Is Building a Data Center on Your Bucket List? some items should be skipped

I was reading this NBCNews article on the foolish things people do to check off their bucket lists.

Bucket lists gone bad: When senior thrills become life threatening

7 hours ago

Laverne Everett's skydiving partner holds onto her after she fell out of her harness.
YouTube
Laverne Everett's skydiving partner holds onto her after she fell out of her harness.

An 80-year-old woman on a tandem skydive slipped from her instructor’s harness then held on for life while rocketing toward Earth. An Alabama man busted his ankles trying to ride a bull. A Missouri man smashed his body – and his new motorcycle – minutes after buying the bike.

And it reminded me of a story I was telling of an IT executive I know who was convinced he needed to build a data center to support his company's move out of colocation spaces scattered around the world.  He was thrilled to build and when i told him he should go the route of three wholesale sites scattered around the US and Europe he said he had on good expensive advice from Gartner that he was doing the right thing.  Three years later, the data center is not operating yet,  he has changed companies. 

I found the public disclosure of the company finally breaking ground on a 10-15MW data center in Dec 2012.  If they had followed my advice, they would probably be on their fifth wholesale deployment by now with 25 MW of capacity and spent a fraction of the capital.  There were all kinds of people telling the executive building a data center is something he should do.  Now that he is at a new company and the strategy is cloud, hopefully the executives will keep him from continue to focus on his bucket list item of building a data center.  A high availability service needs at least 3 and ideally 5 locations.  Why 5?  Because at some point you'll have major maintenance events and going from 5 to 4 is much better than going from 3  to 2.

The hard long battle IT department, maybe a way to win

GigaOm has a guest post on the problem of IT being in the back seat at so many companies.

Technology is king, so why are so many IT departments playing backseat roles?

by Bart Copeland, Guest Contributor

 

23 HOURS AGO

7 Comments

roadblock
photo: aceshot1/Shutterstock
SUMMARY:

As employees feel increasingly entitled to take tech into their own hands via BYOD, the cloud and SaaS, IT is finding itself sidelined. The answer is for IT to redefine itself. Welcome to IT as a Service.

Today’s IT departments face an identity crisis. Technology is an integral part of every single business process, and has come to dominate the lives of consumers who are routinely shopping online, downloading information, and browsing the Internet.

Yet ironically, in an era when technology rules, IT departments are losing ground fast:  The forces of cloud computing, social media, and information management are evolving rapidly, and business managers are discovering and adopting new technology before IT departments even have a chance to master it. Gartner Research predicts that by 2015, 35 percent of most companies’ technology-related expenditures will be managed outside the IT department’s budget.

In order to thrive and have an impact in today’s businesses, IT departments must stay relevant. They must become service-oriented organizations. That means deploying user-centric and agile solutions that meet the business needs of the organization and individual departments. That means delivering IT as a Service (ITaaS), and becoming a team of service-oriented experts.

You can go on and on with defensive strategies which is what most would do.  How about take the offensive?  IT sells it's services to the businesses now that it has competition from the cloud.  Selling is in offensive activity. The challenger sale book goes into the five ways.

The research revealed that sales reps fall into one of five profiles:

  1. The Hard Worker
  2. The Problem Solver
  3. The Challenger
  4. The Relationship Builder
  5. The Lone Wolf

Each profile can turn in average performance, but only one consistently outperforms – the Challenger.

What does the Challenger do?

Challengers: What They Do Differently

While most reps focus on building customer relationships, the best focus on pushing customers' thinking, introducing new solutions to their problems and illuminating problems customers overlook.
Specifically, they:

  • Teach
  • Tailor
  • Take Control

Given IT is the technology group it seems natural that users would expect them to teach and tailor.  This is probably why Big Data is so popular as it addresses these needs.

The rest of the cloud services are using the Challenger approach.  Competing against a Challenger is tough if you don't show you can teach and tailor better than they do.

Selling security, centralized management doesn't go as far as it used to.

Why I write, why do you?

I write this blog to ingrain ideas into my memory.  In the process of writing over 3,000 posts, I've learned a lot.  If I forget I can run a search on this blog. :-)

I don't look at the comments for feedback which is why many say it is good to blog.  What I do find quite useful with my blog is it speeds up the conversations I have with my friends who regularly read what I post.  Olivier Sanche was a great example and others from his teams.  At first it would be confusing to me, but after awhile it was amazing what we could cover in 15 minutes as we bounced over 10 different topics.  Part of the problem is they would remember my posts better than I would as I would tend to write then flush the idea and move on.

What is interesting to observe is why people write.  So many people think writing are facts.  Writing is simply words in a language.  You need to know the context of the author to know how to interpret their writing. George Orwell has an essay on "Why I write."

In the beginning he tells his childhood story.

NewImage

I was the middle child of three, but there was a gap of five years on 
either side, and I barely saw my father before I was eight. For this and 
other reasons I was somewhat lonely, and I soon developed disagreeable 
mannerisms which made me unpopular throughout my schooldays. I had the 
lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with 
imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions 
were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued.

...

Then Orwell makes his point.

