RSS
|
||||||||||||||
  Network and Systems Management: Not Happening March 22, 1999
Most of the respondents seemed to feel that the amount of work it would take to coax meaningful results from the major systems management packages is prohibitive. And while some of the readers discussed their organizations' commitments to run highly available systems, they also talked about resource constraints that made it impossible to consider making the sort of investment in staff time that these systems would require. These responses don't speak well for the complexity and utility of these tools, nor do they speak well for the complexity of the devices under management--or, as several of you pointed out, not under management. It's clear that while some of you have used homegrown SNMP monitors to check equipment on your networks, SNMP is not the way you want to manage. Single-vendor or even single-product management tools that seamlessly deal with the intricacies of configuration and error reporting are your preferred tools, with Web-manageable hardware running a close second. Some of you who wrote in offered great insights on the utility and relative maturity of agent technology. While the simpler tools mentioned above are terrific when you are managing a smaller network, they simply don't address the need to know what's happening on a more global basis. For that, the major frameworks make more sense. But again, respondents didn't seem to be satisfied with the framework offerings. Systems under management are not necessarily agent-friendly. The agent solution, while technically challenging, is complicated even further by the politics of most organizations. Often, the group responsible for installing the agents and monitoring "the network" as a whole doesn't really own the applications or the servers where the agents will reside. And telling those who do own the hardware when they can and can't upgrade because of agent compatibility usually leads to some sort of interdepartmental war. The Politics of Dancing It's this last problem that is the thorniest and, of course, the least solvable by the major frameworks vendors. The genesis of systems and networking within most corporations is such that centralized management, and hence ownership, is viewed as a bad thing. If you think back to the corporate culture of the late '70s and '80s, you will recall a "glass house" mentality on the part of most IT staffs that stifled the use of both technology and data throughout many companies. So while upper management is mandating that its huge investment in IT be managed, it probably doesn't have the guts to restructure responsibilities so that systems management can succeed. And even if management did have the guts to do it, you as an IT manager would be hard-pressed to guarantee that such management would have the desired results. No matter how you slice it, network and systems management remains an oxymoron for a little while longer. Send your comments on this column to Art Wittmann at awittmann@nwc.com. |
Here
Here
I got a few letters, mostly from readers who were struck by the title of the column--"Is 'Network Management' an Oxymoron?" They agreed that network and systems management is an oxymoron, particularly as implemented by the major vendors in the field. Most of these readers said either that the large frameworks were not meeting their needs, or that they felt better served by point products or homegrown solutions. Many were still happily working with ping scripts or homegrown SNMP monitors. One respondent put it well when he said, "After hacking around for a week or so, it became apparent that this was a cool visual toy, but it didn't really help me solve any problems."
