Here is yet a different kind of puzzle. It will teach you (if you figure it out) how to solve another large class of logic puzzles. Enjoy. It isn't as easy as you might think!

Your Yellow Lab Retriever is having puppies!! You (Bill) watch as she quickly delivers two males. You run upstairs to grab your camera and the doorbell rings - two of your friends (Joe and Bob) have come over to visit. You mention that your dog has just given birth. After a little while you all go downstairs to see how the they are doing. On the way down, you mention to Joe (Bob doesn't hear) that there are two male puppies. When you return, a third has been born... a chocolate!! You now have one of each color. The yellow and black lab puppies (your friends don't know in which order they were born) tumble over each other and Joe notices that those two are boys. You challenge each other: What is the probability that all three puppies are male? Bob overhears the challenge, but he doesn't know the gender of any of the puppies.

Bill, Joe, and Bob all happen to be taking "Statistics 101" together at the local community collage. Over a beer they jot down their answers. They are all pretty bright students (assume they get it right) and competitive (they don't help each other or compare notes). What did they come up with?

If you give up, here is the solution:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/dcb/SOLUTION_Puppy_Perplexity.html

February 28, 2005 10:38 AM EST Permalink

Here is an interesting little puzzle. It isn't so much a puzzle as a highly counter-intuitive reality. If you run the math to check your assumptions, you might think you've been hit by the Intel Processor computation bug. :-)

To help you out, the average radius of the Earth is about 3,959 miles, and the classic formula is: "circumference = 2 * pi * radius", where "pi" is approximately 3.14156. Polar (3,949.8 mi) and Equatorial (3,963.2 mi) radii are close enough to assume a perfect (smooth) sphere for this problem.

Your company has just completed a massive global engineering project. You've built a particle accelerator, a superconducting supercollider that circumnavigates the globe! A perfectly circular hollow pipe thru which protons and anti-protons are accelerated and smash into each other.

But just before you flip the switch to energize the superconducting magnets, the UN caves to the protest of environmentalists. Seems your pipe is hindering the migration of the revered Banana Slug in the forests adjacent to Santa Cruz (apparently there are a lot of laywers there with nothing better to do, except maybe sue IBM). You are commanded to raise the level of the pipe by 3 feet. Since the shape must remain a perfect circle, you must raise the pipe by this much around the entire length of the 24,850 mile pipe, not just there in Santa Cruz.

Try to guess the length of the segment of pipe you will need to add to raise the level of the supercollider by 3 feet around the entire circumference of the globe (multiple choice). After you've made a guess, go ahead and run the math.

1. More than 5,000 feet
2. 1,000-2,000 feet
3. 100-200 feet
4. Less than 20 feet

Extra credit: What if you wanted to "raise" by 3 feet a circular pipe with a radius equal to the distance between the Sun and Neptune (average radius = 2,798,842,261 miles)?

In case you give up, here is the solution:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/dcb/SOLUTION_24K_Pipe.html

February 28, 2005 08:00 AM EST Permalink

Keith McGuigan posted a great puzzle on his blog. I liked it so much had to add it to my collection. If you enjoy logic puzzles, be sure to visit Keith's blog, as he will be posting new challenges now and then. Like the "3 bulb" puzzle I posted earlier, there is a "key" approach that unlocks this problem that you'll find useful in attacking other puzzles. Good luck!

Five greedy pirates follow a treasure map to a deserted island. They dig at the "X", and uncover 100 gold coins! The pirates are unionized and therefore seniority rules. However, they are also democratic, and the majority has veto and execute (as in: "off with his head") power... so the leader (the most senior pirate) must be careful.

The leader gets to decide how to divide up the booty amongst himself and the rest of the pirates. However, after the plan is presented, all the pirates (including the leader) votes on the plan. If less than 50% approve the plan, the leader is fed to the fish and the process repeats itself with the next most senior pirate.

Now, the pirates are all pretty smart and don't make rash or emotional decisions. All of the pirates use the following priorities (in the following order) to drive their voting:

1. They don't want to get killed
2. They want to get the most money possible
3. They want to kill other pirates

So, how does the leader divide up the treasure such that he keeps as much as he possibly can for himself, and still survivie?

