Server Virtualization – Why it Matters

Server Virtualization?  I thought this was a blog on Fly Fishing…

Sorry, you are in the right place, just a change of pace to go along with my interests (both professional and not).

In my current position as a Systems Administrator my primary responsibility is maintenance of the virtualization infrastructure.  Now, if you are here as a fly fisherman I’ve just spoken Greek, so I’ll try and translate.  Most people have a visual idea of what a computer is, and servers really aren’t any different.  The biggest difference is that they tend to be in racks (so they are long and thin), and don’t have monitors, keyboards, etc.  For as long as servers have been around you had one server with one operating system on it.  This meant when you need a new server for a new purpose you bought one (at a cost of thousands of dollars), and then install the operating system and the necessary software.  Some shops would try to prevent this “server sprawl” by loading multiple applications on one server with sometimes disastrous results.

About 15 years ago a company named VMware came out with what is called a hypervisor.  A hypervisor allows you to run multiple operating systems (thus multiple servers) on one piece of hardware.  At the outset the hypervisor wasn’t great but it did the job.  Well fast forward to today and pretty much here is where we stand.  We have two types of hypervisors.  Type 1 (or bare metal) hypervisors are installed on a server before anything else and allow virtual machines (virtual servers) to interact with the physical hardware.  The second type of hypervisor  is a Type 2 hypervisor.  This type is an application installed on an existing server allowing it to run virtual machines.  Most shops use the Type 1 hypervisor for all but lab/test environments as there is no overhead for the host operating system.  VMware produces both Type 1 and Type 2 hypervisors with the most common being VMware vSphere and VMware Workstation.  vSphere is a type 1 hypervisor while Workstation is a type 2.

Okay, now that we’ve got that out the way, why the heck does virtualization matter?  Well there is the obvious cost/benefit ratio of being able to run multiple servers on a single piece of equipment without them interfering with each other.  Plus this allows you to utilize the physical server hardware more efficiently.  I don’t have exact numbers but most servers run around less than 20% utilization.  This means is that 80% of the server's resources are available for some other function, but are going unused.  With virtualization you can get that number much closer to 80-90% by running multiple systems on the same piece of physical hardware.  There are other benefits though. Most people know computers produce heat, but really don’t know or understand just how much.  In the average datacenter (say 4-5 racks of systems) without air-conditioning running 24/7 most of the systems would cook themselves (literally melt internal components) in less than 24 hours.  In the datacenter where I work, no A/C for one hour can result in a temperature increase of 4-5 degrees (Fahrenheit).  This means there is a massive amount of electrical usage just to keep servers cool in addition to the massive electrical drain just due to the servers themselves.

So, if you could run 8 physical servers or 8 virtual systems on 1 physical box, which would you choose? 

Well the normal response would be the 8 virtual servers on 1 physical server.  Which is why virtualization is the fastest growing segment in the IT field.  The numbers used above are the average “consolidation ratio” most companies are seeing.  Where I work it is closer to 15 to 1.  So 15 virtual systems running on 1 piece of physical hardware; not too bad!

Some complex math shows in the last year we saved the company I work for about $8,000 in electrical costs alone just powering the servers.  This doesn’t count the electrical cost in reduced need for air conditioning with fewer heat producing servers.

So there you go, that is why virtualization matters!

Copyright and you…

This comes out of a blog post I opted not to publish.  In it I dealt with more specific copyright issues but decided it was more of a personal attack and instead decided to write something very general about copyright and authors.

A particular website I visit frequently has both content generated by the site owners and content provided by members and published by the site.  Some recent changes to the site have many folks in a tizzy and some are understandably upset by the changes.

While doing some digging I found they have an issue where copyright of the works provided by the members isn’t clearly defined.  In one place they say the original author still owns the copyright, but in a statement by one of the owners this week they say they own copyright on all materials published on the site.

