Category Archives: CMDB Federation

May 18, 2012

REST + RDF, finally a practical solution?

The W3C has recently approved the creation of the Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group. The charter contains its official marching orders. Its co-chair Erik Wilde shared his thoughts on the endeavor.

This is good. Back in 2009, I concluded a series of three blog posts on “REST in practice for IT and Cloud management” with:

I hereby conclude my “REST in practice for IT and Cloud management” series, with the intent to eventually start a “Linked Data in practice for IT and Cloud management” series.

I never wrote that later part, because my work took me away from that pursuit and there wasn’t much point writing down ideas which I hadn’t  put to the test. But if this W3C working group is successful, they will give us just that.

That’s a big “if” though. Religious debates and paralyzing disconnects between theorists and practitioners are all-too-common in tech, but REST and Semantic Web (of which RDF is the foundation) are especially vulnerable. Bringing these two together and trying to tame both sets of daemons at the same time is a daring proposition.

On the other hand, there is already a fair amount of relevant real-life experience (e.g. data.gov.uk – read Jeni Tennison on the choice of Linked Data). Plus, Erik is a great pick to lead this effort (I haven’t met his co-chair, IBM’s Arnaud Le Hors). And maybe REST and RDF have reached the mythical point where even the trolls are tired and practicality can prevail. One can always dream.

Here are a few different ways to think about this work:

The “REST doesn’t provide interoperability” perspective

RESTful API authors too often think they can make the economy of a metamodel. Or that a format (like XML or JSON) can be used as a metamodel. Or they punt the problem towards defining a multitude of MIME types. This will never buy you interoperability. Stu explained it before. Most problems I see addressed via RESTful APIs, in the IT/Cloud management realm, are modeling problems first and only secondarily protocol/interaction problems. And their failures are failures of modeling. LDP should bring modeling discipline to REST-land.

The “RDF was too much, too soon” perspective

The RDF stack is mired in complexity. By the time people outside of academia had formed a set of modeling requirements that cried for RDF, the Semantic Web community was already deep in the weeds and had overloaded its basic metamodel with enough classification and inference technology to bury its core value as a simple graph-oriented and web-friendly metamodel. What XSD-fever was to making XML seem overly complex, OWL-fever was to RDF. Tenfold.

Everything that the LDP working group is trying to achieve can be achieved today with existing Semantic Web technologies. Technically speaking, no new work is needed. But only a handful of people understand these technologies enough to know what to use and what to ignore, and as such this application doesn’t have a chance to materialize. Which is why the LDP group is needed. But there’s a reason why its starting point document is called a “profile”. No new technology is needed. Only clarity and agreement.

For the record, I like OWL. It may be the technology that most influenced the way I think about modeling. But the predominance of RDFS and OWL (along with ugly serializations) in Semantic Web discussions kept RDF safely out of sight of those in industry who could have used it. Who knows what would have happened if a graph query language (SPARQL) had been prioritized ahead of inference technology (OWL)?

The Cloud API perspective

The scope of the LDP group is much larger than Cloud APIs, but my interest in it is mostly grounded in Cloud API use cases. And I see no reason why the requirements of Cloud APIs would not be 100% relevant to this effort.

What does this mean for the Cloud API debate? Nothing in the short term, but if this group succeeds, the result will probably be the best technical foundation for large parts of the Cloud management landscape. Which doesn’t mean it will be adopted, of course. The LDP timeline calls for completion in 2014. Who knows what the actual end date will be and what the Cloud API situation will be at that point. AWS APIs might be entrenched de-facto standards, or people may be accustomed to using several APIs (via libraries that abstract them away). Or maybe the industry will be clamoring for reunification and LDP will arrive just on time to underpin it. Though the track record is not good for such “reunifications”.

The “ghost of WS-*” perspective

Look at the 16 “technical issues” in the LCD working group charter. I can map each one to the relevant WS-* specification. E.g. see this as it relates to #8. As I’ve argued many times on this blog, the problems that WSMF/WSDM/WS-Mgmt/WS-RA and friends addressed didn’t go away with the demise of these specifications. Here is yet another attempt to tackle them.

The standards politics perspective

Another “fun” part of WS-*, beyond the joy of wrangling with XSD and dealing with multiple versions of foundational specifications, was the politics. Which mostly articulated around IBM and Microsoft. Well, guess what the primary competition to LDP is? OData, from Microsoft. I don’t know what the dynamics will be this time around, Microsoft and IBM alone don’t command nearly as much influence over the Cloud infrastructure landscape as they did over the XML middleware standardization effort.

And that’s just the corporate politics. The politics between standards organizations (and those who make their living in them) can be just as hairy; you can expect that DMTF will fight W3C, and any other organization which steps up, for control of the “Cloud management” stack. Not to mention the usual coo-petition between de facto and de jure organizations.

The “I told you so” perspective

When CMDBf started, I lobbied hard to base it on RDF. I explained that you could use it as just a graph-based metamodel, that you could  ignore the ontology and inference part of the stack. Which is pretty much what LDP is doing today. But I failed to convince the group, so we created our own metamodel (at least we explicitly defined one) and our own graph query language and that became CMDBf v1. Of course it was also SOAP-based.

KISS and markup

In closing, I’ll just make a plea for practicality to drive this effort. It’s OK to break REST orthodoxy. And not everything needs to be in RDF either. An overarching graph model is needed, but the detailed description of the nodes can very well remain in JSON, XML, or whatever format does the job for that node type.

All the best to LDP.

4 Comments

Filed under API, Cloud Computing, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, DMTF, Everything, Graph query, IBM, Linked Data, Microsoft, Modeling, Protocols, Query, RDF, REST, Semantic tech, SPARQL, Specs, Standards, Utility computing, W3C

June 16, 2010

CMDB in the Cloud: not your father’s CMDB

Bernd Harzog recently wrote a blog entry to examine whether “the CMDB [is] irrelevant in a Virtual and Cloud based world“. If I can paraphrase, his conclusion is that there will be something that looks like a CMDB but the current CMDB products are ill-equipped to fulfill that function. Here are the main reasons he gives for this prognostic:

  1. A whole new class of data gets created by the virtualization platform – specifically how the virtualization platform itself is configured in support of the guests and the applications that run on the guest.
  2. A whole new set of relationships between the elements in this data get created – specifically new relationships between hosts, hypervisors, guests, virtual networks and virtual storage get created that existing CMDB’s were not built to handle.
  3. New information gets created at a very rapid rate. Hundreds of new guests can get provisioned in time periods much too short to allow for the traditional Extract, Transform and Load processes that feed CMDB’s to be able to keep up.
  4. The environment can change at a rate that existing CMDB’s cannot keep up with. Something as simple as vMotion events can create thousands of configuration changes in a few minutes, something that the entire CMDB architecture is simply not designed to keep up with.
  5. Having portions of IT assets running in a public cloud introduces significant data collection challenges. Leading edge APM vendors like New Relic and AppDynamics have produced APM products that allow these products to collect the data that they need in a cloud friendly way. However, we are still a long way away from having a generic ability to collect the configuration data underlying a cloud based IT infrastructure – notwithstanding the fact that many current cloud vendors would not make this data available to their customers in the first place.
  6. The scope of the CMDB needs to expand beyond just asset and configuration data and incorporate Infrastructure Performance, Applications Performance and Service assurance information in order to be relevant in the virtualization and cloud based worlds.

I wanted to expand on some of these points.

New model elements for Cloud (bullets #1 and #2)

These first bullets are not the killers. Sure, the current CMDBs were designed before the rise of virtualized environment, but they are usually built on a solid modeling foundation that can easily be extend with new resources classes. I don’t think that extending the model to describe VM, VNets, Volumes, hypervisors and their relationships to the physical infrastructure is the real challenge.

New approach to “discovery” (bullets #3 and #4)

This, on the other hand is much more of a “dinosaurs meet meteorite” kind of historical event. A large part of the value provided by current CMDBs is their ability to automate resource discovery. This is often achieved via polling/scanning (at the hardware level) and heuristics/templates (directory names, port numbers, packet inspection, bird entrails…) for application discovery. It’s imprecise but often good enough in static environments (and when it fails, the CMDB complements the automatic discovery with a reconciliation process to let the admin clean things up). And it used to be all you could get anyway so there wasn’t much point complaining about the limitations. The crown jewel of many of today’s big CMDBs can often be traced back to smart start-ups specialized in application discovery/mapping, like Appilog (now HP, by way of Mercury) and nLayers (now EMC). And more recently the purchase of Tideway by BMC (ironically – but unsurprisingly – often cast in Cloud terms).

But this is not going to cut it in “the Cloud” (by which I really mean in a highly automated IT environment). As Bernd Harzog explains, the rate of change can completely overwhelm such discovery heuristics (plus, some of the network scans they sometimes use will get you in trouble in public clouds). And more importantly, there now is a better way. Why discover when you can ask? If resources are created via API calls, there are also API calls to find out which resources exist and how they are configured. This goes beyond the resources accessible via IaaS APIs, like what VMWare, EC2 and OVM let you retrieve. This “don’t guess, ask” approach to discovery needs to also apply at the application level. Rather than guessing what software is installed via packet inspection or filesystem spelunking, we need application-aware discovery that retrieves the application and configuration and dependencies from the application itself (or its underlying framework). And builds a model in which the connections between application entities are expressed in terms of the configuration settings that drive them rather than the side effects by which they can be noticed.