If you give up, here is the solution:
<check back soon>

February 25, 2005 03:18 PM EST Permalink

This one requires some out-of-the-box thinking, but still, there is no "trick". Solving this one will give you insight into an approach for a large "class" of logic puzzles - questioning assumptions and using residual data. Good luck.

You have three light switches by the front door downstairs. These are tied to three bulbs down in the basement. You have no clue which switch controls which bulb. You can't see the bulbs from the front door. Thankfully, you do know that toggling each switch "up" turns one of the three bulb.

You are lazy, or maybe just self-challenging. Regardless of your motivation, you think there has got to be a way to figure out which switch controls which bulb with a single trip to the basement.

Again, there aren't any cute tricks... You can't count on the switches being ordered similar to the bulbs. You can't see or access the wires. You have no helpers or remote cameras or anything like that.

But, taking one trip down to the basement (while you're still down there) you can tell which switches control which bulbs! How?

If you give up, here is the solution:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/dcb/SOLUTION_3_Bulbs.html

February 25, 2005 01:23 PM EST Permalink

Here is a letter I sent to a Lead Architect I met at a particular "space agency", as a follow up to our discussion about one of their infrastructure redesign projects. I think many clients are wrestling with this topic, so I offer this as an open/anonymous letter for your consideration.

Hi <----->,

It was great meeting with you yesterday. Thanks for sharing some insights into your strategy and challenge. I applaud you for starting to think about your future infrastructure needs and the potential risk of status quo at this point. Too many clients wait until the last minute and then they find themselves in an urgent/reactive mode making poor and costly choices.

I was thinking more about your philosophy regarding the use of non-proprietary open standards. This is very important, and I'm a huge advocate of this approach. I agree that it is critical to architect a solution that promotes choice and permits you to migrate to different products and technologies and vendors without cost, delay, or pain. To me, and I would guess to you as well, this is the reason to select interoperable standards and "open" platforms.

As you know (although many people confuse the two) the "open source" movement is different than the value proposition of "open standards". The measure of whether something is open or not is determined by the cost/pain of extracting that component out of your solution and replacing it with another choice. Examples could include the server vendor (eg: HP to Sun Opteron), the OS (eg: Linux to Solaris), the SAN fabric switches, the J2EE App Server, the SQL Database, the Compilers, etc, etc....  Note that open source does not factor into the measure of being "open".

I do also recognize the value of open source. It can increase the rate of innovation through a global community. It can provide for independent security assessment and validation. It can offer a client the ability to tweak the product for their own needs (although I generally discourage this due to support and quality and complexity reasons). As you know, Sun has open sourced the code to Solaris10! I never thought I'd see that happen, but it has.

There is another aspect that I believe is part of your strategy. If you build the upper layers using interoperable standards, then the layers below are often interchangeable even if they aren't fully open. For example, if you build your business logic using J2EE running in an App Server, then the OS and the H/W choice is much less "sticky". You can switch between SPARC and Opteron or between Solaris and Linux without cost or delay or pain. Also, if you code and compile your own apps, you can choose to use standard library calls that make the underlying platform easy to change.

There are, however, drawbacks associated with choosing products that do not have a well established and directed engineering and support mechanism. The key, in my opinion, is to select partners and products that embrace open standards (and open source) and yet have an auditable and proven support and engineering model. This gives you high confidence in your solution as well as the ability to change at will.

I believe Linux is fine as a personal desktop operating environment. I also think Linux can be a viable choice on which to run stateless replicated (load balanced) presentation tier services. However relying on Linux to host mission critical applications and tier 2+ services, in my professional opinion, will significantly increase the risk associated with your mission support. It just isn't mature enough yet. There are reliability concerns, security concerns,  scalability concerns, functionality concerns, support concerns, bug fix responsiveness concerns, legal indemnification concerns, etc.

I offer the same counsel about the choice of your supplier of Opteron servers and other components in your solution stack. Many have found that the potential initial cost savings associated with building a whitebox generic server, and using freeware software, is often lost many times over in the frustration and hassle of dealing with bugs and quality issues and the lack of features. These issues are highly mitigated when using "open standard" products offered by a partner like Sun that pours billions per year into R&D and QA.