So now we get to the discussion of what copyright is for those who might be wondering.  Copyright is ownership plain and simple.  It is ownership of intellectual property (words, pictures, music, etc.) rather than real tangible property (though that may go along with owning copyright).  In the bad old days to get copyright you had to register your work with the copyright office.  This meant filling out a form and sending in a copy of the work plus a fee.  A few weeks/months later you got a copyright notice.  Now you could always claim copyright over a work, but it wasn’t enforceable if you hadn’t registered your copyright.  Moving forward to 1999 and 2000 we have the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).  The DMCA was written to deal with the explosion of electronic content which wasn’t so easy to quantify and register with the copyright office.  The DMCA made it possible to claim copyright simply by creating a work. This made it easy for digital content creators to claim copyright over works they created without the hassle of going through the copyright office.  It also made it easy to claim copyright as all copyright was implied.  By creating a work you had copyright over that work. You didn’t have to write “Copyright…” unless you wanted to as you already owned the copyright to the material.

So where are we today.  Well in the case of this particular site, in legal limbo for a start.  The authors don’t know if they still own their copyright (though they should).  But this goes to the larger issue of creating content and seeking to see it published.  As an author you have a few choices.  First you might sell it outright to an interested party transferring all copyright to them.  This occurs every day in the publishing world.  An author writes something, sells it to a publication and it is no longer theirs.  Second, you sell the copyright to a publisher for a specific publication but reserve the right to publish it elsewhere after the original publication comes out.  This tends to happen most with photographs. However, there is a third kind of possibility.  You supply an article to a website (or perhaps it is something you wrote on your blog).  It has been published, people read it and like it but you never transferred copyright to the site.  This means when a publisher comes calling you have the right to sell your article, picture, etc. if you want without asking permission from the site owner.

What does all this mean.  Well it means that the site has to clarify how they are asserting copyright.  Are they only copyrighting those materials they produce, or are they saying they own the copyright on all published works on the site.  If they are saying they own the copyright to all items published where does it leave the original author.  Well if there isn’t a contract which spells out that the site owns the copyright they are pretty much free and clear.  They can demand the content be removed and have every right to do so.  If there is a contract they are bound by the contract.  The big issue here is how the author was compensated.  Contracts generally specify compensation (I give you X, in return I get Y).  If the contract merely notes the author gave content to the site with nothing in return beyond the publication then no court in the country will uphold the contract as being legally valid.

My suspicion is there aren’t any contracts, so the authors can make any request that want about their content. It would be nice if the site owners would clarify their position on copyright as they have in their statements about the “for profit” nature of the site.

DISCLAIMER:  I am not an attorney.  I am however someone who worked in the publishing industry for a while and dealt with copyright issues frequently.  In addition I worked in the academic sector for almost a decade and dealt with copyright issues there as well. If you have a specific copyright issue you are advised to seek appropriate legal council in your jurisdiction.

Fly Fishing Websites – The Itinerant Angler

I found this site a few years back and was immediately attracted to it for a couple of reasons.

The Itinerant Angler is run by Zach Mathews and his wife Lauren.  It is an outlet for Zach’s passion for fly fishing, photography and writing.  Zach is a frequent contributor to many of the popular fly fishing magazines in terms of both the written word and photography.

Today the Itinerant Angler is probably one of the best fly fishing sites out there.  Zach has invested real time and effort in providing a visually appealing website and in ensuring the site runs without a hitch.  In a big difference from other fly fishing sites Zach requires users to register and be known by their real name.  This ensures a level of decorum not found in many other places.  It is hard to be snarky to someone when you are posting under your full name.

This has provided an outlet where people respect each other and genuinely treat others well.  In addition the Itinerant Angler is a haven for other outdoor photographers.  There is so much talent concentrated on the Itinerant Angler it just isn’t funny.

Probably the best thing about the Itinerant Angler is that it is also an outlet for Zach’s podcast of the same name.  This podcast is probably the best fly fishing one out there.  It isn’t frequent but the content is pure gold when Zach can put out an episode.

Today the Itinerant Angler is probably my favorite site and the one where I spend the most time just soaking in the collective knowledge there.

Fly Fishing Websites - FAOL

When I first started fly fishing back in 2005 (thought about it long before then, but actually started then) the first thing I did was spend a lot of time on the internet looking into equipment and technique.  What I found then is quite a bit different from the world we live in today 5 years later.

