WAN Optimization is not Application Acceleration
Increasingly WAN optimization solutions are adopting the application acceleration moniker, implying a focus that just does not exist. WAN optimization solutions are designed to improve the performance of the network, not applications, and while the former does beget improvements of the latter, true application acceleration solutions offer greater opportunity for improving efficiency and end-user experience as well as aiding in consolidation efforts that result in a reduction in operating and capital expenditure costs. WAN Optimization solutions are, as their title implies, focused on the WAN; on the network. It is their task to improve the utilization of bandwidth, arrest the effects of network congestion, and apply quality of service policies to speed delivery of critical application data by respecting application prioritization. WAN Optimization solutions achieve these goals primarily through the use of data de-duplication techniques. These techniques require a pair of devices as the technology is most often based on a replacement algorithm that seeks out common blocks of data and replaces them with a smaller representative tag or indicator that is interpreted by the paired device such that it can reinsert the common block of data before passing it on to the receiver. The base techniques used by WAN optimization are thus highly effective in scenarios in which large files are transferred back and forth over a connection by one or many people, as large chunks of data are often repeated and the de-duplication process significantly reduces the amount of data traversing the WAN and thus improves performance. Most WAN optimization solutions specifically implement “application” level acceleration for protocols aimed at the transfer of files such as CIFS and SAMBA. But WAN optimization solutions do very little to aid in the improvement of application performance when the data being exchanged is highly volatile and already transferred in small chunks. Web applications today are highly dynamic and personalized, making it less likely that a WAN optimization solution will find chunks of duplicated data large enough to make the overhead of the replacement process beneficial to application performance. In fact, the process of examining small chunks of data for potential duplicated chunks can introduce additional latency that actual degrades performance, much in the same way compression of small chunks of data can be detrimental to application performance. Too, WAN optimization solutions require deployment in pairs which results in what little benefits these solutions offer for web applications being enjoyed only by end-users in a location served by a “remote” device. Customers, partners, and roaming employees will not see improvements in performance because they are not served by a “remote” device. Application acceleration solutions, however, are not constrained by such limitations. Application acceleration solutions act at the higher layers of the stack, from TCP to HTTP, and attempt to improve performance through the optimization of protocols and the applications themselves. The optimizations of TCP, for example, reduce the overhead associated with TCP session management on servers and improve the capacity and performance of the actual application which in turn results in improved response times. The understanding of HTTP and both the browser and server allows application acceleration solutions to employ techniques that leverage cached data and industry standard compression to reduce the amount of data transferred without requiring a “remote” device. Application acceleration solutions are generally asymmetric, with some few also offering a symmetric mode. The former ensures that regardless of the location of the user, partner, or employee that some form of acceleration will provide a better end-user experience while the latter employs more traditional WAN optimization-like functionality to increase the improvements for clients served by a “remote” device. Regardless of the mode, application acceleration solutions improve the efficiency of servers and applications which results in higher capacities and can aid in consolidation efforts (fewer servers are required to serve the same user base with better performance) or simply lengthens the time available before additional investment in servers – and the associated licensing and management costs – must be made. Both WAN optimization and application acceleration aim to improve application performance, but they are not the same solutions nor do they even focus on the same types of applications. It is important to understand the type of application you want to accelerate before choosing a solution. If you are primarily concerned with office productivity applications and the exchange of large files (including backups, virtual images, etc…) between offices, then certainly WAN optimization solutions will provide greater benefits than application acceleration. If you’re concerned primarily about web application performance then application acceleration solutions will offer the greatest boost in performance and efficiency gains. But do not confuse WAN optimization with application acceleration. There is a reason WAN optimization-focused providers have recently begun to partner with application acceleration and application delivery providers – because there is a marked difference between the two types of solutions and a single offering that combines them both is not (yet) available.
Cloud Storage Gateways. Short term win, but long term…?
In the rush to cloud, there are many tools and technologies out there that are brand new. I’ve covered a few, but that’s nowhere near a complete list, but it’s interesting to see what is going on out there from a broad-spectrum view. I have talked a bit about Cloud Storage Gateways here. And I’m slowly becoming a fan of this technology for those who are considering storing in the cloud tier. There are a couple of good reasons to consider these products, and I was thinking about the reasons and their standing validity. Thought I’d share with you where I stand on them at this time, and what I see happening that might impact their value proposition. The two vendors I have taken some time to research while preparing this blog for you are Nasuni and Panzura. No doubt there are plenty of others, but I’m writing you a blog here, not researching a major IT initiative. So I researched two of them to have some points of comparison, and leave the in-depth vendor selection research to you and your staff. These two vendors present similar base technology and very different additional feature sets. Both rely heavily upon local caching in the controller box, and both work with multiple cloud vendors, and both claim to manage compression. Nasuni delivers as a Virtual