I'll close by reiterating my suggestion that these should probably play a role in your infrastructure redesign:
  - Sun's industry leading Opteron servers (btw, our future roadmap is extremely interesting)
  - Sun's open source Solaris 10 operating environment
  - Sun's open standards "platform software stack"
          (app server, directory server with ActiveX interoperability, portal server, identity server, etc, etc)

We also have an interesting suite of virtualization and automation solutions, including our N1 Service Provisioning Server.

I'd love to support you in learning more about and even evaluating these products and technologies and strategies. I'd also be glad to act as a general sounding board and/or provide architectural review and guidance as desired.

Please feel free to contact me any time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards,

-- Dave

Dave Brillhart
Lead Architect - Strategic Government
Client Solutions Organization
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

February 24, 2005 06:10 PM EST Permalink

I found it! This logic puzzle appears simple. But when I was challenged with this about 12 years ago (by my good friend Scott Bardsley - now a chip designer at Analog Devices) it took me two days to figure it out! There are no tricks. Yes, there is a solution... I do really mean three (3) moves. And the solution must work in the general case (every time). Don't start this unless you have some time (eg: flying across the pond).

You are given 12 billiard balls that all appear identical in color, size, weight, texture, composition, etc.  But one of the balls is either slightly lighter or slightly heavier than the other 11. You have a simple balance scale. Describe the process that will allow you to determine which ball is different, and if it is heavier or lighter. Oh... you can only use the scale THREE times.

In case you give up, here is the solution:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/dcb/SOLUTION_12_Balls.html

February 23, 2005 06:28 AM EST Permalink

SUPerG (Sun Users Performance Group) is Sun's premiere technical event for customers interested in large scale solutions architected for data centers and high-performance and technical computing. The program is designed to provide highly interactive and intimate exchanges between Sun's leading technical experts and our customers.

You can read more about the event, and register to attend at: http://www.sun.com/datacenter/superg/

This year, I've been invited to speak at this event. In the spirit of blogging, I've posted my abstract (below). I need to get busy writing the paper and creating a clear, concise, and compelling technology demonstration. If you'd like me to address a particular topic or concern or challenge in the paper (related to the abstract), or have an idea that I might include in the demo, please drop me a line or submit a comment to this entry. If I use your idea, I'll attribute it to you in the published paper, and here in blog land, so please include your name and contact info.

Hope you see you at SUPerG in April in Virgina. Stop by and say "hi".

*SUPerG 2005 Abstract*
Effective Deployment & Operational Practices for Dynamically Scaled SOA and Grid Environments

Scalability is taking on a new form and introducing new challenges. The traditional "vertical" platform with dozens of powerful CPUs bound by local memory offering (nearly) uniform memory access, is being threatened by a new model - networked grids of powerful but low cost compute nodes.

Grids are not new. But powerful new techniques are emerging that allow commercial workloads to take advantage of this style of computing. This includes SOA-based application design, as well as auto-deployment and provisioning to drive efficiency and utilization in infrastructure operation.

Modern designs provide for on-the-fly horizontal scaling with the push of a button.... in which new containers join the grid into which a distributed app may expand to offer new levels of performance and service level. A side effect of this approach is a highly-resilient platform, such that bound dependencies can fail without a catastrophic impact on the running service.

This talk will provide an update on the State of the Technology with respect to SOA and Infrastructure Provisioning, and how these can be leveraged to offer Adaptable, Scalable, and Resilient services.

I may also include a demonstration that will show how a collection of bare metal servers can be established into a Grid using N1 SPS (integrated with JET). Following this provisioning phase, the demo will then show a sample app deployed and executed across multiple nodes. Finally, it'll show a node being added to the live Grid using SPS, and how that app can then expand, at run-time, to leverage this new node, increasing its work rate.

February 23, 2005 05:00 AM EST Permalink

Vocation is a term based on the Latin "vocare", meaning "to call". One's vocation should therefore be a pursuit to which one is called....  That begs the question as to whom is doing the calling - an interesting thought that I'll leave as an exercise for the reader. Instead, here are some related insights from several well known personalities. As you read this, consider where and how you invest your time and energy. As in business, it is often worth reflecting on our life's values and investments, "outsourcing" or eliminating distractions (and gratuitous busyness), and simplifying around those activities to which we have been called and have gifts.