If I can borrow the words of Lew Cirne:

“All solutions built in the pre-cloud era are modeled on jvms (or their equivalent), hosts and ports, rather than the logical application running in a more fluid environment. If the solution identifies a web application by host/port or some other infrastructural id, then you cannot effectively manage it in a cloud environment, since the app will move and grow, and your management system (that is, everything offered by the Big 4, as well as all infrastructure management companies that pay lip service to the application) will provide nearly-useless visibility and extraordinarily high TCO.”

I don’t agree with everything in Lew Cirne’s post, but this diagnostic is correct and well worded. He later adds:

“So application management becomes the strategic center or gravity for the client of a public or private cloud, and infrastructure-centric tools (even ones that claim to be cloudy) take on a lesser role.”

Which is also very true even if counter-intuitive for those who think that

cloud = virtualization (in the “fake machine” interpretation of virtualization)

Embracing such a VM-centric view naturally raises the profile of infrastructure management compared to application management, which is a fallacy in Cloud computing.

Drawing the line between Cloud infrastructure management and application management (bullet #5)

This is another key change that traditional CMDBs are going to have a hard time with. In a Big-4 CMDB, you’re after the mythical “single source of truth”. Even in a federated CMDB (which doesn’t really exist anyway), you’re trying to have a unified logical (if not physical) repository of information. There is an assumption that you want to manage everything from one place, so you can see all the inter-dependencies, across all layers of the stack (even if individual users may have a scope that is limited by permissions). Not so with public Clouds and even, I would argue, any private Cloud that is more than just a “cloud” sticker slapped on an old infrastructure. The fact that there is a clean line between the infrastructure model and the application model is not a limitation. It is empowering. Even if your Cloud provider was willing to expose a detailed view of the underlying infrastructure you should resist the temptation to accept. Despite the fact that it might be handy in the short term and provide an interesting perspective, it is self-defeating in the long term from the perspective of realizing the productivity improvements promised by the Cloud. These improvements require that the infrastructure administrator be freed from application-specific issues and focus on meeting the contract of the platform. And that the application administrator be freed from infrastructure-level concerns (while at the same time being empowered to diagnose application-level concerns). This doesn’t mean that the application and infrastructure models should be disconnected. There is a contract and both models (infrastructure and consumption) should represent it in the same way. It draws a line, albeit one with some width.

Blurring the line between configuration and monitoring (bullet #6)

This is another shortcoming of current CMDBs, but one that I think is more easily addressed. The “contract” between the Cloud infrastructure and the consuming application materializes itself in a mix of configuration settings, administrative capabilities and monitoring data. This contract is not just represented by the configuration-centric Cloud API that immediately comes to mind. It also includes the management capabilities and monitoring points of the resulting instances/runtimes.

Wither CMDB?

Whether all these considerations mean that traditional CMDBs are doomed in the Cloud as Bernd Harzog posits, I don’t know. In this post, BMC’s Kia Behnia acknowledges the importance of application management, though it’s not clear that he agrees with their primacy. I am also waiting to see whether the application management portfolio he has assembled can really maps to the new methods of application discovery and management.

But these are resourceful organization, with plenty of smart people (as I can testify: in the end of my HP tenure I worked with the very sharp CMDB team that came from the Mercury acquisition). And let’s keep in mind that customers also value the continuity of support of their environment. Most of them will be dealing with a mix of old-style and Cloud applications and they’ll be looking for a unified management approach. This helps CMDB incumbents. If you doubt the power to continuity, take a minute to realize that the entire value proposition of hypervisor-style virtualization is centered around it. It’s the value of backward-compatibility versus forward-compatibility. in addition, CMDBs are evolving into CMS and are a lot more than configuration repositories. They are an important supporting tool for IT management processes. Whether, and how, these processes apply to “the Cloud” is a topic for another post. In the meantime, read what the IT Skeptic and Rodrigo Flores have to say.

I wouldn’t be so quick to count the Big-4 out, even though I work every day towards that goal, building Oracle’s application and middleware management capabilities in conjunction with my colleagues focused on infrastructure management.

If the topic of application-centric management in the age of Cloud is of interest to you (and it must be if you’ve read this long entry all the way to the end), You might also find this previous entry relevant: “Generalizing the Cloud vs. SOA Governance debate“.

4 Comments

Filed under Application Mgmt, Automation, Cloud Computing, CMDB, CMDB Federation, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, ITIL, Mgmt integration, Middleware, Utility computing, Virtualization

April 2, 2010

Enterprise application integration patterns for IT management: a blast from the past or from the future?

In a recent blog post, Don Ferguson (CTO at CA) describes CA Catalyst, a major architectural overhaul which “applies enterprise application integration patterns to the problem of integrating IT management systems”. Reading this was fascinating to me. Not because the content was some kind of revelation, but exactly for the opposite reason. Because it is so familiar.

For the better part of the last decade, I tried to build just this at HP. In the process, I worked with (and sometimes against) Don’s colleague at IBM, who were on the same mission. Both companies wanted a flexible and reliable integration platform for all aspects of IT management. We had decided to use Web services and SOA to achieve it. The Web services management protocols that I worked on (WSMF, WSDM, WS-Management and the “reconciliation stack”) were meant for this. We were after management integration more than manageability. Then came CMDBf, another piece of the puzzle. From what I could tell, the focus on SOA and Web services had made Don (who was then Mr. WebSphere) the spiritual father of this effort at IBM, even though he wasn’t at the time focused on IT management.

As far as I know, neither IBM nor HP got there. I covered some of the reasons in this post-mortem. The standards bickering. The focus on protocols rather than models. The confusion between the CMDB as a tool for process/service management versus a tool for software integration. Within HP, the turmoil from the many software acquisitions didn’t help, and there were other reasons. I am not sure at this point whether either company is still aiming for this vision or if they are taking a different approach.

But apparently CA is still on this path, and got somewhere. At least according to Don’s post. I have no insight into what was built beyond what’s in the post. I am not endorsing CA Catalyst, just agreeing with the design goals listed by Don. If indeed they have built it, and the integration framework resists the test of time, that’s impressive. And exciting. It apparently even uses some the same pieces we were planning to use, namely WS-Management and CMDBf (I am reluctantly associated with the first and proudly with the second).

While most readers might not share my historical connection with this work, this is still relevant and important to anyone who cares about IT management in the enterprise. If you’re planning to be at CA World, go listen to Don. Web services may have a bad name, but the technical problems of IT management integration remain. There are only a few routes to IT management automation (I count seven, the one taken by CA is #2). You can throw away SOAP if you want, you still need to deal with protocol compatibility, model alignment and instance reconciliation. You need to centralize or orchestrate the management operations performed. You need to be able to integrate with complementary products or at the very least to effectively incorporate your acquisitions. It’s hard stuff.

Bonus point to Don for not forcing a “Cloud” angle for extra sparkle. This is core IT management.

Comments Off on Enterprise application integration patterns for IT management: a blast from the past or from the future?

Filed under Automation, CA, CMDB, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, Mgmt integration, Modeling, People, Protocols, SOAP, Specs, Standards, Tech, Web services, WS-Management

September 24, 2009

The future (2006 version), has arrived

Remember 2006? Things were starting to fall into place for IT management integration and automation:

  • SDD was already on its way to cleanly describe/package/manage the lifecycle of simple and composite applications alike,
  • the first version of SML came out to capture all the relevant constraints of complex and composite systems and open the door to “desired-state management”,
  • the CMDBf effort was started to seamlessly integrate all sources of configuration and provide a bird-eye view of your entire IT infrastructure, and
  • the WSDM/WS-Management convergence/reconciliation was announced and promised to free management consoles from supporting many resource discovery, collection and control mechanisms and from having platform/library dependencies between the manager and its targets.

It looked like we were a year or two from standardization on all these and another year or two from shipping implementations. Things were looking good.

Good news: the schedule was respected. SDD, SML and CMDBf are now all standards (at OASIS, W3C and DMTF respectively). And today the Eclipse COSMOS project announced the release of COSMOS 1.1 which implements them all. The WSDM/WS-Management convergence is the only one that didn’t quite go according to the plan but it is about to come out as a standard too (in a pared-down form).

Bad news: nobody cares. We’ve moved on to “private clouds”.

Having been involved with these specifications in various degrees (a little bit on SDD, a fair amount on SML and a lot on CMDBf and WSDM/WS-Management) I am not as detached as my sarcastic tone may suggest. But as they say in action movies, “don’t let sentiments get in the way of the mission”.

There is still a chance to reuse parts of this stack (e.g. the CMDBf query language) and there are lessons to learn from our errors. The over-promising, the technical misjudgments, the political bickering, the lack of concrete customer validation, etc. To some extent this work was also victim of collateral damages from the excesses of WS-* (I am looking at you WS-Addressing). We also failed to notice the rise of the hypervisor in our peripheral vision.

I tried to capture some important lessons in this post-mortem. For the edification of the cloud generation. I also see a pendulum in action. Where we over-engineered I now see some under-engineering (overly granular interaction models, overemphasis on the virtual machine as the unit of everything, simplistic constraint models, underestimation of config/patching issues…). Things will come around and may eventually look familiar (suggested exercise: compare PubSubHubBub with WS-Notification).

As long as each iteration gets us closer to the goal things are good.

See you in 2012. Same place, same day, same time.

