put either Linux or Windows on it, but a Java applications server from one of N vendors on that and then buy applications from thousands of different vendors.
This horizontal layering of the industry was heavily promoted by Microsoft and Intel (who “owned” two key layers of the cake), and also ushered in the tremendous innovation and price competition that continues to drive our industry today. Moore’s Law says that microprocessor performance doubles roughly every 18 months or so, and with those increases in price/performance come the more for less mentality that we have all become accustomed to.
With this freedom of choice at every layer of the cake however came problems. The first problem was complexity. There were now too many cooks in the kitchen which meant that there were both too many and not one single throat for the CIO to choke when something went wrong. The management software industry reacted to this by inventing a marketecture, Business Service Management (BSM). The idea behind BSM was to identify the key business services that applications or combinations of applications delivered to users (the ability to enter and order and ship the resulting product is a business service as is the ability of a consumer to transfer funds from one banking account to another), and to then map all of the software and hardware infrastructure that this business service depended upon and to manage that collection of linked resources as an entity.
While Business Service Management sounded like a great idea, it in fact ended up as a miserable failure. The reasons were:
- There were many applications for which it was just too hard to measure their performance (in response time terms). Web applications turned out to be pretty easy, but fat client Win32 applications written to proprietary client/server protocols turned out to be very hard. It turned out that for most enterprises, more than half of the business critical applications were in the hard pile (fat client/Win32) and less than half were the easy web applications.
- Many BSM frameworks relied upon scripts and synthetic transactions to measure response time and end user experience. However this approach failed for many enterprises due to the large number of applications that comprised a business service and how rapidly these applications were changing. For example if synthetic transactions were used to measure the performance of a set of transactions, and a company had 500 business critical applications (not a very high number – some companies have thousands), and each application was updated once a year, then that would translate into 10 updates a week (500 apps/50 weeks) Â for the monitoring scripts.
- The same is true for most passive monitoring approaches that rely upon templates to identify transactions in applications protocols. There are many products that can measure the response time of transactions from the perspective of the web server by attaching physical or virtual appliance to a span port on the switch that services the web server. However all such products require configuration to understand what set of granular http request/responses combine to create a transaction of interest. Maintaining these configurations across hundreds of applications and thousands of transactions proved to be a major impediment to instrumenting their service level in any kind of a broad and systematic manner.
- It turned out to be a nightmare to identify the hardware and software that supported each business service. This gave rise to the need for Configuration Management Databases (CMDB’s) that were supposed to get populated with the hardware and software assets and their relationships to each other. The effort to put in place a CMDB and to maintain it turned out to doom the CMDB projects and the associated BSM projects at many companies.
- The BSM vendors were unable to evolve their products at the same rate as the innovation of the vendors who contributed products to the layers in the cake. New devices (laptops that were not always connected), new protocols (ICA, VOIP), new operating systems (Linux), new languages (Java, C#), and new user interfaces (first the browser and then rich Internet applications) all occurred at a pace that no one vendor could keep up with.
- When the BSM vendors got overwhelmed by innovation, vendors of point monitoring solutions stepped in to monitor the newest layer or item in a layer. Â This lead to a proliferation of monitoring tools which were not integrated with each other.
- When a problem occurred even if one had a BSM product and a CMDB it still horribly difficult to know exactly what path the failed transaction took through the entire hardware and software infrastructure. The BSM tools were rarely aware of every element of the stack and the tactical monitors that had been bought to fill in the cracks were not integrated with the BSM tools nor each other.
In summary we entered the age of virtualization and the cloud with both BSM and their supporting CMDB’s having failed at monitoring and managing a static infrastructure where applications and services largely stayed on dedicated hardware. In other words, before virtualization and the dynamic data center it was impossible for anyone in IT to see a problem and get told in a deterministic manner exactly where the problem was and how to fix it.
The Impact ofÂ Virtualization and the Cloud
Since holistic end-to-end monitoring of business services was essentially broken (or not attainable) before virtualization, it is reasonable to assume that virtualization and the cloud will only make this problem worse. This will occur for the following reasons:
- Virtualization increases workload density and the dynamic operation of workloads. This will require both continuous mapping of application to infrastructure dependencies and more more frequent (near real time) collection of performance data. Just the requirements for real time mapping and real time data completely overwhelm existing monitoring systems. Hyperic has a good blog on this point here.