Appliance, includes encryption on your network before transmitting to the cloud, automated cloud provisioning, and caching that has timed updates to the cloud, but can perform a forced update if the cache gets full. It presents the cloud storage you’ve provisioned as a NAS on your end. Panzura delivers a hardware appliance that also presents the cloud as a NAS, works with multiple cloud vendors, handles encryption on-device, and claims global dedupe. I say claims, because “global” has a meaning that is “all” and in their case “all” means “all the storage we know about”, not “all the storage you know”. I would prefer a different term, but I get what they mean. Like everything else, they can’t de-dupe what they don’t control. They too present the cloud storage you’ve provisioned as a NAS on your end, but claim to accelerate CIFS and NFS also. Panzura is also trying to make a big splash about speeding access to MS-Sharepoint, but honestly, as a TMM for F5, a company that makes two astounding products that speed access to Sharepoint and nearly everything else on the Internet (LTM and WOM), I’m not impressed by Sharepoint acceleration. In fact, our Sharepoint Application Ready Solution is here, and our list of Application Ready Solutions is here. Those are just complete architectures we support directly, and don’t touch on what you can do with the products through Virtuals, iRules, profiles, and the host of other dials and knobs. I could go on and on about this topic, but that’s not the point of this blog, so suffice it to say there are some excellent application acceleration and WAN Optimization products out there, so this point solution alone should not be a buying criteria. There are some compelling reasons to purchase one of these products if you are considering cloud storage as a possible solution. Let’s take a look at them. Present cloud storage as a NAS – This is a huge benefit right now, but over time the importance will hopefully decrease as standards for cloud storage access emerge. Even if there is no actual standard that everyone agrees to, it will behoove smaller players to emulate the larger players that are allowing access to their storage in a manner that is similar to other storage technologies. Encryption – As far as I can see this will always be a big driver. They’re taking care of encryption for you, so you can sleep at night as they ship your files to the public cloud. If you’re considering them for non-public cloud, this point may still be huge if your pipe to the storage is over the public Internet. Local Caching – With current broadband bandwidths, this will be a large driver for the foreseeable future. You need your storage to be responsive, and local caching increases responsiveness, depending upon implementation, cache size, and how many writes you are doing this could be a huge improvement. De-duplication – I wish I had more time to dig into what these vendors mean by dedupe. Replacing duplicate files with a symlink is simplest and most resembles existing file systems, but it is also significantly less effective than partial file de-dupe. Let’s face it, most organizations have a lot more duplication laying around in files named Filename.Draft1.doc through Filename.DraftX.doc than they do in completely duplicate files. Check with the vendors if you’re considering this technology to find out what you can hope to gain from their de-dupe. This is important for the simple reason that in the cloud, you pay for what you use. That makes de-duplication more important than it has historically been. The largest caution sign I can see is vendor viability. This is a new space, and we have plenty of history with early entry players in a new space. Some will fold, some will get bought up by companies in adjacent spaces, some will be successful… at something other than Cloud Storage Gateways, and some will still be around in five or ten years. Since these products compress, encrypt, and de-dupe your data, and both of them manage your relationship with the cloud vendor, losing them is a huge risk. I would advise some due diligence before signing on with one – new companies in new market spaces are not always a risky proposition, but you’ll have to explore the possibilities to make sure your company is protected. After all, if they’re as good as they seem, you’ll soon have more data running through them than you’ll have free space in your data center, making eliminating them difficult at best. I haven’t done the research to say which product I prefer, and my gut reaction may well be wrong, so I’ll leave it to you to check into them if the topic interests you. They would certainly fit well with an ARX, as I mentioned in that other blog post. Here’s a sample architecture that would make “the Cloud Tier” just another piece of your virtual storage directory under ARX, complete with automated tiering and replication capabilities that ARX owners thrive on. This sample architecture shows your storage going to a remote data center over EDGE Gateway, to the cloud over Nasuni, and to NAS boxes, all run through an ARX to make the client (which could be a server or a user – remember this is the NAS client) see a super-simplified, unified directory view of the entire thing. Note that this is theoretical, to my knowledge no testing has occurred between Nasuni and ARX, and usually (though certainly not always) the storage traffic sent over EDGE Gateway will be from a local NAS to a remote one, but there is no reason I can think of for this not to work as expected – as long as the Cloud Gateway really presents itself as a NAS. That gives you several paths to replicate your data, and still presents client machines with a clean, single-directory NAS that participates in ADS if required. In this case Tier one could be NAS Vendor 1, Tier two NAS Vendor 2, your replication targets securely connected over EDGE Gateway, and tier 3 (things you want to save but no longer need to replicate for example) is the cloud as presented by the Cloud Gateway. The Cloud Gateway would arbitrate between actual file systems and whatever idiotic interface the cloud provider decided to present and tell you to deal with, while the ARX presents all of these different sources as a single-directory-tree NAS to the clients, handling tiering between them, access control, etc. And yes, if you’re not an F5 shop, you could indeed accomplish pieces of this architecture with other solutions. Of course, I’m biased, but I’m pretty certain the solution would not be nearly as efficient, cool, or let you sleep as well at night. Storage is complicated, but this architecture cleans it up a bit. And that’s got to be good for you. And all things considered, the only issue that is truly concerning is failure of a startup cloud gateway vendor. If another vendor takes one over, they’ll either support it or provide a migration path, if they are successful at something else, you’ll have plenty of time to move off of their storage gateway product, so only outright failure is a major concern. Related Articles and Blogs Panzura Launches ANS, Cloud Storage Enabled Alternative to NAS Nasuni Cloud Storage Gateway InfoSmack Podcasts #52: Nasuni (Podcast) F5’s BIG-IP Edge Gateway Solution Takes New Approach to Unifying, Optimizing Data Center Access Tiering is Like Tables or Storing in the Cloud TierDatabases in the Cloud Revisited