3 Comments

Filed under Application Mgmt, Automation, Cloud Computing, CMDB, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Desired State, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, Manageability, Mgmt integration, Modeling, Protocols, SML, Specs, Standards, Utility computing, WS-Management

July 28, 2009

REST in practice for IT and Cloud management (part 2: configuration management)

What benefits does REST provide for configuration management (in traditional data centers and in Clouds)?

Part 1 of the “REST in practice for IT and Cloud management” investigation looked at Cloud APIs from leading IaaS providers. It examined how RESTful they are and what concrete benefits derive from their RESTfulness. In part 2 we will now look at the configuration management domain. Even though it’s less trendy, it is just as useful, if not more, in understanding the practical value of REST for IT management. Plus, as long as Cloud deployments are mainly of the IaaS kind, you are still left with the problem of managing the configuration of everything that runs of top the virtual machines (OS, middleware, DB, applications…). Or, if you are a glass-half-full person, here is another way to look at it: the great thing about IaaS (and host virtualization in general) is that you can choose to keep your existing infrastructure, applications and management tools (including configuration management) largely unchanged.

At first blush, REST is ideally suited to configuration management.

The RESTful Cloud APIs have no problem retrieving resource descriptions, but they seem somewhat hesitant in the way they deal with resource-specific actions. Tim Bray described one of the challenges in his well-considered Slow REST post. And indeed, applying REST to these “do something that may take some time and not result exactly in what was requested” scenarios is a lot less straightforward than when you’re just doing document/data retrieval. In contrast you’d think that applying REST to the task of retrieving configuration data from a CMDB or other configuration store would be a no-brainer. Especially in the IT management world, where we already have explicit resource models and a rich set of relationships defined. Let’s give each resource a URI that responds to HTTP GET requests, let’s turn the associations into hyperlinks in the resource presentation, let’s mint a MIME type to represent this format and we are out of the office in time for a 4:00PM tennis game when all the courts are available (hopefully our tennis partners are as bright as us and can get out early too). This “work smarter not harder” approach would allow us to present this list of benefits in our weekly progress report:

-1- A URI-based scheme makes the protocol independent of the resource topology, unlike today’s data stores that usually struggle to represent relationships between stores.

-2- It is simpler to code against than CIM-over-HTTP or WS-Management. It is cross-platform, unlike WMI or JMX.

-3- It makes it trivial to browse the configuration data from a Web browser (the resources themselves could provide an HTML representation based on content-type negotiation, or a simple transformation could generate it for the Web browser).

-4- You get REST-induced caching and scalability.

In the shower after the tennis game, it becomes apparent that benefit #4 is largely irrelevant for IT management use cases. That the browser in #3 would not be all that useful beyond simple use cases. That #2 is good for karma but developers will demand a library that hides this benefit anyway. And that the boss is going to say that he doesn’t care about #1either because his product is “the single source of truth” so it needs to import from the other configuration store, not reference them.

Even if we ignore the boss (once again) it only  leaves #1 as a practical benefit. Surprise, that’s also the aspect that came out on top of the analysis in part 1 (see “the API doesn’t constrain the design of the URI space” highlight, reinforced by Mark’s excellent comment on the role of hypertext). Clearly, there is something useful for IT management in this “hypermedia” thing. This will largely be the topic of part 3.

There are also quite a few things that this RESTification of the configuration management store doesn’t solve:

-1- The ability to query: “show me all the WebLogic instances that run on a Windows host and don’t have patch xyz applied”. You don’t have much of a CMDB if you can’t answer this. For an analogy, remember (or imagine) a pre-1995 Web with no search engine, where you can only navigate by starting from your browser home page and clicking through static links step by step, or through bookmarks.

-2- The ability to retrieve the configuration change history and to compare configurations across resources (or to a reference configuration).

This is not to say that these two features cannot be built on top of a RESTful IT resource model. Just that they are the real meat of configuration management (rather than a simple resource-by-resource configuration browser) and that your brilliant re-architecture hasn’t really helped in addressing them. Does a RESTful foundation make these features harder to build? Not necessarily, but there are some tricky aspects to take care of:

-1- In hypermedia systems, the links are usually part of the resource representation, not resources of their own. In IT management, relationships/associations can have their own lifecycle and configuration properties.

-2- Be careful that you can really maintain the address of a resource. It’s one thing to make sure that a UUID gets maintained as a resource configuration changes, it’s another to ensure that a dereferenceable URI remains unchanged. For example, the admin server of a cluster may move over time from one node to another.

More fundamentally, the ability to deal with multiple resources at the same time and/or to use the model at different levels of granularity is often a challenge. Either you make your protocol more complex to account for this or your pollute your resource model (with a bunch of arbitrary “groups”, implicit or explicit).

We saw this in the Cloud APIs too. It typically goes something like this: you can address an individual server (called “foo”) by sending requests to http://Cloudprovider.com/server/foo. Drop the “foo” part of the URL and now you can address all the servers, for example to retrieve their configuration or possibly to reboot them. This gives me a way of dealing with multiple resources at time, but only along the lines pre-defined by the API. What if I want to deal only with the servers that host nodes of a given cluster. Sorry, not possible. What if the servers have different hosts in their URIs (remember, “the API doesn’t constrain the design of the URI space”)? Oops.

WS-Management, in the SOAP world, takes this one step further with Selectors, through which you can embed some kind of query, the result of which is what you are addressing in your message. Or, if all you want to do is GET, you can model you entire datacenter as one giant virtual XML doc (a document which is never assembled in practice) and use WSRF/WSDM’s “QueryExpression” or WS-Management’s “FragmentTransfer” to the same effect. BTW, I have issues with the details of how these mechanisms work (and I have described an alternative under the motto “if you are going to suffer with WS-Addressing, at least get some value out of it”).

These are all non-RESTful atrocities to a RESTafarian, but in my mind the Cloud REST API reviewed in part 1 have open Pandora’s box by allowing less-qualified URIs to address all instances of a class. I expect you’ll soon see more precise query parameters in these URIs and they’ll look a lot like WS-Management Selectors (e.g. http://Cloudprovider.com/server?OS=Linux&CPUType=X86). Want to take bets about when a Cloud API URI format with an embedded regex first arrives?

When you need this, my gut feeling is that you are better off not worrying too much about trying to look RESTful. There is no shame to using an RPC pattern in the right circumstances. Don’t be the stupid skier who ends up crashing in a tree because he is just too cool for the using snowplow position.

One of the most common reasons to deal with multiple resources together is to run queries such as the “show me all the WebLogic instances that run on a Windows host and don’t have patch xyz applied” example above. Such a query mechanism recently became a DMTF standard, it’s called CMDBf. It is SOAP-based and doesn’t attempt to have anything to do with REST. Not that it didn’t cross the mind of a bunch of people, lead by Michael Coté when CMDBf first emerged (read the comments too). But as James Governor rightly predicted in the first comment, Coté heard “dick” from us on this (I represented HP in CMDBf and ended up being an editor of the specification, focusing on the “query” part). I don’t remember reading the entry back then but I must have since I have been a long time Coté fan. I must have dismissed the idea so quickly that it didn’t even register with my memory. Well, it’s 2009 now, CMDBf v1 is a DMTF standard and guess what? I, and many other SOAP-the-world-till-it-shines alumni, are looking a lot more seriously into what’s in this REST thing (thus this series of posts for me). BTW in this piece Coté also correctly predicted that CMDBf would be “more about CMDB interoperation than federation” but that didn’t take as much foresight (it was pretty obvious to me from the start).

Frankly I am still not sure that there is much benefit from REST in what CMDBf does, which is mostly a query interface. Yes the CMDBf query and its response go over SOAP. Yes in this case SOAP is mostly a useless wrapper since none of the implementations will likely support any WS-* SOAP header (other than paying the WS-Addressing tax). Sure we could remove it and send plain XML over HTTP. Or replace the SOAP wrapper with an Atom wrapper. Would it be anymore RESTful? Not one bit.

And I don’t see how to make it more RESTful. There are plenty of things in the periphery the query operation that can be made RESTful, along the lines of what I described above. REST could make the discovery/reconciliation tasks of the CMDB more efficient. The CMDBf query result format could be improved so that from the returned elements I can navigate my way among resources by following hyperlinks. But the query operation itself looks fundamentally RPCish to me, just like my interaction with the Google search page is really an RPC call that happens to return a Web page full of hyperlinks. In a way, this query (whether Google or CMDBf) can at best be the transition point from RPC to REST. It can return results that open a world of RESTful requests to you, but the query invocation itself is not RESTful. And that’s OK.

In part 3 (now available), I will try to synthesize the lessons from the Cloud APIs (part 1) and configuration management (this post) and extract specific guidance to get the best of what REST has to offer in future IT management protocols. Just so you can plan ahead, in part 4 I will reform the US health care system and in part 5 I will provide a practical roadmap for global nuclear disarmament. Suggestions for part 6 are accepted.

11 Comments

Filed under API, Application Mgmt, Automation, Cloud Computing, CMDB, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, DMTF, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, Mashup, Mgmt integration, Modeling, REST, SOAP, SOAP header, Specs, Standards, Utility computing

July 6, 2009

The CMDBf specification is now a DMTF standard

The CMDBf specification has finished its trek through the DMTF standard process. The last step was board approval and finally here is the official DMTF standard. It’s called version 1.0.0 which is a bit confusing since the version submitted to DMTF was dubbed “version 1.0”. I guess it means that this standard is the first version of the DMTF specification called CMDBf.