Johnny Carson once said:
"Never continue in a job you don't enjoy. If you are happy at what you are doing, you'll have inner peace. And if you have that along with physical health, you'll have had more success than you can possibly imagine".

Personally, as an Enterprise Architect for Sun Microsystems, I am blessed with a fantastic job working for a great employer. This has been an unbelievably rewarding ten years! And I'm not talking about financial performance. [However, I'm holding on to my stock!]

We're studying a book called "The Purpose Driven Life". It directly confronts the question: "What on earth am I here for?". Your answer to that illuminates your definition or objective of success. But ask your heroes and you'll find that material accumulation and affluence don't ultimately satisfy... although during the pursuit phase, you think it might. Someone once asked John D. Rockefeller how much money was enough. "One dollar more," he replied. Power and influence, physical beauty, intelligence and wit all can stroke the flames of self-worth and pride, but are but a brief candle. Shakespeare's Macbeth laments:
"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

Solomon is considered the wisest person who ever lived. Among many works, he wrote the book of Ecclesiastes. Most of this book contains Solomon’s observations as he devotes himself "to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven" (Eccl. 1:13). Solomon sums up what he finds: "Meaningless! Meaningless! Everything is meaningless!" (vs. 8). "He took an inventory of the world, and all the best things in it. He cast up the account; and the sum total is vanity." Through human wisdom, Solomon finds no meaning in life, no rhyme nor reason to life.

It seems that to truly be satisfied, we need pursue our "vocation"... that to which we have been called and gifted. It is then that we'll truly enjoy our job and other activities, and find purpose. Clearly relationships are the center of just about any vocation, and many of us have multiple callings (eg: parenting, marriage, work, etc). For now, I'll just try to describe how you might find or validate one particular vocation or calling in your life.

A calling is a term often used by those who are considering entering the ministry. Many church leaders use a simple three-part test to help determine if someone should pursue this line of work. The "test" is actually quite useful for any (even secular) vocational consideration. Here are the questions you can ask yourself about your job or other pursuit:

1. Do you have a strong internal call (sense of desire and urgency and passion)?
2. Is there a pattern of others confirming your gifts and abilities to perform this role?
3. Are opportunities being presented for you to apply your gifts and passion?

How do you measure a subjective "internal call"? You've probably seen the 1981 Academy Award winning film "Chariots of Fire", in which Olympic gold-metal runner Eric Liddell said, “When I run, I feel God’s pleasure.” You should have a sense of fulfillment in what you do. But, others should also confirm this activity. For example, you might *think* you are a talented singer (or consultant, or manager, or teacher, or whatever)... but if several others suggest otherwise, you probably should consider their advice and another pursuit.

Think about where you focus your time and energy. Both at work and in leisure. Ask yourself if you feel called and fulfilled, and if others confirm your gifts? As Johnny said, if you are in this place, you are indeed blessed. If not, you owe it to yourself and those around you to get there. That might mean a change in what you do, or in your perspective about what you do.

Here is an interesting story. John Coltrane is regarded by many as the greatest sax player ever. He played with Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, etc. After becoming a Christian in 1957 he prayed that God would grant him the ability to use his music to glorify God and bring joy and happiness to others. He wrote "A Love Supreme", regarded widely as his best. It's a spiritual work about the amazing love of Jesus (which he describes in the album's liner). One night while performing this number, he played the solo part better than he had ever played it. As he walked off stage, some overheard him mutter to himself the Latin phrase: nunc dimittis. That means, essentially: "this is the moment for which I've lived... I've accomplished my life's mission and purpose". Coltrane got this from Luke 2, where Simeon says this phrase after he sees baby Jesus in the Temple.

Don't be satisfied with mediocrity. I believe we all have a purpose, that there are opptys open to all of us at various times, that if we follow our inner call, as confirmed/validated by others, that we'll be able to say along with Liddell and Coltrane and Carson and Solomon, that we are doing what we were born to do. That might mean being a stay-at-home parent, or a traveling consultant, or a missionary, or a sanitation worker, or a weapon's designer, etc. Find your vocation and pursue it with excellence and passion.