A few of us were talking on Facebook about high speed rail (HSR) and where/when it makes sense the other day, and I finally said that it almost never does. Trains lost out to automobiles precisely because they are rigid and inflexible, while population densities and travel requirements are highly flexible. That hasn’t changed since the early 1900s, and isn’t likely to in the future, so we should be looking at different technologies to answer the problems that HSR tries to address. And since everything in my universe is inspiration for either blogging or gaming, this lead me to reconsider the state of cloud and the state of cloud databases in light of synergistic technologies (did I just use “synergistic technologies in a blog? Arrrggghhh…). There are several reasons why your organization might be looking to move out of a physical datacenter, or to have a backup datacenter that is completely virtual. Think of the disaster in Japan or hurricane Katrina. In both cases, having even the mission critical portions of your datacenter replicated to the cloud would keep your organization online while you recovered from all of the other very real issues such a disaster creates. In other cases, if you are a global organization, the cost of maintaining your own global infrastructure might well be more than utilizing a global cloud provider for many services… Though I’ve not checked, if I were CIO of a global organization today, I would be looking into it pretty closely, particularly since this option should continue to get more appealing as technology continues to catch up with hype. Today though, I’m going to revisit databases, because like trains, they are in one place, and are rigid. If you’ve ever played with database Continuous Data Protection or near-real-time replication, you know this particular technology area has issues that are only now starting to see technological resolution. Over the last year, I have talked about cloud and remote databases a few times, talking about early options for cloud databases, and mentioning Oracle Goldengate – or praising Goldengate is probably more accurate. Going to the west in the US? HSR is not an option. The thing is that the options get a lot more interesting if you have Goldengate available. There are a ton of tools, both integral to database systems and third-party that allow you to encrypt data at rest these days, and while it is not the most efficient access method, it does make your data more protected. Add to this capability the functionality of Oracle Goldengate – or if you don’t need heterogeneous support, any of the various database replication technologies available from Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM, you can seamlessly move data to the cloud behind the scenes, without interfering with your existing database. Yes, initial configuration of database replication will generally require work on the database server, but once configured, most of them run without interfering with the functionality of the primary database in any way – though if it is one that runs inside the RDBMS, remember that it will use up CPU cycles at the least, and most will work inside of a transaction so that they can insure transaction integrity on the target database, so know your solution. Running inside the primary transaction is not necessary, and for many uses may not even be desirable, so if you want your commits to happen rapidly, something like Goldengate that spawns a separate transaction for the replica are a good option… Just remember that you then need to pay attention to alerts from the replication tool so that you don’t end up with successful transactions on the primary not getting replicated because something goes wrong with the transaction on the secondary. But for DBAs, this is just an extension of their daily work, as long as someone is watching the logs. With the advent of Goldengate, advanced database encryption technology, and products like our own BIG-IPWOM, you now have the ability to drive a replica of your database into the cloud. This is certainly a boon for backup purposes, but it also adds an interesting perspective to application mobility. You can turn on replication from your data center to the cloud or from cloud provider A to cloud provider B, then use VMotion to move your application VMS… And you’re off to a new location. If you think you’ll be moving frequently, this can all be configured ahead of time, so you can flick a switch and move applications at will. You will, of course, have to weigh the impact of complete or near-complete database encryption against the benefits of cloud usage. Even if you use the adaptability of the cloud to speed encryption and decryption operations by distributing them over several instances, you’ll still have to pay for that CPU time, so there is a balancing act that needs some exploration before you’ll be certain this solution is a fit for you. And at this juncture, I don’t believe putting unencrypted corporate data of any kind into the cloud is a good idea. Every time I say that, it angers some cloud providers, but frankly, cloud being new and by definition shared resources, it is up to the provider to prove it is safe, not up to us to take their word for it. Until then, encryption is your friend, both going to/from the cloud and at rest in the cloud. I say the same thing about Cloud Storage Gateways, it is just a function of the current state of cloud technology, not some kind of unreasoning bias. So the key then is to make sure your applications are ready to be moved. This is actually pretty easy in the world of portable VMs, since the entire VM will pick up and move. The only catch is that you need to make sure users can get to the application at the new location. There are a ton of Global DNS solutions like F5’s BIG-IP Global Traffic Manager that can get your users where they need to be, since your public-facing IPs will be changing when moving from organization to organization. Everything else should be set, since you can use internal IP addresses to communicate between your application VMs and database VMs. Utilizing a some form of in-flight encryption and some form of acceleration for your database replication will round out the solution architecture, and leave you with a road map that looks more like a highway map than an HSR map. More flexible, more pervasive.