If you have been following the process closely, then you won’t find many technical changes since the last public draft. If you last read the specification when it was submitted to DMTF, then you’ll notice several improvements but no drastic change. If you are yet to take a first look at CMDBf, now is the perfect time.

To help you in that endeavor, I plan to update the query pseudo-algorithm to conform to the standard version of the specification when I get a chance. In the meantime, the slightly-outdated one is probably still helpful in wrapping your mind around the query mechanism.

Gentle(wo)men, rev your (query) engines.

Comments Off on The CMDBf specification is now a DMTF standard

Filed under CMDB, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, DMTF, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, Specs, Standards

April 7, 2009

“Federationing”

I am glad to see that, as it inches towards standardization in the DMTF, the CMDBf specification is getting more visibility. Forrester’s Glenn O’Donnell recently wrote very positively about it on his blog, presenting it as a key enabler for a federation of MDRs (Management Data Repositories, a term introduced by the CMDBf specification so don’t look for it in ITIL). He argues this is the only way (rather than a single data store) to fulfill the ITIL-defined role of a CMS. Rob England (the IT Skeptic) has also shared his thoughts about CMDBf and they were noticeably less enthusiastic, to say the least. While Glenn calls the specification “profound”, Rob calls it “the most over-hyped vendor marketing smokescreen ever”. There is plenty of room in between them, which is where I sit. As I explained before, it does have real value (as a query language/protocol for system integration) but is nowhere near providing “federation” capabilities.

I am happy to see Glenn approve of CMDBf and I agree with him that accurate specialized MDRs are more useful than a single store that attempts to capture all the relevant data. As Glenn puts it, “pockets of the truth are far superior to unified ambiguity”. But I wasn’t very comfortable with the tone of his article, which seemed to almost encourage the proliferation of these MDRs. Maybe he was just trying to present a clean break with the “one big CMDB” approach and overreached. Or maybe I am just not reading properly.

Because while I agree that the answer is not “one and only one store” I also don’t want to loose the value of having as much unification of the IT model as possible. Both at the data level (i.e. same metamodel/model, consistent retention/roll-up policies…) and the access level (i.e. in the same physical store, with shared access control, accessible using a well-known DSL for data manipulation…). Metamodel transformation and model bridging are costly (in accuracy, maintenance, reliability). If your CMS does more than just support a  “model navigation” GUI it may then need to run large queries that go across several portions of your IT model, including multiple different domains (e.g. a compliance rule kicked-off at the app level based on the type of data it manipulates that ends up having to look at the physical location of the servers running the hypervisors for the virtual machines that power the app). Through such global queries you can apply configuration rules, do impact analysis, event correlation, provide context to your transaction tracing, etc. No consolidation means no such queries (or a very limited subset). Considering the current state of federation, there is a lot more that you can do with your CMS if you have a very small number of MDRs rather than a sea of “federated” MDRs. This is why, as Oracle acquires IT management companies, we deliberately integrate their repositories with Enterprise Manager.

[UPDATED 2009/4/8: More, along the same line, from Glenn and his co-author Carlos Casanova available here. And my CMDBf partner-in-crime Van Wiles also responded to Glenn, bringing a BMC perspective.]

1 Comment

Filed under Application Mgmt, Automation, CMDB, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, ITIL, Mgmt integration, Modeling, Query, Specs, Standards

March 2, 2009

CMDBf is a lot more and a lot less than you think

The DMTF CMDBf working group has recently published an updated draft of its specification. The final version should follow soon and I don’t expect major changes so now is not a bad time to start thinking about what this baby can do.

Since CMDBf stands for “configuration management database federation”, you might think the obvious answer to the “what can it do” question is “build a federation of configuration management databases”. Except it’s not. Despite its name, CMDBf provides little support for federation unless you take a very loose definition of the term. The specification gives you a query language and a very simple registration interface, with a sprinkle of metadata to improve interoperability. The query language lets you talk to a CMDB to retrieve information on configuration items (CIs) that it knows about. The registration interface lets you keep a CMDB informed of changes to CIs that it may care about. If you want to build on top of this a real federation, one that scales to the type of environment that CMDBs are used for today, you have to go further than what the specification provides. What CMDBf does give you is some amount of integration between CMDBs (at the protocol level at least, not at the model level). It may not sound like much but it is a lot of progress on the current situation and the right incremental step, whether you are aiming for true federation as the end goal or not.

That’s the “a lot less than you think” part. So, what’s the “a lot more than you think” part? Good stuff all around:

CMDBf provides a metamodel that is well-suited for complex IT systems and it provides an elegant graph-oriented query language on top of it. The most convenient representation for an IT system is neither “one big XML document” nor “a sea of nodes and edges”. CMDBf gives you a middle ground: a graph model with XML leaf nodes. So you can precisely model the relationships between your IT elements using explicit relationships (with their own records), but you can also attach a well-understood piece of XML to an item as a record without having to break that XML into a bunch of tiny relationships.

I am pretty sure there are other domains, beyond IT systems, for which this would be useful. It will be interesting to see if the CMDBf specification gets considered outside of its intended scope. But these domains are more likely to end up using RDF/OWL/SPARQL instead. Not everyone has made the leap from XML as a tool to XML as a religion, which made CMDBf necessary for us. But let’s not veer into another rant.

Let’s go back instead to describing how useful CDMBf can be to IT systems management, independently of any “federation” objective. Let me put it this way: if one was to create from scratch a configuration store for IT systems they should strongly consider the CMDBf conceptual model as the base metamodel. And something along the lines of the CMDBf Query (though not necessarily through its XML serialization) as the native query language for it. Most CMDBf implementers of course are not in this situation. Rather than writing the store from scratch they will create a CMDBf wrapper/interface on their current CMDB. And that’s fine too. CMDBf will work well as an interoperability protocol. Putting aside my gripes about XPath overuse, CMDBf strikes a reasonable balance that makes it implementable on top of any back-end technology (relational, XML, RDF, in-memory objects, bags of name-value pairs…). And the query patterns it supports map well to CMDB-to-CMDB integration use cases. But it is underselling it, in my view, to restrict it to this over-the-wire interoperability scenario. CMDBf also provides a very useful foundation for local access to the CMDB. CMDBf graph queries can support powerful visualization of the content of the CMDB. They can support the definition of configuration rules. They can support in-depth inspection of relationships (e.g. fault tree).

And that may jsut be the beginning. It could take three directions after v1:

The first one, as always for a standard, is that it is ignored and becomes irrelevant. I have to reluctantly list this one first, because it is statistically the most likely for a new standard. Especially one that is not a ratification of an existing de facto standard. And one that threatens an important control point for vendors. A slight variation on this scenario is for CMDBf to succeed from a marketing perspective, as a checkmark that most vendors tick, but not as a true technology. This is the “smokescreen” scenario from Mr. Skeptic. One scenario that worries me is that CMDBf could fail because of the poor models of the CMDBs that implement it. If your IT model is not granular enough or if it matches the UI of your application more than the semantics of the IT components, then CMDBf will expose these shortcomings and probably be blamed for them (with bad models, “shoot the messenger” becomes “shoot the protocol”).

The second possible direction is that CMDBf provides enough value in integrating CMDBs that people want more and challenge the group to deliver on the “f” part, federation. That could take the form of a combination of:

  • better integration with other protocols (mostly from the WS-Management family, like WS-Enumeration and WS-Eventing),
  • reconciliation support (here are ways to address it),
  • some model transformations or canonical models,
  • some optimizations in the query mechanism for distributed queries (e.g. data partition rules).

The third possible direction (not exclusive) is for CMDBf to become the basis for a standard rule language for IT models. Yeah, another one (remember SML?). SPIN and SML show us how a generic query language can be used to support configuration rules. I very much like SPIN but it requires adopting RDF as a metamodel, which is a hard sell in XML-land. SML suffers technically from being too reliant on an inappropriate validation tool (XSD) and treating relationships as a second thought rather than an integral part of the model. Which is fine in many areas (EMF does it too), but not, in my view, when modeling IT systems.

If we are not going to use RDF/SPIN then let’s copy them. We can use the CMDBf metamodel (graph-based) where SPIN uses RDF. We can use the CMDBf query language (graph-oriented) where SPIN uses SPARQL. Since CMDBf queries use XPath, we see some commonalities with SML (which uses XPath through Schematron). But in CMDBf XPath is scoped to the leaf nodes of the graph, not the entire model as it is in SML. In other words, SML adds relationship traversal to XPath, while CMDBf adds XPath to its relationship-aware queries. It’s a matter of who’s on top. It sounds academic but it isn’t.

Does the industry really want standardized, re-usable configuration rules? SML/CML seem to say no. The push towards Cloud interop, on the other hand, begs for it. At least if you believe in programming your environment in a way that is partialy declarative rather than entirely procedural.

[UPDATED 2009/3/5: Rob England (a.k.a. Mr. Skeptic as I refer to him above) provides a geek-to-English translation for this post. Neat!]

2 Comments

Filed under CMDB, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, DMTF, Everything, Graph query, IT Systems Mgmt, Mgmt integration, Modeling, RDF, SML, Specs, Standards, Tech, XPath

January 16, 2009

Sorry, CMDBf doesn’t make coffee either

The IT Skeptic is writing to us from his mountain retreat (via a time-delayed post on his blog), and the topic he felt safe to cover in such fashion (what journalists call an “evergreen”) is the fact that CMDBf is an orchestrated sham, brilliantly executed by IT management vendors.