Liddell, by the way, found his "nunc dimittis", and his eventual death, serving in the mission field in China, rather than in running. But in both activities, he followed his call and his gifts. Scotland morned his death. But I imagine Eric would tell you he had no regrets.

Caution: mid-life spontaneity is not generally a true "calling" :-) A desire to do something radical might be an indication that your current activities aren't fulfilling your purpose. Just be careful that your desire for change is not a frivolous distraction to the real source of discontent.

February 22, 2005 12:02 PM EST Permalink

My dad sent me this logic puzzle... It isn't that hard, but takes some thought. Don't answer too quickly!

Say you're in a small row boat on a lake. Inside the row boat is a bowling ball. You take the bowling ball and throw it over board. It sinks down to and settles on the sandy bottom of the lake.

Question: If we had measured the level of the lake before the ball was thrown over board, and again after the ball settled on the bottom of the lake, would we have found that the level of the lake increased, decreased, or remained the same?

In case you give up, here is the solution:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/dcb/SOLUTION_Boat_and_Ball.html

February 20, 2005 07:44 AM EST Permalink

In order to get the maximum effect, please view and read each of the four slide images (below) in turn. Don't view the last image until you've read the previous three. Enjoy!

February 20, 2005 06:54 AM EST Permalink

If you enjoy solving puzzles and word problems you might enjoy reading the book called:

How would you move Mount Fuji?

This book contains a collection of various types of logic puzzles, design question, estimation challenges, and choice dilemmas that, according to the author, Microsoft (and others) use during interviews with new grads. The theory is that since these folks don't have a lot of industry experience or a proven track record of success, that creative thinking under pressure (a critical success factor) can be determined to some extent by observing a candidate's process of dealing with a challenging scenario to which they haven't previously been exposed.

To me, these kinds of problems provide for a fun distraction now and then.

I'm pretty good these these, but here's one that got me. Sometimes the apparently simple ones are the hardest because you can convince yourself of the one-true-answer and can't see beyond your solution. Give it a try!

How many distinct points are there on the surface of the Earth from which you can walk one mile due South, then one mile due East, and then one mile due North, and end up at the same exact spot from which you started?

It isn't a trick question, per-se. Use basic assumptions, such as walking on the surface of (not thru) the Earth, that magnetic and true North are the same, that the Earth is a smooth perfectly  spherical "globe", etc. Don't make it harder than it is. According to the book, you'd be disqualified from further consideration for a job at Microsoft if you came up with "zero" or "one" point.

In case you give up, here is the solution:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/dcb/SOLUTION_3_Legged_Trek.html

February 19, 2005 11:04 AM EST Permalink

So the news (news.com.com) is reporting that Intel and HP are getting into the game... joining the ranks of multi-core chip vendors and their customers who see Oracle's license strategy (to charge by the core) as misaligned with the times. These are times of virtualized resources that are consumed and funded as needed, they say.

I was thinking of an analogy for Oracle's position... Consider how you would feel about a policy at Blockbuster Video if, when you rented a DVD, you had to pay $10.00 per seat (your sofa counts as three - being multi-seated). No, it doesn't matter if it'll just be you and your spouse watching the movie. Since you have 15 seats that you *could* utilize (the bar stools and folding chairs count too) you will pay $150.00 per night for that movie. Oh, you'd like to display that movie in PARALLEL in your family room and in your entertainment room? Sure, you can do that with their "shared disc" technology. But now add up all the seats in both rooms (25), and that'll be $20.00 per seat! So please pay us $500.00 per night for that movie.

Now, why in the world would Oracle change that policy? They've maximized their revenue pull - and customers are still writing checks. They are in business to extract as much from their "value" as the market will bear, not offer charity discounts to a world that can't rationalize the price tag assigned by a market share leader (I won't use the other "m" word). Oracle reports having $10B in cash, about equal to their annual revenue. It would take less than a thousand E25K customers to decide to run Oracle RAC on their servers to deliver another $10B to their warchest. Not bad, for the price of DVD blanks :-)

Choice in this market segment is the only lever that will work. Customers are demanding choice. And they will respond when it appears. Oracle should note that when choice knocks, many will answer even if they then respond with a competitive position. It takes a long time to get a bad taste out of your mouth. Many will boycott Oracle just because they finally can.