20 Lines or Less #19
What could you do with your code in 20 Lines or Less? That's the question I ask (almost) every week, and every week I go looking to find cool new examples that show just how flexible and powerful iRules can be without getting in over your head. This week has been fantastic here in DCLand. I've been sequestered in a room with the awesome minds of the DevCentral team for most of the week brainstorming, collaborating, sharing, and thinking up generally cool new stuff! It's always a good time when the team gets together and there are almost always some hawesome things that come out of it, so keep an eye open for those. In the meantime there have been a load of cool iRules being written with a couple of prime choices for this week's 20LoL. One was even submitted directly via email, a 20LoL first, which is absolutely killer and I'd love to see more of it, so thanks Aidan, and don't be shy all you iRulers, get your ideas in! Many thanks and much credit to the always amazing hoolio and one of our awesome F5 engineers Aidan for the iRules in this edition. With that, I bring you this week's 20 Lines or Less: Log Every x Seconds There are thousands of reasons to log info in an iRule, but I think this one is built with the concept in mind of using the iRule of a type of advanced warning system. Logging info about things that could potentially cause problems later is great, unless you're flooding your log with that info and causing a problem NOW instead of later. So why not only log every x seconds if that condition is still valid? when RULE_INIT { # Initialize a variable to track the last time a log message was made set ::last_log_timestamp [clock seconds] # Shortest interval (in seconds) to log a message set ::min_log_interval 60 } when CLIENT_ACCEPTED { # Check if there are two or less active members in the default pool if {[active_members [LB::server pool]] < 3 and [expr {[clock seconds] - $::last_log_timestamp}] > $min_log_interval}{ log local0. "[virtual name], [LB::server pool]: [active_members [LB::server pool]] members available!" } } More on obfuscating your server and app type There have been many posts and examples of how to help mask what kind of app server and os you're running. Many of them are listed by hoolio in this post. This is one more great example of trying to mask an app type by getting rid of some key headers, including looping through to remove all the "x-" headers, which is a new take on this concept. Cool stuff. when HTTP_RESPONSE { # Remove server header HTTP::header remove "Server" # Remove Date header HTTP::header remove "Date" # Remove any header which starts with "X-" for {set i 0} {$i < [HTTP::header count]} {incr i} { # Check if the current header name starts with X- if {[string tolower [HTTP::header at $i]] starts_with "x-"}{ # Remove the header HTTP::header remove [HTTP::header at $i] } } } Simulating a WAN environment with iRules Sometimes there's a need to simulate a delay in traffic, as if sending info across a WAN environment. Trouble is, that's actually pretty tough to accomplish without proper WAN simulation gear. Well, here's an iRule that can do just that! It just barely squeaks in under the 20 lines requirement, if you remove the log lines, but I'm showing it here in its full format because I think the logs could be useful. Yet another awesome example of the power of iRules in just 20 Lines or Less. NOTE: This iRule is NOT designed for production use. It is very high load, and will GREATLY slow down traffic on your entire system if applied in a high traffic environment. That is, after all, kind of the point. It is intended for testing use and PoC type deployments in a safe, controlled dev/test environment where no production traffic will be harmed in the wild. Thanks ;) when CLIENT_ACCEPTED { log local0. "Client Packet accepted" TCP::collect } when CLIENT_DATA { log local0. "Generating Client Lag" set y1 [clock clicks -milliseconds] for { set x 0 } { $x < 175000 } { incr x } { #do nothing } set time1 [expr [clock clicks -milliseconds] - $y1] log local0. "Client for loop time is $time1 milliseconds" log local0. "Client packet released" TCP::release TCP::collect } when SERVER_CONNECTED { log local0. "Server Packet accepted" TCP::collect } when SERVER_DATA { log local0. "Generating Server Lag" set j1 [clock clicks -milliseconds] for { set z 0 } { $z < 175000 } { incr z } { #do nothing } set time1 [expr [clock clicks -milliseconds] - $j1] log local0. "Server for loop time is $time1 milliseconds" log local0. "Server packet released" TCP::release TCP::collect } There's your dose of iRules goodness in 20 Lines or Less for this week. Stay tuned for future editions and be sure to get your submissions in if you want to see your iRule featured. Thanks much for reading and as always, all feedback is welcome so don't be shy. #ColinDeduplication and Compression – Exactly the same, but different.
One day many years ago, Lori and I’s oldest son held up two sheets of paper and said “These two things are exactly the same, but different!” Now, he’s a very bright individual, he was just young, and didn’t even get how incongruous the statement was. We, being a fun loving family that likes to tease each other on occasion, we of course have not yet let him live it down. It was honestly more than a decade ago, but all is fair, he doesn’t let Lori live down something funny that she did before he was born. It is all in good fun of course. Why am I bringing up this family story? Because that phrase does come to mind when you start talking about deduplication and compression. Highly complimentary and very similar, they are pretty much “Exactly the same, but different”. Since these technologies are both used pretty heavily in WAN Optimization, and are growing in use on storage products, this topic intrigued me. To get this out of the way, at F5, compression is built into the BIG-IP family as a feature of the core BIG-IP LTM product, and deduplication is an added layer implemented over BIG-IP LTM on BIG-IP WAN Optimization Module (WOM). Other vendors have similar but varied (there goes a variant of that phrase again) implementation details. Before we delve too deeply into this topic though, what caught my attention and started me pondering the whys of this topic was that F5’s deduplication is applied before compression, and it seems that reversing the order changes performance characteristics. I love a good puzzle, and while the fact that one should come before the other was no surprise, I started wanting to know why the order it was, and what the impact of reversing them in processing might be. So I started working to understand the details of implementation for these two technologies. Not understand them from an F5 perspective, though that is certainly where I started, but try to understand how they interact and compliment each other. While much of this discussion also applies to in-place compression and deduplication such as that used on many storage devices, some of it does not, so assume that I am talking about networking, specifically WAN networking, throughout this blog. At the very highest level, deduplication and compression are the same thing. They both look for ways to shrink your dataset before passing it along. After that, it gets a bit more complex. If it was really that simple, after all, we wouldn’t call them two different things. Well, okay, we might, IT has a way of having competing standards, product categories, even jobs that we lump together with the same name. But still, they wouldn’t warrant two different names in the same product like F5 does with BIG-IP WOM. The thing is that compression can do transformations to data to shrink it, and it also looks for small groupings of repetitive byte patterns and replaces them, while deduplication looks for larger groupings of repetitive byte patterns and replaces them. In the implementation you’ll see on BIG-IP WOM, deduplication looks for larger byte patterns repeated across all streams, while compression applies transformations to the data, and when removing duplication only looks for smaller combinations on a single stream. The net result? The two are very complimentary, but if you run compression before deduplication, it will find a whole collection of small repeating byte patterns and between that and transformations, deduplication will find nothing, making compression work harder and deduplication spin its wheels. There are other differences – because deduplication deals with large runs of repetitive data (I believe that in BIG-IP the minimum size is over a K), it uses some form of caching to hold patterns that duplicates can match, and the larger the caching, the more strings of bytes you have to compare to. This introduces some fun around where the cache should be stored. In memory is fast, but limited in size, on flash disk is fast and has a greater size, but is expensive, and on disk is slow but has a huge advantage in size. Good deduplication engines can support all three and thus are customizable to what your organization needs and can afford. Some workloads just won’t benefit from one, but will get a huge benefit from the other. The extremes are good examples of this phenomenon – if you have a lot of in-the-stream repetitive data that is too small for deduplication to pick up, and little or no cross-stream duplication, then deduplication will be of limited use to you, and the act of running through the dedupe engine might actually degrade performance a negligible amount – of course, everything is algorithm dependent, so depending upon your vendor it might degrade performance a large amount also. On the other extreme, if you have a lot of large byte count duplication across streams, but very little within a given stream, deduplication is going to save your day, while compression will, at best, offer you a little benefit. So yes, they’re exactly the same from the 50,000 foot view, but very very different from the benefits and use cases view. And they’re very complimentary, giving you more bang for the buck.Is it time for a new Enterprise Architect?
