Slashdot Mirror


Half of All Data Centers Understaffed

alphadogg writes "Fifty percent of IT executives say their data centers are understaffed, and companies are still looking for more ways to cut costs, according to Symantec's latest 'State of the Data Center' report. Sixteen percent of survey respondents said their data centers are extremely understaffed, and another 34% called their data centers somewhat understaffed. At the same time, data centers are becoming more complex and harder to manage, with more applications, data and increasingly demanding service-level agreements. 'Data center complexity has led to a lot of staffing challenges,' says Sean Derrington, director of storage management and high availability at Symantec."

32 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Th e other half by ascari · · Score: 5, Funny

    And the other half runs Linux!

    1. Re:Th e other half by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Laugh all you want, but there's a kernel of truth in that. All the *nix servers in my care mostly run on autopilot, and I pop in only once in awhile to check up on them, change/enter something in BIND, occasionally patch the ESX machinery, or put in the occasional patch that yum or ports can't get out of a repo (e.g. our custom help desk site software).

      OTOH, a huge chunk of time is spent in Exchange and SharePoint - mostly chasing down errant mails, or fixing bugs and glitches. To be fair, those two bits are customer-facing, thus more open to calls - but even still, so is our help desk site (which runs on Linux), and I rarely have to bother with that on the back-end. Also, I've run pure *nix email setups before, and it never ate as much time percentage-wise as Exchange does now - even when chasing bounces.

      On average, the 'doze servers eat about 95% of my time, but they comprise only 60% of the population.

      Nota Bene: One thing I've found to be awesome - get up a script that sends a copy of your Exchange logs to another box... that way you're not fighting store.exe for RAM when you want to parse through them, and you can use a real text editor (vi or EMACS - you pick) to read them.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Th e other half by ka8zrt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      -1 or more about not thinking this through though. (and not funny at all)

      As someone who has until recently done research in data centers and their operations, and personally dealt with the *NIX side of *NIX vs. NT years ago, I know the reality as opposed to the half-thought-out dreams some have. Yes, *NIX makes it much simpler to manage a machine, and increase the (servers/admin) ratio, among others, but it is not a solution which scales to where one person can administer 10K servers. As you add servers and applications, that ratio will reach a limit where you have to add yet another admin (operational, network, hardware, etc.). And should that site not be willing to do so, you end up with one of those "understaffed" data centers. Where that point is reached depends on a multitude of factors, including the behaviour of those using the data center (stupid developers, hands on users or workload characteristics cause that point to be reached sooner), the applications (a bunch of database servers will likely reach it before an equivalent amount of web servers), the amount of storage on those servers, and even the individual admins and how they are organized themselves. Throw in things like buying the cheapest hardware, or buying bleeding edge hardware (say 1.5TB drives when they first come out, or 10Gb ethernet cards), and it gets even worse as you try to deal with first generation drives failing or buggy drivers.

      Can two people administer 500+ servers with 1.5PB of storage? I know personally that it is possible. But to do it and keep everyone 100% happy? No. And that precludes things like having people who are hard to satisfy, having to backup all that data, running it in a non-university production environment, etc. When I left CompuServe in 1997, the numbers were far different, with IIRC 25-30 operators of varying skill levels, about 10 of us in admin positions (who were called upon by the operators when they could not handle something), and around half a dozen or so network and hardware folks. Total number of servers? Around 1200 running BSD/OS, and around another 1000 running either our proprietary OS on systems which came out of the DecSystem 20 designs, or systems running a specialized NT 3.51 load, and perhaps a total data storage of around 1.5TB. And things were simplified by things such as having dozens of machines which were identical handling application X. Of course, we also had 3 data centers, and did backups of at least one of each machine in a given group. And then there is the fact that some applications required the developers to administer the application itself.