There are some hints that choice might be just around the corner.

February 15, 2005 07:26 AM EST Permalink

Here's a collection of charts, graphs, and images that provide insight into the abyss of the typical datacenter operation. It's scary out there, when we apply benchmarks used to measure utilization, efficiency, and contribution from other part of the business.

But there is hope. For example, just this month Sun released a valuable and comprehensive (and free) BluePrint book called "Operations Management Capabilities Model". We've been working on this one for some time - so check it out. In addition, you can sign up (for free) with our SunTONE Program for self-assessment guides and self-remediation activities related to our ITIL-plus Certification program. It is based on, but extends ITIL. Thousands of companies are registered. We'll help if you'd like. Finally, the Service-Optimized DataCenter program will act as a Center of Excellence for putting these concepts into practice along with innovative new technologies in virtualization, provisioning, automation, and optimization, and other best practices. As you read about the state of IT below, realize that there is an escape from the pit of mediocrity. Part 2 will explore the oppty.

For now, for this post, I'll survey some of the problems that need fixing...

Let's assume that the prime directive for a datacenter is simply to: Deliver IT Services that meet desired Service Level Objectives at a competitive cost point. There are all kinds of important functions that fall within those large buckets [Service Level and Financial Mgmt], but that'll work for this discussion.

In my experience working with customers, there are two primary barriers that prevent a datacenter from being as successful as it might be in this mission. First, there is rampant unmanaged complexity. Second, most IT activities are reactive in nature... triggered by unanticipated events and often initiated by unsatisfied customer calls. The result: expensive services that can't meet expectations. Which is the exact opposite of the what an IT shop should deliver!

Here are some related graphics (with comments following each graphic):

This illustrates the typical "silo" or "stovepipe" deployment strategy. A customer or business unit wants a new IT service developed and deployed. They might help pick their favorite piece parts and IT builds/integrates the unique production environment for this application or service. There is often a related development and test stovepipe for this application, and maybe even a DR (disaster recovery) stovepipe at another site. That's up to four "n"-tier environments per app, with each app silo running different S/W stacks, different firmware, different patches, different middleware, etc, etc. Each a science experiment and someone's pet project.

Standish, Meta, Gartner, and others describe the fact that ~40% of all major IT initiatives that are funded and staffed are eventually canceled before they are ever delivered! And of those delivered, half never recover their costs. Overall, 80% of all major initiatives do not deliver to promise (either canceled, late, over budget, or simply don't meet expectation). Part of the reason (there are many reasons) for this failure rate is the one-off stovepipe mentality. Other reasons are a lack of clear business alignment, requirements, and criteria for success.

This is a interesting quote from a systems vendor. While 200M IT workers seems absurd, it describes the impact of accelerating complexity and the obvious need to manage that process. We saw the way stovepipe deployment drives complexity. We're seeing increasing demand for services (meaning more stovepipes), each with increasing service level expectations (meaning more complex designs in each stovepipe), each with increasing rates of change (meaning lots of manual adjustments in each stovepipe), each with with increasing numbers of (virtual) devices to manage, each built from an increasing selection of component choices. The net result is that each stovepipe looks nothing like the previous or next IT project. Every app lives in a one-off custom creation.

If all this complexity isn't bad enough, as if to add insult to injury, each of these silos averages less than 10% utilization. Think about that.... say you commit $5million to build out your own stovepipe for an ERP service. You will leave $4.5M on the floor running idle! That would be unacceptable in just about any other facet of your business. Taken together, high complexity (lots of people, unmet SLOs) and low utilization rates (more equip, space, etc) drive cost through the roof! If we could apply techniques to increase average utilization to even 40% (and provide fault and security isolation), we could potentially eliminate the need for 75% of the deployed equip and related overhead (or at least delay further  acquisitions, or find new ways to leverage the resources).