I’d love to be part of something that’s brilliantly executed for once, even if it is a sham, but I am afraid this is not it. But first I should state the obvious, clarifying that even though I am a member of the CMDBf group at DMTF (and also an author of the original version, under my previous employer) I do not speak for the group or DMTF (or my employer for that matter). Just as myself, as always on this blog.

The problem that Rob England, Mr. Skeptic, has with the CMDBf specification is that it doesn’t do a bunch of things that he’d like it to do, such as specifying how data sources acquire data for their domain, how they store the data, how the underlying resources are reconfigured, what processes are followed etc. See the full list from his post. The list is a copy/paste from the CMDBf specification, with some comments added, so at the very least he has to admit that as far as “smokescreens” go this one is pretty upfront about its limitations…

He concludes that “this is once again a geeky technical solution to a cultural, organizational and procedural problem.” I have to ask: who expects DMTF specifications to solve “cultural, organizational and procedural” problems? Does CIM solve such problems? Does WBEM?

Human-to-human communication is a “cultural, organizational and procedural” problem and SMTP/POP/IMAP/etc (the interoperable protocols used by email systems) are just as geeky as CMDBf. They don’t solve the larger problem, only contribute to the solution. If CMDBf can contribute as much to datacenter management as SMTP/POP/IMAP contribute to human communication (minus the SPAM if possible), I’d call that a success.

And then there is this warning:

“WARNING: vendors will waive this white paper around to overcome buyer resistance to a mixed-vendor solution. For example if you already have availability monitoring from one of them, one of the other vendors will try to sell you their service desk and use this paper as a promise that the two will play nicely.”

Has anyone actually seen this happen? I am asking because so far, both at HP and Oracle, the only sales reps I have ever met who know of CMDBf heard about it from their customers. When asked about it, the sales person (or solutions engineer) sends a email to some internal mailing list asking “customer asking about something called cmdbf, do we do that?” and that’s how I get in touch with them. Not the other way around.

Also, if the objective really was to trick customers into “mixed-vendor solutions” then I also don’t really understand why vendors would go through the effort of collaborating on such a scheme since it’s a zero-sum game between them at the end.

As far as the glacial pace of progress (“Glacial advance. That’s the way the vendors want it” from an earlier post by the Skeptic), CMDBf is no race horse but I don’t see it going any slower than other standards. Slowness (I mean, deliberation) is part of the landscape. I would submit a slight twist on Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by legal, procedural and organizational inertia.”

Having said all this, some of Rob’s criticism is perfectly justified, such as his sarcasm about this sentence from the specification:

“The Federated CMDB operates in a closed environment, in which some security issues are less critical than in open access or public systems.”

OK, that’s stupid indeed. Especially in a public cloud environment where you don’t know who is renting the VM next door. I’ll ask the group to remove this. Actually, that whole appendix is useless and I pointed this out in my earlier review of CMDBf 1.0 (look for the “security boilerplate” section at the bottom of the review).

Rob could also have pointed out that this specification only addresses “federation” if you accept a very scaled-down definition of the term. What it does do is help with CMDB query and synchronization. Not the holy grail, but nothing to sneer at either.

Rob, next time you want to throw tomatoes at CMDBf while you’re on holiday, just give me the password to the site and I’ll do it for you… :-)

[UPDATED 2009/1/21: Rob responds via a comment on his original blog entry.]

2 Comments

Filed under BSM, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, DMTF, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, ITIL, Mgmt integration, Security, Specs, Standards

October 29, 2008

CMDBf work in progress

The DMTF CMDBf working group (of which I am part) has released a work in progress version of the CMDBf specification. The changes from the submitted version are minor. It’s mostly a move to the DMTF template. More important (but not drastic) changes should appear in the next release.

Comments Off on CMDBf work in progress

Filed under CMDB Federation, CMDBf, DMTF, Everything, Graph query, Specs, Standards

September 18, 2008

Last call for SML and SML-IF

The SML working group at W3C has published the “last call” working draft of version 1.1 of the SML and SML-IF (“IF” stands for “interchange format”) specifications. You have until October 3rd to tell them what you think.

With all the Oslo fun, the OMG embrace and the silence from System Center there are more questions than answers about the use of SML at Microsoft. But the Eclipse COSMOS project (IBM and friends) is, as far as I know, valiantly going forward with the store/validator implementation. Which may or may not be the same codebase as what was used for the recent CMDBf interop demo (I am not sure how the SML and CDMBf implementations in COSMOS are articulated).

The COSMOS group also recently published an overview of SML. It doesn’t try to tell you why you’d want to use SML but it’s a good and succint description of what SML is technically (from an XML developer’s perspective).

Comments Off on Last call for SML and SML-IF

Filed under CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Desired State, Everything, IBM, Implementation, IT Systems Mgmt, Mgmt integration, Microsoft, Modeling, Open source, Oslo, SML, Specs, Standards, Tech, W3C

September 8, 2008

CMDBf interop demo

IBM and CA are apparently showing an interoperability demo between their respective CMDBs at itSMF Fusion this week. I am not there to see it, but they describe it (it’s a corporate merger scenario) in this press release. It is presumably based on the version of the specification that was submitted to DMTF.

More information about CMDBf, along with another demonstration, will be available in a couple of months for ManDevCon attendees. Three sessions are on the agenda, all in a row and in the same room (so make sure to get a good seat, i.e. one close to a power plug, from the start):

  • CMDB Federation Overview (Vince Kowalski, BMC and Marv Waschke, CA)
  • CMDB Federation Technical Description (Mark Johnson, IBM and Marv Waschke, CA)
  • CMDB Federation Demonstration (Mark Johnson, IBM and Dave Snelling, Fujitsu)

Comments Off on CMDBf interop demo

Filed under CA, CMDB, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Conference, DMTF, Everything, IBM, IT Systems Mgmt, ITIL, Mgmt integration, Specs, Standards, Trade show

July 21, 2008

Animoto is no infrastructure flexibility benchmark

I have nothing against Animoto. From what I know about them (mostly from John’s podcast with Brad Jefferson) they built their system, using EC2, in a very smart way.

But I do have something against their story being used to set the benchmark for infrastructure flexibility. For those who haven’t heard it five times already, the summary of “their story” is ramping up from 50 to 5000 machines in a week (according to the podcast). Or from 50 to 3500 (according to the this AWS blog entry). Whatever. If I auto-generate my load (which is mostly what they did when they decided to auto-create a custom video for each new user) I too can create the need for a thousands of machines.

This was probably a good business decision for Animoto. They got plenty of visibility at a low cost. Plus the extra publicity from being an EC2 success story (I for one would never have heard of them through their other channels). Good for them. Good for Amazon who made it possible. And who got a poster child out of it. Good for the facebookers who got to waste another 30 seconds of their time straining their eyes. Everyone is happy, no animal got hurt in the process, hurray.

That’s all good but it doesn’t mean that from now on any utility computing solution needs to support ramping up by a factor of 100 in a week. What if Animoto had been STD’ed (slashdoted, technoratied and dugg) at the same time as the Facebook burst, resulting in the need for 50,000 servers? Would 1,000 X be the new benchmark? What if a few of the sites that target the “lonely guy” demographic decided to use Animoto for… ok let’s not got there.

There are three types of user requirements. The Animoto use case is clearly not in the first category but I am not convinced it’s in the third one either.

  1. The “pulled out of thin air” requirements that someone makes up on the fly to justify a feature that they’ve already decided needs to be there. Most frequently encountered in standards working groups.
  2. The “it happened” requirements that assumes that because something happened sometimes somewhere it needs to be supported all the time everywhere.
  3. The “it makes business sense” requirements that include a cost-value analysis. The kind that comes not from asking “would you like this” to a customer but rather “how much more would you pay for this” or “what other feature would you trade for this”.

When cloud computing succeeds (i.e. when you stop hearing about it all the time and, hopefully, we go back to calling it “utility computing”), it will be because the third category of requirements will have been identified and met. Best exemplified by the attitude of Tarus (from OpenNMS) in the latest Redmonk podcast (paraphrased): sure we’ll customize OpenNMS for cloud environments; as soon as someone pays us to do it.

4 Comments

Filed under Amazon, Business, CMDB Federation, Everything, Mgmt integration, Specs, Tech, Utility computing

June 12, 2008

Mapping CIM associations to CMDBf relationships

This post started as a comment on the blog of Van Wiles. When it became too long (and turned into a therapeutic rant at the end) I turned it into a blog post of its own. Please, read Van’s post first. Here is my response to him:

Hi Van. Sounds like what you are after is not a mapping of the CIM_Dependency association to a CMDBf record type (anyone can make up such a mapping as you point out), but a generic algorithm to map any CIM association to a corresponding CMDBf relationship record type. Correct? That algorithm needs to handle the fact that the CIM metamodel has the concept of relationship roles while the CMDBf metamodel doesn’t.

Here is a possible such mapping:

  1. Take a CIM association (called “myAssociation”) that has two roles (called “thisOne” and “theOtherOne”).
  2. Take the item that has role name that comes first alphabetically and make it the source (in this example, it is “theOtherOne”)
  3. Take the item that has role name that comes second alphabetically and make it the target (in this example, it is “thisOne”)
  4. Generate a CMDBf record type called “{associationName} _from_ {firstRoleNameAlphabetically} _to_ {secondRoleNameAlphabetically}”

You’re done. The new CMDBf record type is “myAssociation_from_theOtherOne_to_thisOne”, the source is the item with the role “theOtherOne” and the target is the item with the role “thisOne”. Everyone who follows this algorithm (of course it needs to be formally defined and evangelized, there is no guarantee here unless we bake CIM-specific concepts in the core CMDBf specification, which would be a mistake) will produce the same CMDBf relationship record type for a given CIM association.