      And looking forward... There were no regular 12 hour shifts at either of these. Yes, I was on call darn near 24*365 (I got vacation time off at my latest employer, but at CSI, I was on call even during vacation, and averaged 80hrs/week at the end). But when the fecal material hit the fan, and we had unusual problems like a computer room flooding or a critical server failing... it was possible to have to put in a 24 hour shift. Such is the life of a senior systems engineer in an operations group, which is one reason I try to avoid positions like these.

      --
      Helping build UN*X and the Internet since 1981. :)
  2. In other news... by HBI · · Score: 4, Funny

    50% of all datacenter operators lie about their staffing levels.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:In other news... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      50% of all datacenter operators lie about their staffing levels.

      The other 50% didn't return calls in time to be included in the survey.

    2. Re:In other news... by INT_QRK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that staffing levels are very often highly subjective. For most concerns, the complaint of being "under staffed" only indicates that the current staff feels overworked, a condition almost universal in all sectors of a healthy, i.e., growing, organization. For the ISO 9000-ish (or ITIL?) crowd, under staffed might mean that some formal document published a desired level at some specific point in time, the best against a workload study, and industry rules of thumb. But, since every such study measures a specific point in time, they become out of date, often obsolete by the time full staffing achieved. So, "fully staffed" is ever elusive, and this applies to every sector. We're all Bozos on this bus. In fact, any staff that's manned to the point that they're not feeling some pain risks being seen as over staffed, and a target for reallocation or cuts. Sorry to put a damper on any delicious feelings of workforce martyrdom. People also get mad at me when I point out that, by definition, nearly half of the population ranks below mean intelligence.

  3. 12 hour shiths are not the ansaser by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    12 hour shifts are not the answer as well makeing people work every weekend holiday night while the boss / PHB never does any of that.

    1. Re:12 hour shiths are not the ansaser by scarolan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      12 hour shifts are not so bad if you only work three or four days a week, alternating every other week.

    2. Re:12 hour shiths are not the ansaser by the+phantom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see how forming a union involves the government, nor how it violates free market principles.

  4. Would this be a good time for a union? by starbugs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 50 % understaffed, 16 % seriously.
    So how many of you have to answer your blackberries after work?
    Is this not the kind of situation that a Union would prevent?

    (just an honest question btw, I'm not trying to troll)

    1. Re:Would this be a good time for a union? by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You aren't trying to troll and neither am I. It IS the kind of situation a union would prevent, however considering everything else that has been done for union's sake lately (see: destruction of US auto industry) I would suggest you take the unionization decision VERY seriously. How exactly, considering that funding isn't sufficient for staffing at the current expense, do you expect companies to afford to bankroll a union AND get more staff to man the servers? In all likelihood you will end up with lower pay and more work; but hey at least you will have a contract!

      In all fairness, (not trying to troll, honest) unions aren't for educated workers who can make rational decisions. Unions were invented to protect unsuspecting workers from manipulative business owners, when the education gap was huge. Now, you probably have a very comparable education to your boss, and probably to his boss and most of the rest of the organization. You are smart, start making your own decisions.

      You know what else would prevent you from having to take work calls after hours? Stand up, tell your boss you won't give up your personal time anymore, and let him fix the situation or fire you. Presto, no more late nights!

    2. Re:Would this be a good time for a union? by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's going to be very dependent on the union. (Devil's always in the details.) Many IT folks still have the free-wheeling "just get out of my way & I'll get this fixed" attitude, and in those cases union interference in their work will not be welcomed.

      Basically, a collective bargaining agreement is one thing...having someone outside the organization set the bounds of your job (and set limits on how you can be promoted, or which incompetent f-up can be fired) is quite another. I won't say a union is impossible, but it probably wouldn't be one of the big names.

    3. Re:Would this be a good time for a union? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      however considering everything else that has been done for union's sake lately (see: destruction of US auto industry) I would suggest you take the unionization decision VERY seriously.

      Hahaha. As much as I dislike unions, the destruction of US auto industry was caused by complacent & incompetent US auto industry management.

      The US auto industry kept designing & building cars at a price point that few people wanted to buy. Simply put, foreign car companies (on average) made better, more reliable cars.