We've seen what complexity and utilization does to cost... But the other IT mandate is to deliver reliable IT services. This graphic summarizes a few studies performed by IEEE, Oracle, and Sun as to the root cause of service outages. In the past, ~60% of all outages were planned/scheduled, and 40% were the really bad kind - unplanned. Thankfully, new features like live OS upgrades and patches and backups and dynamic H/W reconfigurations are starting to dramatically reduce the need for scheduled outages. But we've got to deal with the unplanned outages that always seem to happen at the worst times. Gartner explains that 80% of unplanned outages are due to unskilled and/or unmotivated people making mistakes or executing poorly documented and undisciplined processes. In theory, we can fix this with training and discipline. But since each stovepipe has its own set of unique operational requirements and processes, it nearly impossible to implement consistent policies and procedures across operations.

So it isn't surprising, then, that Gartner has found that 84% of datacenters are operating in the basement in terms of Operational Maturity... Either in Chaotic or Reactive modes.

Okay... enough. I know I didn't paint a very pretty picture. The good news is that most firms recognize these problems and are starting to work at  simplifying and standardizing their operations. In Part 2, I'll provide some ideas on where to start and how to achieve high-return results.

February 12, 2005 05:15 PM EST Permalink

The latest buzz on the streets, at least around those neighborhoods frequented by the eXtreme crowd, seems to be about the Cell Processor. I wrote a little blog on the Power 6 recently and one reader warned me to watch out for The Cell.

Well, I have to admit, I'm a bleeding edge junkie myself at times. And the theory of operation around The Cell is pretty compelling. The problem is that theory doesn't always translate to reality! In fact, it seldom does. Especially when S/W is a critical component of the translation.

Gartner suggests that only 1 in 5 major initiatives that Sr. Mgmt funds and resources ever delivers to promise... 80% fail to meet expectations. IBM talks about a recent Standish Group report that suggests only 16.2% of S/W projects are delivered to promise. Another study suggests that > 40% are canceled before delivered (and most that are delivered are late and/or way over budget, often never recovering costs).

If you read the reports about Cell, it isn't about the H/W... That's the point really. The H/W is made up of standard building blocks (cells) of Power cores. A socket holds a Processor Element which contains a main Processor Unit (core) and several (often 8) Attached Processor Units (cores). However, the interesting part is the "Cell Object", which is a S/W construct that includes code and data that can migrate around looking for a "host" Cell system on which to execute. There is talk of dynamically-orchestrating pipelines. Of S/W self-healing properties. Of dynamic partitionability with multiple native OS support. All S/W ideas.

So it isn't really about H/W.  The H/W "Cells" are simply the "amino acids". The more interesting question might be: is there an "intelligent designer" who can breath life into a soup made up of these "single celled" organisms? There is a precedent for doom - where advanced life forms failed to thrive due to a lack of S/W life support (eg: EPIC/VLIW, Stack Machines, etc).

We saw earlier the dismal failure rate of projects using well established S/W development paradigms. It'll be amazing if Sony/Toshiba/IBM can turn the PlayStation3 engine into a viable general purpose computing platform that can threaten AMD, Intel, and SPARC at home and in the datacenter. From what I hear, the development tools and processes for PlayStation2 are an absolute nightmare.

It'll be fun to watch this pan out. One thing is for sure... at least PlayStation3 will ROCK, if they can deliver a reasonable flow of affordable immersive networked games. I hope so.

The Cell makes for great reading. Unfortunately, when it comes to a general purpose platform, this one might never recover from Stage 3:

February 09, 2005 06:27 AM EST Permalink

This last weekend I was under the weather. Intense sinus pressure, 102.9 temps, and eventually reduced lung capacity. I generally fight off bugs without meds, but this one lasted longer than I liked, so I visited my doc. He listened to my lungs and radioed the nurse to run a Pulse Oximeter on me. She came in the examination room in less than a minute with a little non-invasive finger clip device. Within seconds, I found out my Blood Oxy was 94%.

Maybe it's the engineer in me, but I was fascinated by how this thing worked. I found a nice one-pager on the history and theory of operation (see below). I also found out that normal is 97-99%, and below 90% suggest possible need for ventilator support.... Which is why I was given a short term protocol of Prednisone along with some antibiotics. Just 24 hours later I feel great!

February 08, 2005 07:12 PM EST Permalink