Applied to the CIM_Dependency example, this would generate a “CIM_Dependency_from_Antecedent_to_Dependent” CMDBf record type, in which the source is the CIM Antecedent and the target is the CIM Dependent.

Alternatively, you can have the algorithm generate two CMDBf relationship record types (one going in each direction) for each CIM association. So you don’t have to arbitrarily pick the first one (alphabetically) as the source. But then you need to have model metadata to capture the fact that these relationships are the inverse of one another (and imply one another). As you well know,I have been advocating for the use of RDF/RDFS/OWL in CMDBf for a while. :-)

In the end, there are three potential approaches:

1) Someone (the CMDBf group or someone else) creates an authoritative mapping for all CIM associations (or at least all the useful ones) and we expect anyone who uses the CIM model with CMDBf to use that mapping.

2) Someone (again, the CMDBf group or someone else) defines a normative CIM to CMDBf mapping, e.g. the one above, and we expect anyone who generates a CMDBf relationship record type from a CIM association to use this mapping algorithm. From a pure logical perspective, it is the same as defining a CMDBf record type for each CIM association (approach 1), but it is less work and it doesn’t have to be updated every time a CIM association is created/versioned. At the cost of uglier (more arbitrary) CMDBf record types being defined.

3) We let people define the relationships in whatever way they choose and we provide a model metadata framework (aka ontology language) to allow mappings between these approaches. For example, you define, in your namespace, a van:CIM-inspired-dependency CMDBf record type that goes from antecedent to dependent. Separately, I defined, in my namespace, a william:CIM-like-dependency CMDBf record type that carries the same semantics (defined, not so precisely BTW but that’s a different topic, by CIM) except that its source is the dependent and its target is the antecedent. The inverse of yours. A suitable ontology language would allow someone (you, me, or a third party who has to assemble a system that uses both relationship types) to assert that mine is the inverse of yours. Once this assertion is captured, a request for any [A]—(van:CIM-inspired-dependency)—>[B] would also return the instances of [B]—(william:CIM-like-dependency)—>[A] because they are known to be the same. And you know how I am going to conclude, of course: OWL (specifically owl:inverseOf) provides just this.

BTW, approach 3 is not incompatible with 1 or 2. Whether or not we define mappings for CIM relationships and whether or not that mapping gets adopted, there will be plenty of cases in a federated scenario in which you need to reconcile models (CIM-based or not). Model metadata (aka an ontology language) is useful anyway.

Readers who only care about the technical aspects and have little time for rants can stop reading here. But, since I haven’t addressed any constructive criticism to the DMTF in a while, I can’t resist the opportunity to point out that if the mailing list archives for the DMTF working groups were publicly available, we wouldn’t have to have these discussions on our personal blogs. I am very glad that Van posted this on his blog because it is a question that many people will have. Whatever the CMDBf specification ends up doing, developers and architects who make use of it will benefit from having access to the deliberations and considerations that resulted in the specification being what it is. There are many emails in the CMDBf mailing list private archive that I am sure would be useful to future CMDBf implementers, but if they don’t show up on Google they don’t exist for any practical purpose. When grappling with the finer points of some specification or programming language I have often Googled my way into email archives (or old specification drafts) of the working groups that designed them. Sometimes I come out thinking “oh, ok, now I understand why they chose that approach” and other times it’s “ok, that’s what I suspected, these guys were high”. Either way, it’s useful to me as a user of the specification. W3C is the best example (of making working group records available, not of being high): not only is the mailing list available but the phone meetings often have a supporting IRC channel in which key points of the discussion get captured and archived. Here is an example. Making life easier for implementers is probably the single most important thing to make a specification successful. And ultimately, that’s the DMTF’s success too.

And it’s not just for developers and architects. It also impacts industry observers and pundits. Like the IT Skeptic who looked into CMDBf and reported “nothing on the DMTF website but press releases. try to find anything by navigating from the homepage”. And you wonder why his article is titled “the CMDB Federation proceeeds (sic) at its usual glacial pace”. There is good work going on, but there is no way for him to see it. This too is bad for the adoption and credibility of DMTF specifications.

Isn’t it ironic that the DMTF expends resources to sponsor a “hospitality suite” at the Burton Group Catalyst conference (presumably to spread the word about the good work taking place in the organization) but fails to make it easy for the industry to see that same good work taking place? It’s like a main street retail shop that advertises in the newspaper but covers its store window with cardboard, preventing passersby from seeing what’s on offer. I notice that all the other “hospitality suites” seem to be staffed by for-profit vendors (Oracle, IBM, Cisco, Microsoft etc are all there). Somehow W3C and OASIS (whose work is very relevant to some of the conference themes, like identity management and SOA) don’t feel the need to give away pens and key chains at the conference.

Dear DMTF, open source is not just good for code.

2 Comments

Filed under CA, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Conference, DMTF, Everything, IT Systems Mgmt, Mgmt integration, Modeling, RDF, Semantic tech, Specs, Standards, Trade show, W3C

May 28, 2008

RESTful JMX access from someone who knows both sides

Anyone interested in application manageability and/or management integration should read about Jean-Francois Denise’s prototype for RESTful Access to JMX Instrumentation. Not (at least for now) as something to make use of, but to force us to think pragmatically about the pros and cons of the WS-* stack when used for management integration.

The interesting question is: which of these two interfaces (the WS-Management-based interface being standardized or the HTTP-centric interface that Jean-Francois prototyped) makes it easier to write a cross-platform management application such as the poker-cheating demo at JavaOne 2008?

Some may say that he cheated in that demo by using the Microsoft-provided WinRM implementation of WS-Management on the VBScript side. Without it, it would have clearly been a lot harder to implement the WS-Management based protocol in VBScript than the REST approach. True, but that’s the exact point of standards, that they allow such libraries to be made available to assist implementers. The question is whether such a library is available for your platform/language, how good and interoperable that library is (it could actually hinder rather than help) and what is the cost to the project of depending on it. Which is why the question is hard to answer in absolute. I suspect that, even with WinRM, the simple use case demonstrated at JavaOne would have been easier to implement using straight HTTP but that things change quickly when you run into more demanding use cases (e.g. event notification with filters, sequencing of large responses into an enumeration…). Which is why I still think that the sweetspot would be a simplified WS-Management specification (freed of the WS-Addressing crud for example) that makes it easy (almost as easy as the HTTP-based interface) to implement simple use cases (like a GET) by hand but is still SOAP-based, which lets it seamlessly enter library-driven territory when more advanced features are added (e.g. WS-Security, WS-Enumeration…). Rather than the current situation in which there is a protocol-level disconnect between the HTTP interface (easy to implement by hand) and the WS-Management interface (for which manually implementation is a cruel – and hopefully unusual – punishment).

So, Jean-Francois, where is this JMX-REST work going now?

While you’re on Jean-Francois’ blog, another must-read is his account of the use of Wiseman and Metro in the WS Connector for JMX Agent RI.

As a side note (that runs all the way to the end of this post), Jean-Francois’ blog is a perfect illustration of the kind of blogs I like to subscribe to. He doesn’t feel the need to post all the time. But when he does (only four entries so far this year, three of them “must read”), he provides a lot of insight on a topic he really understands. That’s the magic of RSS/Atom. There is zero cost to me in keeping his feed in my reader (it doesn’t even appear until he posts something). The opposite of what used to be conventional knowledge (that you need to post often to “keep your readers engaged” as the HP guidelines for bloggers used to say). Leaving the technology aside (there is nothing to RSS/Atom technologically other than the fact that they happen to be agreed upon formats), my biggest hope for these specifications is that they promote that more thoughtful (and occasional) style of web publishing. In my grumpy days (are there others?), a “I can’t believe United lost my luggage again” or “look at the nice flowers in my backyard” post is an almost-automatic cause for unsubscribing (the “no country for old IT guys” series gets a free pass though).

And Jean-Francois even manages to repress his Frenchness enough to not take snipes at people just for the fun of it. Another thing I need to learn from him. For example, look at this paragraph from the post that describes his use of Wiseman and Metro:

“The JAX-WS Endpoint we developed is a Provider<SOAPMessage>. Simply annotating with @WebService was not possible. WS-Addressing makes intensive use of SOAP headers to convey part of the protocol information. To access to such headers, we need full access to the SOAP Message. After some redesigning of the existing code we extracted a WSManAgent Class that is accessible from a JAX-WS Endpoint or a Servlet.”

In one paragraph he describes how to do something that IBM has been claiming for years can’t be done (implement WS-Management on top of JAX-WS). And he doesn’t even rub it in. Is he a saint? Good think I am here to do the dirty work for him.

BTW, did anyone notice the irony that this diatribe (which, by now, is taking as much space as the original topic of the post) is an example of the kind of text that I am glad Jean-Francois doesn’t post? You can take the man out of standards, but you can’t take the double standard out of the man.

[UPDATED 2008/6/3: Jean-Francois now has a second post to continue his exploration of marrying the Zen philosophy with the JMX technology.]