      The union wanted better salary & benefits for their members (entirely understandable, we all want to make more money). But if management agreed to ridiculous levels of compensation, to the point where the business is no longer viable, then that is the fault of management for making stupid decisions.

    4. Re:Would this be a good time for a union? by kionel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've been an advocate for an IT Union ever since my father-in-law and I talked about how the CWA helped his career.

      Consider this: The Union forced his major telco management to:

      Plan changes well in advance.

      Coordinate technical resources to ensure no overloading.

      Allowed the technical resources the legal right to push back on after-hours changes, due to labor laws.

      Provided hefty compensation bonuses for technical resources forced to work more than forty-five hours per week.


      As a result, he couldn't fathom why I was always working fifty hour weeks, was always tired, was always on-call, was always working no-notice changes...you get the idea. When I would tell him about the late-in-the-day drive-by requests, he just didn't understand that we as engineers couldn't say "No!"

      Remember, folks, that the businesses we work for cannot exist without the skills and experience that you bring to the table. Even in this economy, businesses stand to lose a lot if they let you go and are forced to replace you with a cheaper resource. You not only have a skillset, you understand the interpersonal relations, the political paths-of-least-resistence, and the office culture that will take a lot of time for a new person to pick up. That's worth a lot.

      Remember, you have the right to defend your vested interest in the business arrangement that is a corporate job. The moment you forget that is the moment you allow yourself to become a technosurf.

      --
      "'My Country Right or Wrong'is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober,'" -- Chesterton
  5. Should this be surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this really surprise anyone?

    Many data centers these days are no longer run by engineers or technologists, who have at least some idea regarding the technical aspects of the operation. Rather, many of them are run by people who received their higher education in finance, commerce, accounting, "business" or (perhaps worst of all) even marketing.

    Of course, such people have a very hard time seeing beyond the numbers, since they usually have absolutely no understanding of technology, nor what it takes to truly run an effective data center. They insist that the current number of staff are sufficient, even when they clearly aren't, and even when they could easily afford to hire more employees.

    I think this just reflects a greater problem of the American corporate society as a whole. People with actual technical knowledge in a specific field get pushed out in favor of people with meaningless MBAs (but all of the right "connections"). So it's no wonder American productivity and competitiveness is grinding to a halt.

    Other areas of the world, namely Asia, India and Eastern Europe, realize that it isn't the accountants and financiers who provide productivity, but rather the engineers, scientists and technologists. That's why they can build better cars at a far lower cost than their American competitors can, for example. That's why Korea and Japan have broadband networks that put to complete shame anything in America.

    1. Re:Should this be surprising? by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that it's a big deal that people with diverse backgrounds get into IT. Either they are competent or they are not, and there's no reason someone in finance can't become competent in IT and switch careers.

      No problem, but put them at the end of the very long line of folks whom already know what they're doing.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Should this be surprising? by Himring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IT will forever baffle the top brass in most companies. Your dollar-men didn't get their via tech, but by handling the blood of the place -- the money. Engineers -- or those with that inclination and aptitude -- stay in the lower echelons. Those at the top are the game players, politically savvy -- honestly, cold. I think most engineer-types dolefully lack the ability to play the political games needed to rise to a CO position in a company. Is it any wonder that CIOs are the least positions to ever make CEO?

      All of this being said: a data center is technology, and technology is a mystery. To top it off, it's not getting any easier to understand. "Cloud computing? What's that?" Says the old CO who still uses an AOL account ... that he hasn't logged into in years....

      Bottomline: spending money on tech is always something the big brass knows they have to do, but do so begrudgingly....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    3. Re:Should this be surprising? by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ahh I was somehow under the false impression that they were able to make cheaper cars due to lower wages, less environmental regulations, and the lack of labor unions.

      Actually it only takes about $2K of labor to build all cars and trucks. Some robot factories cost less, some cost more.

      Most of the revenue goes to executive bonuses.