After a short break to get some major dental rework done, I return to you with my new, sore mouth for a round of “Maybe we should have…” discussions. In the nineties and early 21st century, positions were created in may organizations with titles like “chief architect” and often there was a group whose title were something like “IT Architect”. These people made decisions that impacted one or all subsidiaries of an organization, trying to bring standardization to systems that had grown organically and were terribly complex. They ushered in standards, shared code between disparate groups, made sure that AppDev and Network Ops and Systems Admins were all involved in projects that touched their areas. The work they did was important to the organization, and truly different than what had come before. Just like in the 20th century the concept of a “Commander of Army Group” became necessary because the armies being fielded were so large that you needed an overall commander to make sure the pieces were working together, the architect was there (albeit with far less power than an Army Group commander) to make sure all the pieces fit together. Through virtualization, they managed to keep the ball rolling, and direct things such that a commitment to virtualization was applied everywhere it made sense. Organizations without this role did much the same, but those with this role had a person responsible for making sure things moved along as smoothly as a major architecture change that impacts users, systems, apps, and networks can. Steve Martin in Little Shop of Horrors I worked on an enterprise architecture team for several years in the late 90s, and the work was definitely challenging, and often frustrating, but was a role (at least at the insurer I worked for) that had an impact on cutting waste out of IT and building a robust architecture in apps, systems, and networks. The problem was that network and security staff were always a bit distanced from architecture. A couple of companies whose architects I hung out with (Southwestern Bell comes to mind) had managed to drive deep into the decision making process for all facets of IT, but most of us were left with systems and applications being primary and having to go schmooze and beg to get influence in the network or security groups. Often we were seen as outsiders telling them what to do, which wasn’t the case at all. For the team we were on, if one subsidiary had a rocking security bit, we wanted it shared across the other subsidiaries so they would all benefit from this work the organization had already paid for. It was tough work, and some days you went home feeling as if you’d accomplished nothing. But when it all came together, it was a great job to have. You saw almost every project the organization was working on, you got to influence their decisions, and you got to see the project implemented. It was a fun time. Now, we face a scenario in networking and network architecture that is very similar to that faced by applications back then. We have to make increasingly complex networking decisions about storage, app deployment, load distribution, and availability. And security plays a critical role in all of these choices because if your platform is not secure, none of the applications running on it are. We use the term “Network architecture” a lot, and some of us even use it to describe all the possibilities – Internal, SaaS providers, cross-datacenter WAN, the various cloud application/platform providers, and cloud storage… But maybe it is time to create a position that can juggle all of these balls and get applications to the right place. This person could work with business units to determine needs, provide them with options about deployment that stress strengths and weaknesses in terms of their application, and make sure that each application lives in a “happy place” where all of its needs are met, and the organization is served by the locality. We here at F5, along with many other infrastructure vendors, are increasingly offering virtual versions of our products, in our case the goal is to allow you to extend the impact of our market leading ADC and File Virtualization appliances to virtualized and cloud environments. I won’t speak for other vendors about why they’re doing it, each has a tale to tell that I wouldn’t do justice to. But the point of this blog is that all of these options… In the cloud, or reserve capacity in the cloud? What impact does putting this application in the cloud have on WAN bandwidth? Can we extend our application firewall security functionality to protect this application if it is sent out to the cloud? Would an internal virtualized deployment be a better fit for the volume of in-datacenter database accesses that this particular application makes? Can we run this application from multiple datacenters and share the backend systems somehow, and if so what is the cost? These are the exact types of questions that a dedicated architect, specialized in deployment models, could ask and dig to find the answers to. It would be just like the other architecture team members, but more focused on getting the most out of where an application is deployed and minimizing the impacts of choices one application team makes upon everyone else. I think it’s time. A network architect worries mostly about the internal network, and perhaps some of the items above, we should use a different title. I know it’s been abused in the past, but extranet architect might be a good title. Since they would need to increasingly be able to interface with business units and explain choices and impacts, I think I prefer application locality architect… But that makes light of some of the more technical aspects of the job, like setting up load balancing in a cloud – or at least seeing to it that someone is. Like other architecture jobs, it would be a job of influence, not command. The role is to find the best solution given the parameters of the problem, and then sell the decision makers on why they are the right choice. But that role works well for all the other enterprise architect jobs, just takes a certain type of personality to get it done. Nothing new there, so knowledge of all of the options available would become the largest requirement… How costs of a cloud deployment at vendor X compare to costs of virtual deployment, what the impact of cloud-based applications are on the WAN (given application parameters of course), etc. There are a ton of really smart people in IT, so finding someone capable of digesting and utilizing all of that information may be easier than finding someone who can put up with “You may have the right solution, but for political reasons, we’re going to do this really dumb thing instead” with equanimity. And for those of you who already have a virtualization or cloud architect… Well that’s just a bit limiting if you have multiple platform choices and multiple deployment avenues. Just like there were application architects and enterprise architecture used their services, so would it be with this role and those specialized architects.More Complexity, New Problems, Sounds Like IT!
