March 2009 was an exciting time for both for Cisco and for me personally. Cisco launched the revolutionary Unified Computing System, with many observers across the industry doubting if we’d stay the course (and if we’re honest, some truly misplaced derision -- I wonder who is on Planet Zircon now!). And I joined the Cisco Data Center Services team from the Cisco R&D organization! So with the recent third generation launch of Cisco UCS, described very well by my colleague Todd Brannon, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on our data center services portfolio around that time, and where we are now. My previous blogs chronicle part of this journey, however I have to say, the direct comparison I draw here I personally think shows that we have indeed brought a new transformational experience to the data center for our customers. And I’d like to give you my personal recollections on how and what I found out about Cisco’s approach to shaking the incumbents’ lack of innovation in the blade server market.
I’ve been thinking a lot about TCO recently and ways we can help the Government maximize the investment of our tax dollars. By chance, I ran across this incredible White Paper written by one of our top Optical Engineers entitled “Government Transport Networks: Minimize Lifetime Costs”.
It’s a good read, and if you are a Network Architect making purchasing decisions in this area, I would highly recommend it. In fact, if you have any further questions on any of the data presented please reach out to me directly and I’ll put you in touch with the author.
This paper makes the case that transport networks represent a significant portion of government IT costs and is often overlooked in terms of TCO. It guides the reader through the various Network Deployment Models (private, managed private, hybrid) and the benefits in real dollars by going with one approach over another.
Transport networks affect government operational costs at least as much as campus or data center networks, and carefully selecting the platform can result in significant savings. In summary, a well-planned transport architecture can help agencies avoid the considerable expense of upgrades as they accelerate adoption of business video and virtualization. In contrast, a platform with lower upfront costs may have a shorter lifespan and require IT teams to continually add overlay networks that increase costs and management complexity.
So “caveat emptor” when considering your next network purchase.
Last week in part 1 of this blog, I used the analogy of the Winchester House to start the discussion on why an architecture-led approach should be a strategic imperative for your IT architectural evolution and transformation. In this part 2, I’ll give some industry data points, and use some examples of the complex network-based solutions you are implementing, to illustrate why you should adopt the architectural-led approach over the point product minefield.
The Winchester House - A Case for Architectural-Led Evolution and Transformation
Last week I presented and participated at the The Open Group Forum in Austin, TX. It was a great event, with insights into Enterprise Architecture, Business Architecture and Emerging Architectures. There were several breakout tracks in the Forum, including, the most popular -- Cloud Architectures Track. The sessions ranged from connecting architecture frameworks (TOGAF) to Cloud Architectures, to Cloud Architectures development. My session was on “Architecture & Considerations for IaaS Clouds”. This session was more focused on technology aspects of the Cloud Architecture. Also, it could be applied to either an enterprise private cloud or a service provider cloud settings. Just to level set everyone in the audience, I started out with a taxonomy and reference architecture (RA) review. I utilized both NIST’s published and a simplified version of Cisco Cloud RA. The Cisco RA review was the case in point for this session, where Infrastructure, Service orchestration, Delivery/Management and consumer layers were discussed.