2 Comments

Filed under Application Mgmt, CMDB Federation, Everything, Implementation, IT Systems Mgmt, JMX, Manageability, Mgmt integration, Open source, SOAP, SOAP header, Specs, Standards, WS-Management

May 20, 2008

I have seen the future of CMDBf

I got a sneak peak at CMDBf v2 today.

I am calling it v2 based on the assumption that the one being currently standardized in DMTF will end up being called 1.0 (because it’s the first one out of DMTF) or 1.1 (to prevent confusion with the submitted version).

At the Semantic Technology Conference, David Booth from HP presented his work (along with his partner, Steve Battle from HP Labs) to provide a SPARQL front-end to HP’s Universal CMDB (the engine under what was the Mercury MAM product). Here are the slides.

The mapping from SPARQL to TQL (the native query interface for UCMDB) was made pretty easy by the fact that TQL is a graph-oriented query language. How much harder would it be to similarly transform a CMDBf (v1) query interface into a SPARQL query interface (and vice-versa)? Not much. The only added difficulty would come from the CMDBf XPath constraints. TQL has a property value mechanism that is very similar to CMDBf’s “propertyValue” constraint and maps well to SPARQL functions. The introduction of XPath as a constraint language in CMDBf makes things harder. It could be handled by adding XPath support to the SPARQL engine using function extensibility. Or by turning the entire XML into RDF and emulating XPath in SPARQL. But in either case, you’ll have impedence mismatch at some point because concepts such as element order that exist in XPath have no native equivalent in RDF.

The use of XPath in selectors on the other hand is not a problem. HP’s prototype uses Gloze (available as a Jena package) to turn the XML returned by UCMDB into RDF. An XSLT transform could turn that same XML into a CMDBf-valid XML response instead and that XSLT could easily handle the XPath selectors from the query request. This is another reason why constraints and selectors should remain separate in CMDBf (fortunately the specification is back to doing this properly).

Here is why I call this prototype CMDBf v2: The CMDBf effort (v1 or 1.1), in its current form of re-inventing a graph query, can succeed. Let’s assume the working group strikes a reasonable balance between completeness and complexity, and vendors choose to compete on innovation and execution rather than lock-in (insert cynical comment here). CMDBf may then end up being supported by the main CMDB vendors. It wouldn’t provide federation capabilities, but having a common CMDB query interface supported by the Big Four would help with management integration. And yet, while the value would be real, it would only provide a little help to solve a larger problem:

  • As a technology limited to IT systems management, it would be unlikely to see widely available tools (e.g. user consoles and language-specific libraries).
  • It wouldn’t get the kind of robustness and interoperability that comes from wide adoption. While pretty similar, there might be some minor differences in the various implementations. Once your implementation has been tweaked to work with the implementations from the Big Four, you’ll call it done. Just like SNMP, another technology that is specific to IT systems management (see it happen here).
  • Even if it works perfectly at the query level, it will just hasten the time when developers run into the real problem, model interoperability. CMDBf doesn’t help at all with this. In fact, it makes it harder by hard-coding some dependencies on an XML back-end (the XPath constraints).

In the long run, IT management has to become more automated and integrated. That’s a given. The way it happens may or may not go through CMDB-like configuration stores. But if it does, we’ll have to eventually move beyond CMDBf (v1) towards something that addresses the three requirements above. And federation. I don’t know if it will be called CMDBf v2, and/or if it will come from the DMTF (by then, the CMDBf brand might be an asset or a liability depending on developer experience with the specification). But I strongly suspect (“probability 0.8” as a Gartner analyst might put it) that it will use semantic technologies. Because the real, hard, underlying problem is a problem of semantic integration. In that sense, David and Steve’s prototype is a sneak peek at what will come after CMDBf v1/1.1.

Pretty much since the beginning of CMDBf I have been pushing for it to ideally embrace SPARQL (with no success) or to at least stay close to it conceptually in order to make the eventual mapping/evolution smooth (with a bit more success). This includes pushing for a topological query language, trying to keep XML idiosyncrasies at bay and keeping constraints and selectors cleanly separated. Rather than working within the CMDBf group, David took the alternative approach of simply doing it. Hopefully this will help convince people of the value of re-using semantic web technology for IT systems management. Yes semantic technologies have been designed for a much more general use case. But the use cases that CMDB systems address are a subset of the use cases addressed by semantic technologies. It’s hard for domain experts to see their domain as just a subset of a larger problem, but this is the case here. Isn’t HTTP serving the IT management community better than a systems management-specific alternative would?

By the way, there is no inferencing taking place in the HP prototype. We are just talking about re-using an existing, well though-through graph query language. Sure OWL inferencing and some rules could be seamless layered on top of this. But this is in no way required to do (better) what CMDBf v1 tries to do.

And then there is the “federation” question. Who do you trust more to deliver this? A bunch of IT system management architects in DMTF or the web and query experts at W3C, HP Labs etc who designed and implemented SPARQL over many years? BTW, it sounds like SPQARL federation was discussed at WWW 2008, based on these meeting notes (search for “federation”).

2 Comments

Filed under Automation, CMDB, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Conference, DMTF, Everything, Graph query, HP, IT Systems Mgmt, Query, RDF, Semantic tech, SPARQL, Standards, W3C, XPath

May 7, 2008

The elusive XPath nodeset serialization

I have been involved in various capacity with five different specifications that define a GET (or GET-like) operation that takes as input an XPath expression used to pinpoint the subset of the XML document that should be retrieved (here is a quick history as of a couple of years ago, more has happened since). And I must shamefully admit that all but one are simply impossible to implement in an interoperable way.

That’s because they instruct implementers to return an XPath nodeset in the response SOAP message but say nothing about how to serialize the nodeset. While an XPath nodeset contains the kind of things that make up an XML document, it is not an XML document by itself. There is an infinite number of possible ways to serialized an XPath nodeset into XML. To have any hope of interoperability on this, a serialization algorithm has to be clearly described by the specification. Which hasn’t happened.

Let’s start with WS-ResourceProperties (WS-RP). It has a QueryResourceProperties operation that takes an XPath expression as input. The specification says that “the response MUST contain an XML serialization of the results of evaluating the QueryExpression against the resource properties document“. Great, thanks. The example provided happens to return a nodeset with only one node (a boolean), which is implicitly serialized into the text representation of that boolean. What if there is more than one node in the nodeset? What about other types of nodes?

Moving on to WS-Management, which defines a SOAP header that uses XPath to qualify a WS-Transfer GET request such that it only retrieves a subset of the target XML document. While it does a better job than WS-RP at describing the input (e.g. it specifies the context node and what namespace declarations are in scope for the XPath evaluation) it is even more cavalier than WS-RP in describing the output: “the output (lines 53-55) is like that supplied by a typical XPath processor and might or might not contain XML namespace information or attributes“. By “a typical XPath processor” we should understand MSXML I suppose. But as far as I know a “typical XML processor” doesn’t return XML, it returns language-specific data structures (e.g. a C# or Java object, like a nu.xom.Nodes instance). And here too, the examples only use single-node nodesets.

WS-ResourceTransfer (WS-RT) was supposed to be the convergence of these two efforts, so presumably it would have learned from their mistakes. While it is better written in general than its predecessors, it fails just as badly with regards to specifying the nodeset serialization. And once again, the example provided uses a nodeset with just one node.

And then came the CMDBf query operation which, for some unclear reason, was deemed in need of a built-in XPath transformation of records. As I pointed out in my review of CMDBf 1.0 at the time, this feature was added without taking the pain to define the XML serialization of the resulting nodeset. And there isn’t even an example of the XPath serialization.

It is sad in a way, but the only specification that acknowledges the problem and addresses it came before any of the four above even got started. It is the WSMF (Web Services Management Framework) work that we did at HP, and more specifically the “note on dynamic attributes and meta information” (not available at HP anymore but available from archive.org) . This specification was the first one to define a GET operation that is qualified by an XPath expression. Unlike its successors it also explicitly narrowed down the types of nodes that could be selected (“The manager MUST NOT send as input an XPath statement that returns a nodeset containing nodes other than element, attribute and namespace nodes“). And for those valid types it described how to serialized them in XML (“When a node in the result nodeset is an attribute node, for the sake of the response it is serialized as an element node which has the same name as the name of the original attribute (see example 4 for an illustration). The element is in the same namespace as the namespace the attribute it represents is in. This applies to namespace nodes as well, they are serialized like an attributes in the xmlns namespace“). Turning an attribute into an element of the same QName might not be the smartest thing in retrospect (after all there may be an element by that QName already) but at least we recognized and addressed the problem.

But all is good now, I am told, because XPath 2.0 is here, along with a clean data model and a well-described serialization.

Not so. Anyone wanting to use XPath for a SOAP-based query language still would have to specify a serialization.

The first problem with the W3C serialization is that the XML output method doesn’t work for all nodesets. Try to use it on a nodeset that contains a top-level attribute node and you get error err:SENR0001. And even for the nodesets it accepts, it sometimes returns less-than-useful results. For example, if your XPath is of the form /employee/name/text() and you have four employees, the result will look something like this:

“Joe SmithKathy O’ConnorHelen MartinBrian Jones”

Concatenated text values without separators. I guess W3C is like a department store, they don’t offer complimentary wrapping anymore…

That’s why the nux.xom.xquery.ResultSequenceSerializer class had to define its own wrapping mechanims to produce a useful XML serialization. The API gives you the choice between the W3C_ALGORITHM and the WRAP_ALGORITHM.