It is a very cool world we live in, where technology is concerned. We’re looking at a near future where your excess workload, be it applications or storage, can be shunted off to a cloud. Your users have more power in their hands than ever before, and are chomping at the bit to use it on your corporate systems. IBM recently announced a memory/storage breakthrough that will make Flash disks look like 5.25 inch floppies. While we can’t know what tomorrow will bring, we can certainly know that the technology will enable us to be more adaptable, responsive, and (yes, I’ll say it) secure. Whether we actually are or not is up to us, but the tools will be available. Of course, as has been the case for the last thirty years, those changes will present new difficulties. Enabling technology creates issues… Which create opportunity for emerging technology. But we have to live through the change, and deal with making things sane. In the near future, you will be able to send backup and replication data to the cloud, reducing your on-site storage and storage administration needs by a huge volume. You can today, in fact, with products like F5’s ARX Cloud Extender. You will also be able to grant access to your applications from an increasing array of endpoint devices, again, you can do it today, with products like F5’s ASM for VPN access and APM for application security, but recent surveys and events in the security space should be spurring you to look more closely into these areas. SaaS is cool again in many areas that it had been ruled out – like email – to move the expense of relatively standardized high volume applications out of the datacenter and into the hands of trusted vendors. You can get email “in the cloud” or via traditional SaaS vendors. That’s just some of the changes coming along, and guess who is going to implement these important changes, be responsible for making them secure, fast, and available? That would be IT. To frame the conversation, I’m going to pillage some of Lori’s excellent graphics and we’ll talk about what you’ll need to cover as your environment changes. I won’t use the one showing little F5 balls on all of the strategic points of control, but if we have one. First, the points of business value and cost containment possible on the extended datacenter network. Notice that this slide is couched in terms of “how can you help the business”. Its genius is that Lori drew an architecture and then inserted business-relevant bits into it, so you can equate what you do every day to helping the business. Next up is the actual Strategic Points of Control slide, where we can see the technological equivalency of these points. So these few points are where you can hook in to the existing infrastructure offer you enhanced control of your network – storage, global, WAN, LAN, Internet clients – by putting tools into place that will act upon the data passing through them and contain policies and programmability that give you unprecedented automation. The idea here is that we are stepping beyond traditional deployments, to virtualization, remote datacenters, cloud, varied clients, ever-increasing storage (and cloud storage of course), while current service levels and security will be expected to be maintained. That’s a tall order, and stepping up the stack a bit to put strategic points of control into the network helps you manage the change without killing yourself or implementing a million specialized apps, policies, and procedures just to keep order and control costs. At the Global Strategic Point of Control, you can direct users to a working instance of your application, even if the primary application is unavailable and users must be routed to a remote instance. At this same place, you can control access to restricted applications, and send unauthorized individuals to a completely different server than the application they were trying to access. That’s the tip of the iceberg, with load balancing to local strategic points of control being one of the other uses that is beyond the scope of this blog. The Local Strategic Point of Control offers performance, reliability, and availability in the guise of load balancing, security in the form of content-based routing and application security – before the user has hit the application server – and encryption of sensitive data flowing internally and/or externally, without placing encryption burdens on your servers. The Storage Strategic Point of Control offers up tiering and storage consolidation through virtual directories, heterogeneous security administration, and abstraction of the NAS heads. By utilizing this point of control between the user and the file services, automation can act across vendors and systems to balance load and consolidate data access. It also reduces management time for endpoint staff, as the device behind a mount/map point can be changed without impacting users. Remote site VPN extension and DMZ rules consolidation can happen at the global strategic point of control at the remote site, offering a more hands-off approach to satellite offices. Note that WAN Optimization occurs across the WAN, over the Local and global strategic points of control. Web Application Optimization also happens at the global or local strategic point of control, on the way out to the end point device. What’s not shown is a large unknown in cloud usage – how to extend the control you have over the LAN out to the cloud via the WAN. Some things are easy enough to cover by sending users to a device in your datacenter and then redirecting to the cloud application, but this can be problematic if you’re not careful about redirection and bookmarks. Also, it has not been possible for symmetric tools like WAN Optimization to be utilized in this environment. Virtual appliances like BIG-IP LTM VE are resolving that particular issue, extending much of the control you have in the datacenter out to the cloud. I’ve said before, the times are still changing, you’ll have to stay on top of the new issues that confront you as IT transforms yet again, trying to stay ahead of the curve. Related Blogs: Like Load Balancing WAN Optimization is a Feature of Application ... Is it time for a new Enterprise Architect? Virtual Infrastructure in Cloud Computing Just Passes the Buck The Cloud Computing – Application Acceleration Connection F5 Friday: Secure, Scalable and Fast VMware View Deployment Smart Energy Cloud? Sounds like fun. WAN Optimization is not Application Acceleration The Three Reasons Hybrid Clouds Will Dominate F5 Friday: BIG-IP WOM With Oracle Products Oracle Fusion Middleware Deployment Guides Introducing: Long Distance VMotion with VMWare Load Balancers for Developers – ADCs Wan Optimization Functionality Cloud Control Does Not Always Mean 'Do it yourself' Best Practices Deploying IBM Web Sphere 7 Now AvailableUseful IT. Bringing Health Record Transfer into the 21st Century.