At the time there were only a few really active fly fishing websites.  They included Fly Anglers Online and Fly Fisherman Forums.  Both sites included forums where you could communicate with other fly fisherman around the world and get your questions answered.  I quickly found that Fly Anglers Online (FAOL for short) was probably the best one out there.  The forums were and still are very active, but the site was throwback to the late 90s.

There was and still is a ton of good information about fly fishing on FAOL, but the site was always a little quirky and here are some of the reasons why.  The site was created in the 90s by Deanna and Jim Birkholm.  Deanna and Jim went by Lady Fisher (LF) and James Castwell (JC) on the site.  They had founded the site out of their love for educating others about fly fishing (JC was a casting instructor and guide for a long time).  Neither knew much about the web when they created the site, but LF knew how to write and edit so it all worked out.  As a result the site was and still is way behind the times in terms of look and feel.  The site was always run as the private sandbox of JC and LF and most folks liked it that way.  There was no name calling or other personal attacks and by and large the discussion, even on controversial topics, was largely civil.  If it got uncivilized JC and LF were quick to step in and either ban the problem user or put a stop to the whole discussion.  I know of plenty of folks who didn’t like this “heavy handed” way of managing the site, but many folks liked it as it made it “safe”.

I found the site to be very welcoming to a new fly fisherman and got lots of good information on equipment selection, casting help, and other topics just through asking.  I’ve been a member of the site since then and I do post when the mood strikes me or there is a topic I feel I have something to say about, but overall I don’t post much (maybe 1-2 times a month tops).  However, since May of last year I’ve noticed a distinct change in the site.  What happened in May; well here goes…

In early May JC passed away unexpectedly while on a fishing trip to the Bahamas.  This left the site in limbo as LF went through the grieving process.  The site really didn’t have any new content (articles as LF calls them) until early July.  The forums continued as normal, but the tone was somber and long time, frequent posters seemed to disappear.  In July LF made a number of announcements.  The first was that she had been living in Montana for the past few months as she sorted through what had happened.  As she had family connections there this was not strange.  However a few weeks later she announced she had gotten remarried to a long time friend of both her and JCs.  I had seen some posts from this person here and there, but beyond a weekly article he wrote there really wasn’t much contribution from him to the forums.  It was at this point that I noted things really started to change on the site.  He started writing a longer column each week in place of the one written by JC, and his son a guide in Montana started writing a weekly column as well.  Both had good information, and I didn’t think much about it.

Well fast forward to 2010.  In late January a post went up with the title, “What is FAOL worth to you”.  I knew when I saw this post there was trouble brewing.  Anytime a web site operator starts asking the users what the site is worth to you, it can only mean one thing, pay for play.  I’ll admit I’m a web egalitarian, if you charge for content I’ll go look somewhere else.  I grew up on the internet starting in the mid 90s while in college (anybody remember non-graphical web browsing?  I do!).  Then all content was free, not so much anymore.  FAOL had long supported itself through sponsors and some members who paid a yearly fee to be a “Friend of FAOL”.  However the site was free and if you didn’t want to pay you didn’t have to (kind of like PBS). 

Sadly, the “Great Recession” hit and a lot of fly fishing retailers and manufactures have found themselves in trouble.  Fly fishing is a niche sport and the margins on equipment are slim to say the least.  As a result some sponsors simply couldn’t continue, which is sad.  However this has had, in my opinion, a very negative effect on the site.  About a week ago it was decided that if you had a link in your signature line you would have to pay a fee monthly if that link in any way related to a business site.  Now lots of folks on the forums have links to organizations they support (which may have links to other businesses), or they link to their own personal blog which just happens to have a link to their side business or what not.  This has been met with, needless to say, some seriously hard feelings. 

The thought for some is why should I pay $10 a month (or whatever the fee is though I think it is $10 a month) to have a link to my personal blog just because it links to my side business that I only make a few hundred a year from.  The response from the site owners has been needless to say non-existent.  Instead at least one of the moderators (who happens to be both a friend of LF and a sponsor of the site) has taken a pretty heavy handed approach to the whole thing.  His response has been if you want a link, pay up, otherwise shut up (not in quite those words, but the point is there).

Just sad and I think that is the best thing I can say about it.