I give all this background information because I do not think one can 
assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early 
development.

and the great observation.

he will have acquired an emotional 
attitude from which he will never completely escape.

Which then flows into the 4 reasons to write besides money.  I am more of the 3rd category, historical impulse.

Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for 
writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees 
in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from 
time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They 
are: 

(i) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be 
remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed 
you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a 
motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with 
scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful 
businessmen--in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great 
mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about 
thirty they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all--and 
live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But 
there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined 
to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. 
Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and 
self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money. 

(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, 
or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in 
the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the 
rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is 
valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble 
in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will 
have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian 
reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. 
Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic 
considerations. 

(iii) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out 
true facts and store them up for the use of posterity. 

(iv) Political purpose.--Using the word 'political' in the widest 
possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter 
other peoples' idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. 
Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion 
that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political 
attitude. 

Many of you who live in a corporate environment spend your time writing in #4, Political Purpose.

One of the zingers is Orwell's comment on writers.

All writers are vain, selfish, and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives there lies a 
mystery.

But, keep in mind all of us write to some degree.  Your e-mails, tweets, Facebook posts are all writing.  Can you even say your instagram posts are a kind of visual writing?

I think about why I write.  Why do you write?

Wow, PUE of 1.26 for 120v Nissan Leaf charging system vs. 1.08 for 240v

I have one friend who just bought a Tesla S and he mentioned something that doesn't get widely publicized for the Tesla's that typical charging is 85% of battery capacity.  So keep in mind the typical range of a Tesla is 85% of the stated range.  I asked him what kind of charging system he had and he had the 240V that is similar to an electric dryer circuit.  I told him I had another friend with a Nissan Leaf who was a bit more on the cheap side so he charging his leaf on 120V.  It takes 20 hours for a complete charge and is also recommended to not exceed the 80% battery charge.

What I found interesting in a Nissan Leaf Forum is there is 300 watts of overhead for the 120 Volt and 240 Volt charging. 

The question starts.

7 hours for 240V and 20 hours for 120V. I thought it would be exactly half for the lower voltage?

The answers posted are.

The 120v charging is limited to 12amps (1.44kW). 240v charging is done at 16a (3.84kW). That comes to 2.67 times slower, plus 120v charging is less efficient...there's a fixed overhead for the cooling system that brings the practical difference close to 3 times slower.

2). There is a parasitic load of about 300W that runs during charging. These pumps draw the same power regardless whether the charging is done with 120VAC or 240VAC. This power takes a larger fraction of the available power away from charging when using 120VAC, This further slowing charging. Interestingly, this causes 240VAC charging to be more efficient.

The last comment on 240VAC being more efficient got me curious to calculate the PUE of 1.44kW (120V) vs. 3.84 kW(240V) with a  0.3 kW overhead for the cooling and electrical distribution.

120V had a PUE of 1.26.

240V had a PUE of 1.08.

When you do the math on an individual basis this is not big deal, but add up all the 120V charging of electric vehicles and the numbers add up fast.

Google has a PUE of 1.08 for its Hamina Data Center.  Would it ever want to go back to a PUE of 1.26?

It is painful to think about charging at 120V vs. 240V both from a time perspective and waste of energy.

7 things that are wrong with many Enterprise IT systems?

The Enterprise IT organization is an interesting entity.  The following are some observations I have made and are interesting problems to try and solve.

  1. The main priority of many people in Enterprise IT is to protect their jobs.  Due to the crappy way that many companies have treated their IT organizations.  It is a thankless job in many companies. In the past, efforts have been made to outsource the job to other companies and India.  So, the people who are still around have developed a harsh survival instinct to do whatever it takes to protect their job.
  2. Too many nice people who try to do the right thing are the victims not the heroes.
  3. 80% or more of enterprise IT is full of people who are not technical by education. I have been spoiled working in product development at HP, Apple, and Microsoft where you hire the the best technical people to develop products.  These are what I consider technical staff.  They really know how things work and be so valuable people will pay money for them.  Other than Amazon Web Services, what enterprise IT has built an IT system so well that people would pay money for it?
  4. So the 20% of enterprise IT that are technical, can they make the really tough decisions?  Many times no, because the decisions in most enterprise IT systems are not made by the most technical people it is made by the people who have the strongest survival instinct.
  5. The Cloud is a threat to the monopoly of enterprise IT.  Until the Cloud, users had to use the enterprise e-mail system, CRM, file servers, web hosting, etc.  Now the business units have choice.
  6. The private cloud's #1 goal in many companies is to shut down the choice of going outside the enterprise IT monopoly.
  7. The private cloud will be much more expensive than the public cloud, because the private cloud's goal is to protect jobs where the public cloud's goal is to reduce costs which means higher utilization of all resources including people.  Cloud environments have one admin per 1,000+ servers.  Many enterprises have one admin per 10-20 servers.  Some have moved to 100.  Few have achieved 1,000.

Huh, these things sound like they could be in a Dilbert cartoon.  They probably have been.

Here is today's Dilbert cartoon.

NewImage