I read the Life as a Healthcare CIO blog on occasion, mostly because as a former radiographer, health care records integration and other non-diagnostic IT use in healthcare is a passing interest of mine. Within the last hospital I worked at the systems didn’t communicate – not even close, as in there was no effort to make them do so. This intrigues me, as since I’ve entered IT I have watched technology uptake in healthcare slowly ramp up at a great curve behind the rest of the business world. Oh make no mistake, technology has been in overdrive on the equipment used, but things like systems interoperability and utilizing technology to make doctors, nurses, and tech’s lives easier is just slower in the medical world. A huge chunk of the resistance is grounded in a very common sense philosophy. “When people’s lives are on the line you do not rush willy-nilly to the newest gadget.” No one in healthcare says it that way – at least not to my knowledge – but that’s the essence of what they think. I can think of a few businesses that could use that same mentality applied occasionally with a slightly different twist: “When the company’s viability is on the line…” but that’s a different blog. Even with this very common-sense resistance, there has been a steady acceleration of uptake in technology use for things like patient records and prescriptions. It has been interesting to watch, as someone on the outside with plenty of experience with the way hospitals worked and their systems were all silos. Healthcare IT is to be commended for things like electronic prescription pads and instant transfer of (now nearly all electronic) X-Rays to those who need them to care for the patient. Applying the “this can help with little impact on critical care” or even “this can help with positive impact on critical care and little risk of negative impact” viewpoint as a counter to the above-noted resistance has produced some astounding results. A friend of mine from my radiographer days is manager of a Cardiac Cath Lab, and talking with him is just fun. “Dude, ninety percent of the pups coming out of Radiology schools can’t set an exposure!” is evidence that diagnostic tools are continuing to take advantage of technology – in this case auto-detecting XRay exposure limits. He has more glowing things to say about the non-diagnostic growth of technology within any given organization. But outside the organization? Well that’s a completely different story. The healthcare organization wants to keep your records safe and intact, and rarely even want to let you touch them. That’s just a case of the “intact” bit. Some people might want their records to not contain some portion – like their blood alcohol level when brought to the ER – and some people might inadvertently lose some portion of the record. While they’re more than happy to send them on a referral, and willing to give you a copy if you’re seeking a second opinion, these records all have one archaic quality. Paper. If I want to buy a movie, I can go to netflix, sign up, and stream it (at least many of them) to watch. If I want my medical records transferred to a specialist so I can get treatment before my left eye oozes out of its socket, they have to be copied, verified, and mailed. If they’re short or my eye is on the verge of falling out right this instant, then they might be faxed. But the bulk of records are mailed. Even overnight is another day lost in the treatment cycle. Recently – the last couple of years – there has been a movement to replicate the records delivery process electronically. As time goes on, more and more of your medical records are being stored digitally. It saves room, time, and makes it easier for a doctor to “request” your record should he need it in a hurry. It also makes it easier to track accidental or even intentional changes in records. While it didn’t happen as often as fear-mongers and ambulance chasers want you to believe, of course there are deletions and misplacements in the medical records of the 300 million US citizens. An electronic system never forgets, so while something as simple as a piece of paper falling out of a record could forever change it, in electronic form that can’t happen. Even an intentional deletion can be “deleted” as in not show up, but still there, stored with your other information so that changes can be checked should the need ever arise. The inevitable off-shoot of electronic records is the ability to communicate them between hospitals. If you’re in the ER in Tulsa, and your normal doctor is in Manhattan, getting your records quickly and accurately could save your life. So it made sense that as the percentage of new records that were electronic grew, someone would start to put together a way to communicate them. No doubt you’re familiar with the debate about national health information databases, a centralized location for records is a big screaming target from many people’s perspectives, while it is a potentially life-saving technological advancement to others (they’re both right, but I think the infosec crowd has the stronger argument). But a smart group of people put together a project to facilitate doing electronically exactly what is being done today physically. The process is that the patient (or another doctor) requests the records be sent, they are pulled out, copied, mailed or faxed, and then a follow-up or “record received” communication occurs to insure that the source doctor got your records where they belong. Electronically this equates to the same thing, but instead of “selected” you get “looked up”, and instead of “mailed or faxed” you get “sent electronically”. There’s a lot more to it, but that’s the gist of The Direct Project. There are several reasons I got sucked into reading about this project. From a former healthcare worker’s perspective, it’s very cool to see non-diagnostic technology making a positive difference in healthcare, from a patient perspective, I would like the transfer of records to be as streamlined as possible, from the InfoSec perspective (I did a couple of brief stints in InfoSec), I like that it is not a massive database, but rather a “faster transit” mechanism, and from an F5 perspective, the possibilities for our gear to help make this viable were in my mind while reading. While Dr. Halamka has a lot of interesting stuff on his blog, this is one I followed the links and read the information about. It’s a pretty cool initiative, and what may seem very limiting in their scope assumptions holds true to the Direct Project’s idea of replacing the transfer mechanism and not creating a centralized database. While they’re not specifying formats to use during said transfer, they do list some recommended reading on that topic. What they do have is a registry of people who can receive records, and a system for transferring data over the wire. They worry about DNS-style health-care provider lookups, transfer protocols, and encryption, which is certainly a large enough chunk for them to bite