Bottom line, and however much some would like to think of it that way, XPath (1 or 2) is not an XML subsetting/transformation mechanism. It could be used to create one (as XSLT does), but you have to do your own plumbing.

In addition to the technical aspects of this discussion, what else can be learned from this sad state of things? The fact that all these specifications define an XPath-driven query mechanism that is simply broken (beyond the simplest use cases) withouth anyone even noticing tells me that there isn’t a real need for full XPath query over SOAP (and I am talking about XPath 1.0, the introduction of XPath 2.0 in CMDBf is even more out there). A way to retrieve individual elements (and maybe text values) is all that is needed for 99% of the use cases addressed by these specifications. Users would be better served (especially in a version 1.0) by specifications that cover the simple case correctly than by overly generic, complex and poorly documented features. There is always time to add features later if the initial specification is successful enough that users encounter its limitations.

3 Comments

Filed under CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Everything, SOAP, Specs, Standards, Tech, W3C, WS-Management, WS-ResourceTransfer, XPath

March 4, 2008

Of graphs and trees: Kingsley Idehen to the rescue

I just read the transcript of Jon Udell’s podcast interview of Kingsley Idehen. It’s almost two years old but it contains something that I have tried (and mostly failed) to explain for a while now, so maybe borrowing someone else’s words (and credibility) would help.

Kingsley says:

“A graph model, ideally, will allow you to explore almost all the comprehensible dimensions of the nodes in that network. So you can traverse that network in a myriad of different ways and it will give you much more flexibility than if you’re confined to a tree, in effect, the difference between XQuery and SPARQL. I always see the difference between these two things as this. If you visualize nodes on a network, SPARQL is going to get you to the right node. Your journey to what you want is facilitated by SPARQL, and then XQuery can then take you deeper into this one node, which has specific data that the graph traversal is taking you to.”

Nicely said, especially considering that this is not a prepared statement but a transcript of a (presumably) unscripted interview.

He later provides an example:

“Let’s take a microformat as an example. HCard, or an hCalendar, is a well-formed format. In a sense, it’s XML. You can locate the hCard in question, so if you had a collection of individuals who had full files on the network in the repository, it could be a graph of a social network or a group of people. Now, through that graph you could ultimately locate common interests. And eventually you may want to set up calendars but if the format of the calendar itself is well formed, with XQuery you can search a location, with XPath it’s even more specific. Here you simply want to get to a node in the content and to get a value. Because the content is well formed you can traverse within the content, but XQuery doesn’t help you find that content as effectively because in effect XQuery is really all about a hierarchical model.”

Here is one way to translate this to the IT management domain. Replace hCard with an XML-formated configuration record. Replace the graph of social relationships with a graph of IT-relevant relationships (dependency, ownership, connections, containment…). Rather than attempt to XQuery across an entire CMDB (or, even worse, an entire CMDB federation), use a graph query (ideally SPARQL) to find the items of interest and then use XPath/XQuery to drill into the content of the resulting records. The graph query language in CMDBf is an attempt to do that, but it has to constantly battle attempts to impose a tree-based view of the world.

This also helps illustrate why SPARQL is superior to the CMDBf query language. It’s not just that it’s a better graph query language, one that has received much more review and validation by people more experienced in graph theory and queries, and one that is already widely implemented. It also does something that CMDBf doesn’t attempt to do: it lets you navigate the graph based on the semantics appropriate for the task at hand (dependency relationships, governance rules, distributed performance management…), something that CMDBf cannot do. There is more to classification than simply class inheritance. I think this is what Kingsley refers to when he says “in a myriad of different ways” in the quote above.

Here is a way to summarize the larger point (that tree and graph views are complementary):

Me Tarzan, you Jena

Where Tarzan (appropriately) represents the ability to navigate trees and Jane/Jena represents the ability to navigate graphs (Jena, from HP Labs, is the leading open source RDF/OWL/SPARQL framework). As in the movie, they complement each other (to the point of saving one another’s life and falling in love, but I don’t ask quite that much of SPARQL and XQuery).

On a related topic, I recently saw some interesting news from TopQuadrant. Based on explicit requests from the majority of their customers, they have added capabilities to their TopBraid Composer product to better make use of the RDF/OWL support in the Oracle database. TopQuadrant is at the forefront of many semantic web applications and the fact that they see Oracle being heavily used by their customers is an interesting external validation.

[UPDATED 2008/03/05: more related news! The W3C RDB2RDF incubator group has started is life at W3C, chaired by my colleague Ashok Malhotra, to work on mappings between RDF/OWL and relational data.]

1 Comment

Filed under CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Everything, Graph query, Query, RDF, SPARQL, Standards, W3C, XPath, XQuery

February 6, 2008

DMTF members as primary voters?

I just noticed this result from the 2007 DMTF member survey (taken a year ago, but as far as I can tell just released now). When asked what their “most important interoperability priority” is, members made it pretty clear that they want the current CIM/WBEM infrastructure fixed and polished. They seem a lot less interested in these fancy new SOAP-based protocols and even less in using any other model than CIM.

It will be interesting to see what this means for new DMTF activities, such as CMDBf or WS-RC, that are supposed to be model-neutral. A few possibilities:

  • the priorities of the members change over time to make room for these considerations
  • turn-over (or increase) in membership brings in members with a different perspective
  • the model-neutral activities slowly get more and more CIM-influenced
  • rejection by the DMTF auto-immune system

My guess is that the DMTF leadership is hoping for #1 and/or #2 while the current “base” (to borrow from the US election-season language) wouldn’t mind #3 or #4. I am expecting some mix of #2 and #3.

Pushing the analogy with current US political events further than is reasonable, one can see a correspondence with the Republican primary:

  • CIM/WBEM is Huckabe, favored by the base
  • CMDBf/WS-RC/WS-Management etc is Romney, the choice of the party leadership
  • At the end, some RDF and HTTP-based integration-friendly approach comes from behind and takes the prize (McCain)

Then you still have to win the general election (i.e. industry adoption of whatever the DMTF cooks up).

[UPDATED 2008/2/7: the day after I write this entry, Romney quits the race. Bad omen for CMDBf and WS-RC? ;-) ]

Comments Off on DMTF members as primary voters?

Filed under CMDB Federation, CMDBf, DMTF, Everything, Standards, WS-Management

January 10, 2008

An interesting business process query language

While doing some research on the different ways to probe and squeeze business process definitions to extract insight relevant for IT management I ran into this very interesting paper: Querying Business Processes. It defines a query language (called BP-QL) to query process definitions. Not much in common with CMDB Federation at first sight, and CMDBf was not on my mind at the time. Until I looked at the description of the query language that the researchers came up with. It is strikingly similar to the CMDBf query language. This is not very surprising since both are graph-based query languages that rely on patterns (where the patterns mix topological aspects with constraints on node/link properties).

CMDBf is more complete in some respects. It supports properties on the relationships, not just the items. The “depthLimit” element provide more control than BP-QL’s double-headed edges. BP-QL has its own extra features, including support for joins (something we discussed in CMDBf and that could be added to the specification) and negation at the graph level (e.g. A and B are not connected by any relationship of type “foo”, which may be useful but one should remember that CMDB discovery is rarely guaranteed to be comprehensive so an open-world approach is often preferable).

Assuming a suitable CMDB model for business processes, a CMDBf-compliant CMDB should cover many of the simpler use cases addressed by BP-QL. And reciprocally, the more advanced features in BP-QL are not really specific to business process definitions (even though that’s the scope of the paper) and could well be applied to CMDBf. I was also very interested by the BP-QL “compact representation” and the implementation choices. I hadn’t heard of Active XML before, something to look into especially if, as the paper hints, it does a better job than XQuery at dealing with idrefs. And Active XML introduces some interesting federation (or at least distribution) capabilities that are not currently exploited by BP-QL but which I find intriguing and which reinforce the parallel with the declared goal of CMDBf.

Is this similarity between the query languages just an interesting pattern to notice? Or is there more to it? The parallel between BP-QL and CMDBf invites the question of whether one should model business processes in a CMDB. And if so, is a business process represented by just one CI or do you break it down into a model similar to the one the BP-QL query language works on? You would need to go that far if you wanted to use queries to the CMDB to answer questions such as those handled by the BP-QL engine. And by doing this in the context of a CMDB that contains a lot more than just process definitions, you’d be able to enrich the queries with considerations from other domains, such as application or host topology. Modeling business process steps/activities may seem like very fine-grained modeling for a CMDB, but isn’t this part of the sales pitch for federated CMDBs, that participants in the federation can provide different levels of granularity? Of course, CMDB federation might never work out. If it does work and if we use it that way, we are not talking about just supporting change management processes (which are more likely to take place at the level of the overall process definition than the individual step) but rather about management integration for a wide variety of use cases. If that means we need to drop the term CMDB along the way (and leave it for the sole usage of the IT process people), I am more than happy to oblige.

[UPDATE on 2008/01/11: Prof. Milo pointed me to this follow-up paper that proposes a similar looking query language except that this time it is targeted at monitoring process instances rather than analyzing process definitions. And the monitoring runs as a set of BPEL processes within the monitored BPEL engine. Her group is doing some very interesting work.]

2 Comments

Filed under Business Process, CMDB Federation, CMDBf, Everything, Graph query, Mgmt integration, Query, Research