Finding Lost IT With RFID

CWmike writes "Vendors are increasingly trying to sell users on the idea that they need to stick RFID tags on IT equipment to keep track of it. Users are interested in this technology because they would much rather automate inventory tracking then go server-to-server with a bar code scanner and clipboard. But the new push for RFID tags in data centers also hints at a larger issue: There may be a significant amount of equipment that can't be located. And while out-of-sight, out-of-mind is not always bad, there's a least one nagging problem: 'Ghost server' systems, which may still be drawing power but perform no work and may be difficult to locate. One vendor at the Afcom data center conference suggests IT shops get some 'GPS for your assets.'"

Comments

Will it...

[tacarat]

Find stuff that migrated to somebody's apartment?

That is sad

[mevets]

Its a bit like those Japanese soldiers they used to find periodically on Pacific islands, thinking the war was still on. That poor little OS/2 server, not knowing netcraft had long ago declared victory, and that there was nobody left to talk to it.

If you're too disorganized for barcode scanners...

[Chris Snook]

...then how is knowing that the server you're looking for is (or more likely is not) somewhere within X meters going to help?

poorly implemented...

[way2slo]

The RFID systems I have seen in the field are poorly implemented. Most were thick, think 9v battery, tags that were either attached via zip ties or velcro. Even if it was securely attached, most were attached to removable face plates, while others were attached to the rear and would actually prevent you from pulling out the server and/or damage the cabling if you did, as it tended to hang down and catch on stuff. (snap off fibers, pull out power cords, etc.) They offered no assurance that that piece of equipment was in the room since they could easily be separated from the tag. Even with this system, you'll still need people to visually verify it anyway.

How often do you actually lose a piece of hardware? This is a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Barcode or your own SN sticker followed up by visual inspections is cheaper, safer, and more reliable compared to the RFID solutions I have seen out there.

Re:poorly implemented...

[Anonymous Coward]

Losing hardware is easy.

Consider the following hypothetical . You are a large cell phone service provider, who grew by acquiring lots of small cell phone service providers - meaning, you bought 500 mom-and-pop providers starting in the early 1990s. In 2007, your fixed asset manager reported that there was a significant difference between all the fixed assets (read: high-cost items) in your inventory system and your financial reporting system. Significant as in mid-eight figures in dollar impact.

Unless every company you ever bought had meticulously maintained financial and inventory records for every item placed in service over the life of the asset base (7-10 years, in general) AND your accounting staff got everything accurately entered into your systems during the acquisition AND you could physically verify all that hardware exists and was what the records claimed (and, assuming that barcodes were used and actually stuck to the parts they applied to, not, say, the inside of the cabinet door), and finally that all the maintenance people whose compensation relied on network uptime (and not inventory accuracy) kept careful track of what card was pulled out of a given cabinet, what software licenses were on that card (some cell phone network hardware is designed to allow only a certain proportion of the maximum physical capability of the card to be used - you have to buy the right to use your card to full capacity in the form of licenses), and what was installed to replace said card, you will have a mess that none of your CPA and MBA-having managerial staff will know how to fix. Your public auditor states that unless the issue is resolved immediately, they will make your firm take a hit to income for the gear you either cannot find or cannot value correctly of sufficient magnitude so as to trigger the firing of the entire C-suite. Enter the consultants.

I'm still trying to catch up my sleep...

It's even worse than that

[dcavanaugh]

Even if inventory and operations live together in perfect harmony, the tags identify PHYSICAL servers. Thanks to the magic of virtualization, you might have several zombie virtual machines along with [maybe] one that is truly needed -- all in the same physical box.

Even if the tags do their job and you think you have positively identified a defunct box to be shut down and removed, what level of confidence do you have that NONE of the virtual machines are still necessary?

Audits

[Anonymous Coward]

"And while out-of-sight, out-of-mind is not always bad, there's a least one nagging problem: 'Ghost server' systems, which may still be drawing power but perform no work and may be difficult to locate."

Performing an audit once or twice a year could solve this problem.

Re:Audits

[aix tom]

Ah, but that would mean managers would have to pay money to actual workers to do actual work. Which is boring, and they don't get to sit in any meetings.

They much rather just pay money to some consultants that just tell them all that is well with the new gimmick they are about to buy, while they look at a nice Powerpoint presentation and drink coffee.

Re:The Server of Amontillado

[h4rr4r]

Far easier, log into it and get the mac address, then see what switch port it is connected too. Then just trace cable.