      I'll buy American made, Japanese managed, cars. But I won't buy Mexico made, American managed, cars.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Should this be surprising? by Fastfwd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it only takes about $2K of labor to build all cars and trucks

      That's probably true of most things/services. There is an amazing amount of "friction"(ie: added cost) from all levels of management, marketing, etc. Some of it is necessary, a lot of it is not. It's strange that the people you are 100% sure you need(engineers/builders) are often at the bottom of the salary food chain.

  6. What is "understaffed" by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe understaffed means no one (in the US) is replying to the following ad:

    Want to hire data center cat5 cable install tech, mandatory 60 hr week overtime, weekend 2nd 3rd shift and holidays required, require CCIE, MBA, at least masters level degree (prefer phd), minimum ten years experience with "windows server 2008R2" yearly salary $25K/yr no benefits.

    Golly, we got us a shortage, best open the H1B floodgates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  7. One small part of the study by jamesl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The original Symantec study listed seven bullet points and staffing was number four.

    Staffing and budgets remain tight with half of all enterprises reporting they are somewhat/extremely understaffed. Finding budget and qualified applicants are the biggest recruiting issues. Seventy-six percent of enterprises have the same or more job requisitions open this year.
    http://www.symantec.com/about/news/release/article.jsp?prid=20100111_01

    More important and certainly more interesting was the finding:
    ... the study found that mid-sized enterprises (2,000 to 9,999 employees) are more likely to adopt cutting-edge technologies such as cloud computing, deduplication, replication, storage virtualization, and continuous data protection than small or large enterprises to reduce IT costs and manage increasing complexity.

  8. Data Centers by electricbern · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Lay off staff 2. Hire Oompa-Loompas 3. Profit!

    --
    alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls /dev > il && tail daemon.log'
  9. Not only data centers by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Informative

    Banks are "guilty" of under staffing too. You call a bank for help or a query on something very dear to you and here's what you are likely to face:

    1: A long wait for service after being informed that they've been "receiving higher than normal call volumes..."

    2: You then face a menu system that tries to keep you away from speaking to any human being...

    3: When you finally get to speak to a one, this human being knows nothing about what you need...or cannot help you!

    4: Or if he/she can be of any help, their accent makes you take "too long" to actually get service...

    5: When you decide to 'attack' your branch office to "actually get service", you realize that you are dealing with a fella who is paid small amount of cash...almost minimum wage...that they are actually inefficient...

    These financial institutions are guilty guilty guilty too.

  10. The % would be higher except... by Zarf · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... most of the data center staff we tried to poll were too busy to answer the poll.

    --
    [signature]
  11. What they say VS what they do by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's a survey, folks - not real life.

    If you want to get a true picture of life in a data centre look at what the management actually do, what they spend money on and what they produce. If you rely on the answers they give you'll end up broke very quickly. The only way to tell if datacentres really are understaffed is if they start hiring more people: any other action just shows the lie in their responses.

    When managers say they need more staff, they generally mean they need more cheap staff (often to replace the expensive staff they already have). They could always fill any critical needs very quickly by offering more financial incentives (the only ones that really mean anything), but this almost never happens. Somehow they manage to bumble on with their "staff shortages" and still meet their targets.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  12. Re:Whatever. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the meantime, get on your knees every morning and thank your personal god that you have a job.

    It's attitudes like that why wages stagnate. Gonna get flamebait for this, but what happened to the yankee spirit? The Founders would puke at the current complacency.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  13. Don't forget Western Europe by brucmack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for a Swedish company that understands the value of IT and invests resources in it accordingly. Based on my experiences with other Western European countries, this isn't abnormal.

    The difference in work culture between here and the US is astounding. While it seems most American companies see IT as the place to save costs, the companies I've dealt with here recognize that our IT systems contribute directly to our competitiveness in the global market, and invest accordingly.

  14. Re:Whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gonna get flamebait for this, but what happened to the yankee spirit?

    Outsourced.