- Inferring application performance from resource utilization statistics becomes impossible. This was possible on physical hardware, but on hardware that is shared via virtualization it no longers works. Hence the need for Infrastructure Performance Management solutions that measureÂ InfrastructureÂ Response Time. We expect Infrastructure Performance Management solutions from vendors like Akorri, CA Technologies (CA Virtual Assurance), Virtual Instruments, and Xangati to form the foundation layer of whatever will replace BSM.
- Application will now get moved from cluster to cluster and ultimately from data center to data center (private cloud – hybrid cloud – public cloud). APM solutions will need to track the applications no matter where they go, and seamlessly work across different IP networks. Leading virtualization aware APM solutions like those from AppDynamics, BlueStripe, and New Relic meet these needs today and will likely form the APM layer of whatever replaces BSM.
All of the above together combine to create one new result for Systems Management. That new result is that in the general case it will be impossible to deterministically do root cause in a dynamic environment. Therefore an approach based upon statistics is the only likely workable one. This was explored in detail in this post.
The Significance of the Integrien Acquisition
The Integrien acquisition by VMware is significant because it means that VMware has recognized that only a dynamic, statistical, self-configuring, Â and self-learning approach can keep up with the rate of change in these new dynamic ITÂ environments. The self-learning approach simply means that you feed the system the metrics that get collected about the system and it figures out which ones are important, how the metrics are related to each other, and lets you know when anomalies have occurred.
This acquisition is all the more significant because this is not garden variety technology. There have only ever been three companies this this space. ProactiveNet was acquired by BMC a few years ago. Netuitive has been around since the late 1990′s and it took the company until the mid 2000′s before the product had matured into something that really just worked when you plugged it in. Integrien is a fairly recent entry in this field and is now part of VMware – which leaves Netuitive as the only remainingÂ independentÂ player.
The New Dynamic BSM – Service Assurance
Since the old BSM is dead due to a brittle and difficult to update technology approach it is reasonable to ask what will replace it. The answer is most likely a set of Infrastructure Performance Management tools (Akorri, CA Virtual Assurance, Virtual Instruments, Xangati) integrated with a set of next generation APM tools (AppDynamics, BlueStripe, New Relic) via these self learning technologies. When this occurs, we will have a system that adapts on its own to changing conditions in the environment leaving IT staff available to interpret results (and not raw monitoring data). We will also have taken an important step towards dynamic service assurance which was discussed in detail in this post.
UnderstandingÂ and Evaluating these Technologies
For most IT professionals either they or someone on their staff can digg in and understand how the technologies that they use work. However unless you have an advanced degree in statistics and/or mathematics you are not going to be able to dig an and decide for yourself based upon how these products work which one you should choose. Rather what you should do is apply the following criteria in making your selection:
- Decide exactly what you want the product to do for you. These products are extremely flexible. You can feed them every alarm that is generated by all of your monitoring solutions and let them sort out the good ones from the bad ones. Or you can feed them revenue per minute for one key business application and let them figure what causes degradations in revenue per minute.
- Make sure that the product has connectors to what you already use to collect metrics from your systems. These products are not in the data collection business (with some exceptions). They rely upon other products to collect data from them. They must therefore be interfaced with your existing monitoring solutions.
- How hands off and plug and play will the product be in practice? This is the key criteria to the long term value of such a solution to your enterprise. Previous attempts at statistical approaches (neural nets) failed because the product had to be “retrained” every time conditions changed. Make sure that the product you select can automatically select and weight the inputs that it bases decisions off of and these these decisions are automatically updated over time. Self-learning needs to be a continuous thing, not just a one time or periodic thing.
- Make sure that the product can handle time based (time series) as well as event based data. Performance metrics tend to be time based, but many performance problems are caused by configuration changes which are events. Make sure that the product can cross-correlate configuration change events with performance degradations.
- Carefully assess the scale of the solution. This means how many inputs can the solution take per unit of time. Right now most of these solutions operate at 15 minute or 5 minute intervals. Monitoring a dynamic system may require intervals of 10 or even 5 seconds (or perhaps even real time continuous streams of monitoring data).
Self-learning performance management solutions like Integrien and Netuitive are going to be absolutely an essential part of the migration to dynamic data centers and IT as a Service. Once these dynamic data centers scale out to the thousands of applications in a typical enterprise, and scale up to address the most performance critical applications, the rate of change in the environment will be too high for legacy tools and manualÂ administrationÂ to be able to keep. up. These automated self-learning approaches will be the only way in which IT Operations will be able to stay on top of these new environments while staying within staffing and budget constraints.