off, and then they show how they fit into the larger nation-wide healthcare electronic records efforts going on. I hope they get it right, and the system they’re helping to build results in near-instantaneous secure records transfers, but many inventions are a product of the time and society in which they live, and even if The Direct Project fails, something like it will eventually succeed. If you’re in Healthcare IT, this is certainly a way to add value to the organization, and worth checking out. Meanwhile, I’m going to continue to delve into their work and the work of other organizations they’ve linked to and see if there isn’t a way F5 can help. After all, we can compress, dedupe, and encrypt communications on-the-wire, and the entire system is about on-the-wire communications, so it seems like a perfectly logical route to explore. Though the patient care guy in me will be reading up as much as the IT guy, because healthcare was a very rewarding field that seriously needed a bit more non-diagnostic technology when I was doing it.iDo Declare: iPhone with BIG-IP
Who would have imagined back in 1973 when Martin Cooper/Motorola dialed the first portable cellular phone call, that one day we'd be booking airline tickets, paying bills, taking pictures, watching movies, getting directions, emailing and getting work done on a little device the size of a deck of cards. As these 'cell-phones' have matured, they've also become an integral part of our lives on a daily basis. No longer are they strictly for emergency situations when you need to get help, now they are attached to our hip with an accompanying ear apparatus as if we've evolved with new bodily appendages. People have grown accustomed to being 'connected' everywhere. There have been mobile breakthroughs over the years, like having 3G/4G networks and Wi-Fi capability, but arguably one of the most talked about and coveted mobile devices in recent memory is the Apple iPhone. Ever since the launch of the iPhone in 2007, it has changed the way people perceive and use mobile devices. It's not just the tech-savvy that love the iPhone, it's Moms, Florists, Celebrities, Retailers and everyone in between that marvel at the useful ways iPhone can be used, and for their very own novel purpose. There are literally hundreds of thousands of apps available for iPhone, from the silly and mundane to banking and business. Browsing the web is a breeze with the iPhone with the ability to view apps in both portrait and landscape modes. The ability to zoom and 'pinch' with just your fingers made mobile browsing tolerable, even fun from an iPhone. Shopping from your cell phone is now as common as ordering a cup of coffee - often at the same time! iPhone developers are pushing the limits with augmented reality applications where you can point your iPhone into the sky and see the flight number, speed, destination and other such details as planes fly by. When the iPhone was first introduced and Apple started promoting it as a business capable device, it was missing a few important features. Many enterprises, and small businesses for that matter, use Microsoft products for their corporate software - Exchange for email, Word for documents, Excel for spreadsheets and PowerPoint for presentations. Those were, as expected, not available on the iPhone. As new generations of iPhones hit the market and iOS matured, things like iPhone Exchange ActiveSync became available and users could now configure their email to work with Exchange Server. Other office apps like Documents-to-Go make it possible for iPhone users to not only to view Microsoft Word and Excel documents, but they were able to create and edit them too. Today, there are business apps from Salesforce, SAP and Oracle along with business intelligence and HR apps. Companies can even lock down and locate a lost or stolen iPhone. Business users are increasingly looking to take advantage of Apple iOS devices in the corporate environment, and as such IT organizations are looking for ways to allow access without compromising security, or risking loss of endpoint control. IT departments who have been slow to accept the iPhone are now looking for a remote access solution to balance the need for mobile access and productivity with the ability to keep corporate resources secure. The F5 BIG-IP Edge Portal app for iOS devices streamlines secure mobile access to corporate web applications that reside behind BIG-IP Access Policy Manager, BIG-IP Edge Gateway and FirePass SSL VPN. Using the Edge Portal application, users can access internal web pages and web applications securely, while the new F5 BIG-IP Edge Client app offers complete network access connection to corporate resources from an iOS device; a complete VPN solution for both the iPhone and iPad. The BIG-IP Edge Portal App allows users to access internal web applications securely and offers the following features: User name/password authentication Client certificate support Saving credentials and sessions SSO capability with BIG-IP APM for various corporate web applications Saving local bookmarks and favorites Accessing bookmarks with keywords Embedded web viewer Display of all file types supported by native Mobile Safari Assuming an iPhone is a trusted device and/or network access from an iPhone/iPad is allowed, then the BIG-IP Edge Client app offers all the BIG-IP Edge Portal features listed above, plus the ability to create an encrypted, optimized SSL VPN tunnel to the corporate network. BIG-IP Edge Client offers a complete network access connection to corporate resources from an iOS device. With full VPN access, iPhone/iPad users can run applications such as RDP, SSH, Citrix, VMware View, VoIP/SIP, and other enterprise applications. The BIG-IP Edge Client app offers additional features such as Smart Reconnect, which enhances mobility when there are network outages, when users roaming from one network to another (like going from a mobile to Wi-Fi connection), or when a device comes out of hibernate/standby mode. Split tunneling mode is also supported, allowing users to access the Internet and internal resources simultaneously. BIG-IP Edge Client and Edge Portal work in tandem with BIG-IP Edge Gateway, BIG-IP APM and FirePass SSL VPN solutions to drive managed access to corporate resources and applications, and to centralize application access control for mobile users. Enabling access to corporate resources is key to user productivity, which is central to F5’s dynamic services model that delivers on-demand IT. ps Resources F5 Announces Two BIG-IP Apps Now Available at the App Store F5 BIG-IP Edge Client App F5 BIG-IP Edge Portal App F5 BIG-IP Edge Client Users Guide iTunes App Store Securing iPhone and iPad Access to Corporate Web Applications – F5 Technical Brief Audio Tech Brief - Secure iPhone Access to Corporate Web Applications Is the iPhone Finally Ready for Business Use? iPhone in Business The next IT challenge: Mobile device management Use Your iPhone to See Where Planes are Headed