  15. Get Your History Right by mpapet · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unions were invented to protect unsuspecting workers from manipulative business owners

    No. It was really much simpler than that. People were tired of working for peanuts. Lots of people were tired of working for peanuts. Lots of those people were plenty smart. How else do you think they got organized?

    Before unions, the institution of the 5-day work week was another long, hard-fought, pitched political battle that business was *sure* would absolutely end the U.S. economy. When Ford doubled pay and shrank working hours, the rest of American industry would not follow because from a capitalist's perspective, you are blowing your labor costs out of site! History suggests it seemed to have worked for Ford.

    You don't get to blame organized labor for all of the auto industry's ills. Maybe you recall the Pontiac Aztek as possibly the apex of bad auto product? The labor that allocated resources for that project and a long history of uninspiring ones before that, weren't part of a Union. What's the managerial ratio at those companies 'burdened' by Union labor? What are the managerial labor costs at those firms 'burdened' by Union labor? I think you will find them both expensive and inefficient non-union workforces.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

    It's time to bury that notion that Unions cripple an economy. It's used primarily to reinforce the ridiculous American ideal of 'rugged individualism triumphs over all" and concentrates power and resources to the least efficient few.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  16. Yeah, blame the unions. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like if producing gas guzzlers that are inefficient and brake easily is the fault of the unions.

    I thought that the geniuses commanding those huge bonuses, golden hand shakes and parachutes were the ones dictating corporate policy.

    But hey, whatever rocks your boat matey.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  17. Unions work fine for German, British and others. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some of the most productive car plants in the world are there, the Unions in Germany (who actually have input in how the companies are run) would be classed as nothing but communist by most Usians from their brainwashed point of view of world politics.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  18. Shifts and other professionals by turtleshadow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree with the statement but not the reason.

    Doctors, Nurses, Medical Staff, Police, Fire/rescue often work 12 hour shifts and holiday.

    However those professions realize and have by experience been bitten by the consequences which aid them in helping the professional know their limits and the limits of their peers.

    First these professionals make mistakes during the day. More so when overtired, Even more so when out of their normal sleep pattern. Technology professionals somehow ignore this and think they are superhuman and often promote this.

    "Oh I stayed up all night to fix your server!" Pat me on the back! While probably true, I don't want to hear that sentimentality from my admin. It meant something went horribly wrong and I don't want it to ever happen again.

    Doctors, etc as cited know that they would perform in a diminished capacity the next day and not schedule surgery and/or the hospital management would know to give them a resting day as the liability of mistake be too great. Safety services know that some other station has to possibly cover a crew that just came off a fire/rescue and be very wary to send the same crew back in. Technology companies ignore this to their own embarrassment which is justly earned.

    Second doing business changes (minor or major) on weekends or holiday nights is _bad business_ in that it demonstrates the fragility and unreliability to which they do not admit to customers. Why not do the same operation during normal hours?

      Would anyone take their business' truck to the car mechanic for an Oil change and accept, "well we have to do it between 3am and 4am so as not to impact your business."

    But it's an OIL change, it happens frequently, everyone ought to expect it to happen! This is exactly the same to me as a minor patch, price lists, firewall rules, and application rules for business policy. Such ones are expected, frequent and shouldn't have to be done like as they are now at a forsaken hour in the morning.

    The more complex example is "Oh the engine overhaul is going to be b/w 3 and 4am" - I would say give me another truck that does the same thing and I'll be back after you fix my truck during the day when your awake. The analog is the system upgrade. Providers go into fits -" but but your system was so tweaked, We can't simply move it to another CPU", etc... Blah. Its because most centers don't know how to offer a real solution.

    IT Professionals ought to advance the profession and figure out why they are working 12 hour shifts and holidays and then systematically eliminate these events as much as possible till only having to do so when a human life or safety systems is jeopardized.

    Why IT professionals are not publicly beating up IT vendors for poorly written OS, barely redundant equipment, poorly designed apps, etc, is beyond the scope here.

    Who is going to be the next Ralpf Nader, who will write "Unsafe at Any Speed" for the IT industry/Computing Science.