doc: add recommendations for managers

This commit is contained in:
Thomas Schoebel-Theuer 2019-01-27 00:29:40 +01:00 committed by Thomas Schoebel-Theuer
parent 9f8061d529
commit bd1cb9e8f6

View File

@ -11604,7 +11604,7 @@ not
\end_layout
\begin_layout Section
Recommendations for Designing and Operating Storage Systems
Recommendations for Design and Operation of Storage Systems
\begin_inset CommandInset label
LatexCommand label
name "sec:Recommendations-for-Designing"
@ -11612,6 +11612,474 @@ name "sec:Recommendations-for-Designing"
\end_inset
\end_layout
\begin_layout Subsection
Recommendations for Managers
\begin_inset CommandInset label
LatexCommand label
name "subsec:Recommendations-for-Managers"
\end_inset
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
When you are responsible for
\series bold
masses of enterprise-critical data
\series default
, the most important point is to get people with
\series bold
the right skills
\series default
, in
\emph on
addition(!) to
\emph default
the
\emph on
right mindset
\emph default
, and to assign the right roles to them.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
Practical observation from many groups in many companies: which storage
systems / architectures are in use, and how much they are
\emph on
really
\emph default
failure resistent and reliable, and how much they are
\emph on
really
\emph default
scalable for their workload, and what is their TCO (Total Cost of Ownership),
does often
\emph on
not
\emph default
depend on real knowledge and facts.
It often depends on
\series bold
personal habits
\series default
and
\series bold
pre-judgement
\series default
of staff
\begin_inset Foot
status open
\begin_layout Plain Layout
\noindent
This can be seen in a bigger company (e.g.
after mergers etc) when very different architectures have been built by
different teams for very similar usecases, although they are sometimes
even roughly comparable in size and workload.
\end_layout
\end_inset
.
In essence, this results in a gambling game how safe / cost-effective etc
your critical data
\emph on
really
\emph default
is.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
As just explained in the previous section, there are so many pitfalls, and
there are only a few people who know them, because more people are working
in small-scale systems than in large-scale enterprise ones.
There are so many lots of people at the market who
\emph on
claim
\emph default
to have some experience, but in reality they don't know what they don't
know (
\series bold
second-order ignorance
\series default
).
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
Second-order ignorance is very dangerous, even for affected people themselves,
because they are in good faith about their own skills, and that they would
be able to control everything (sometimes they really want to control literally
\emph on
everything
\emph default
, even other people who have more real experience and knowledge).
See for example wrong assumptions and
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
false proofs
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
about scalability, derived from different usecases (or in extreme cases
even from workstations workloads), or the failed scalability scenario in
section
\begin_inset CommandInset ref
LatexCommand vref
reference "subsec:Example-Failures-of"
plural "false"
caps "false"
noprefix "false"
\end_inset
where some freelancers were consulted as
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
external experts
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Quotation
\noindent
\begin_inset Graphics
filename images/MatieresCorrosives.png
lyxscale 50
scale 17
\end_inset
Check your information sources! There is a
\emph on
systematic reason
\emph default
for ill-informed
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
experts
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
.
On the internet, you can find a lot of so-called
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
best practices
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
.
Many of them propagating badly scaling storage architectures for enterprise
workloads, sometimes even
\emph on
generally
\emph default
claiming they would
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
scale very well
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
, which is however often based on
\emph on
assumptions
\emph default
instead of knowledge (and almost never based on
\emph on
measurements
\emph default
at the right measurement points for deriving substantial knowledge about
your real application behaviour).
Literally
\emph on
anyone
\emph default
can post falsely generalized
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
best practices
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
to the internet.
Together with second-order ignorance about the non-transferability of
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
success stories
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
from usecase A to usecase B (resulting in
\emph on
false
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
proofs
\emph default
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
), the internet is creating
\series bold
information bubbles
\series default
.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Quotation
\noindent
\begin_inset Graphics
filename images/lightbulb_brightlit_benj_.png
lyxscale 12
scale 7
\end_inset
Real knowledge originates from evaluated sources, such as
\series bold
scientific publications
\series default
which have undergone at least some minimum
\emph on
quality check
\emph default
, and which are trying to describe their preconditions and operating environment
s as precisely
\begin_inset Foot
status open
\begin_layout Plain Layout
\noindent
Therefore, chances are better to get a real expert when he has some (higher)
academic degrees, and was working in the area for a longer time.
\end_layout
\end_inset
as possible.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Quotation
\noindent
\begin_inset Graphics
filename images/lightbulb_brightlit_benj_.png
lyxscale 12
scale 7
\end_inset
Real experts will tell you when they don't know something.
In addition, they will tell you
\emph on
multiple
\emph default
ways for abtaining such information, such as measurements, simulation,
etc.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
If you don't have anyone in your teams who knows how
\series bold
caching
\series default
\emph on
really
\emph default
works, or if it is a single guy who cannot withstand the pressure from
a whole group of
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
alpha animals
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
, you are running an
\series bold
increased risk
\series default
of unnecessary expenses
\begin_inset Foot
status open
\begin_layout Plain Layout
I know of cases which have produced unnecessary
\emph on
direct
\emph default
cost of at least € 20 millions.
\end_layout
\end_inset
, worse services (indirect costs), failed projects, and sometimes even resulting
in loss of market share and/or of stock exchange value.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
The problem is that it
\emph on
looks so easy
\emph default
, as if everyone could build a larger storage system, with ease.
For example, just
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
spend some more money
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
, that's all you would need.
Unfortunately, both
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
marketing drones
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
from commercial storage vendors, and even a few OpenSource advocates, are
propagating this
\series bold
dangerous mindset
\series default
.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
As a responsible manager, how can you detect dangerous partly knowledge?
Good indicators are wrong usage of the term
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
architecture
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
(see definition in section
\begin_inset CommandInset ref
LatexCommand vref
reference "sec:What-is-Architecture"
plural "false"
caps "false"
noprefix "false"
\end_inset
), and/or
\series bold
confusion of architecture with implementation
\series default
.
When somebody confuses
\begin_inset Foot
status open
\begin_layout Plain Layout
Notice that there exist people who use the term
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
architecture
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
inadvertly.
They even don't even know that they are confusing architecture with implementat
ion.
Pure usage of a certain term is no clear indicator that somebody is really
an expert.
\end_layout
\end_inset
this, he does not really have an overview of different architectural solution
classes.
Instead, such people are tending to propagate their random
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
favourite product
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
.
For a responsible, this increases the risk of getting a non-optimum or
even bad / dangerous solutions.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
Not everything which works in a garage, or in a student pool, or in the
testlab (whether it's yours or from a commercial storage vendor), or in
a PoC with some
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
friendly customers
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
, is well-suited for large enterprises and their critical data (measured
in petabytes / billions of files / etc), or is the optimum solution for
TCO.
Some rules of thumb, out of experience and observation:
\end_layout
\begin_layout Itemize
For each 1 or 2 orders of magnitude of the
\series bold
size
\series default
of your data, you need better methods for safe construction and operation.
At least for each 3 to 4 orders of magnitude (sometimes even for less),
you need
\series bold
better architectures
\series default
, and people who can deal with them.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Itemize
For each 1 or 2 orders of magntitude of
\series bold
criticality
\series default
of your data (measured by
\emph on
losses
\emph default
in case of certain incidents), you will also need better architecture,
not just better components.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Subsection
Recommendations for Architects and Sysadmins
\begin_inset CommandInset label
LatexCommand label
name "subsec:Recommendations-for-Architects"
\end_inset
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard