By Rich Walsh
In taking a look at the Kroll Ontrack “Global Data Loss Causes” survey, I found it interesting that 90 percent of responders have lost data, and 18 percent did not know how the data went missing. Mind you, these losses could be attributed to such occurrences as data that has been corrupted by a virus or just human error – files being misfiled or accidentally deleted. But, I immediately thought, “Perhaps it wasn’t lost; it just couldn’t be found.”
Having written and spoken about data storage for years, one theme has remained constant: the amount of data that corporations must manage is growing and shows no signs of stopping. Keeping track of this mass of data is a daunting challenge for many companies.
I often hear from IT executives that they are frustrated by the multitude of archiving systems at their organizations as more and more repositories are installed to meet data growth. Misplacing data becomes very plausible, and even typical, in this type of environment.
Losing data is never a good thing and when it happens, whether in a household or at a major corporation, it can create some headaches – to put it mildly. In the current environment, losing data is simply not an option as new regulations are sure to put more demands on data recovery. The consequences for missing data can be severe; you only need to read the mortgage-foreclosure headlines to get a sense of this.
Storage professionals may be feeling pressure from IT executives to fix the problem while managing costs. Data management should not be an obstacle to a corporation’s primary business objective. Now is the ideal time to address this issue because there is no apparent end in sight for the onslaught of data.
How is your company handling the barrage?
Rich Walsh is President, Document Archive & Repository Services at Viewpointe. He has more than 25 years of operational information technology experience.
Showing posts with label repository. Show all posts
Showing posts with label repository. Show all posts
Monday, November 22, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Hunt for "Orphan Storage"
By Rich Walsh, Viewpointe (www.viewpointe.com)
Storage professionals are now under pressure to find and use “orphan storage,” rather than buying or building more capacity. Orphan storage is a form of unused or unallocated data in everything from a database to disk drives and storage area networks. The problem seems so universal, that I hear this almost everywhere I go. I recently heard one executive say: “When we buy storage, we know where it is, but now our mandate has become finding unused storage, wherever it happens to be.”
Symantec’s CEO has even gone so far as to tell the market to "stop buying storage." I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. Not being able to use your existing space or, worse, access the storage you already have – those seem to be the larger problems. Certainly IT executives are probably both gratified and mortified that this issue, which is hardly new to them, is finally getting some attention.
Recently, we asked IDC to take a deeper dive into this issue; and in a whitepaper, IDC noted outsourced storage as a good solution to the growing capacity problem. Generally they concluded that for easy access, as well as appropriate amounts of storage, outsourced systems work very well. Moving data to a hosted repository allows companies to pay only for the actual capacity they currently need, as opposed to an in-house infrastructure that is generally built for future consumption. And, this approach may be better suited for accessing the needed data at a later date.
Right now, IT executives want to make good use of all the equipment and devices that they have already purchased, and that is sound business judgment. Still, at some point, organizations are going to deplete the space they have and simply purging existing files may not be enough to keep up with the increased demand.
However, the question remains: What should companies do once they have determined just how much existing storage they have? Will they continue to buy ad-hoc, only to be faced with the exact same orphan storage problem in a few more months? Or, is it time for a fresh approach to this ever-growing problem?
Storage professionals are now under pressure to find and use “orphan storage,” rather than buying or building more capacity. Orphan storage is a form of unused or unallocated data in everything from a database to disk drives and storage area networks. The problem seems so universal, that I hear this almost everywhere I go. I recently heard one executive say: “When we buy storage, we know where it is, but now our mandate has become finding unused storage, wherever it happens to be.”
Symantec’s CEO has even gone so far as to tell the market to "stop buying storage." I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. Not being able to use your existing space or, worse, access the storage you already have – those seem to be the larger problems. Certainly IT executives are probably both gratified and mortified that this issue, which is hardly new to them, is finally getting some attention.
Recently, we asked IDC to take a deeper dive into this issue; and in a whitepaper, IDC noted outsourced storage as a good solution to the growing capacity problem. Generally they concluded that for easy access, as well as appropriate amounts of storage, outsourced systems work very well. Moving data to a hosted repository allows companies to pay only for the actual capacity they currently need, as opposed to an in-house infrastructure that is generally built for future consumption. And, this approach may be better suited for accessing the needed data at a later date.
Right now, IT executives want to make good use of all the equipment and devices that they have already purchased, and that is sound business judgment. Still, at some point, organizations are going to deplete the space they have and simply purging existing files may not be enough to keep up with the increased demand.
However, the question remains: What should companies do once they have determined just how much existing storage they have? Will they continue to buy ad-hoc, only to be faced with the exact same orphan storage problem in a few more months? Or, is it time for a fresh approach to this ever-growing problem?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
School Data System Flunking Out
Posted by Mark Brousseau
An interesting article from The New York Times:
Crucial Data on Graduates Is Elusive
By ELISSA GOOTMAN
The Class of 2008 has already tossed aside caps and gowns for swimsuits and tank tops. The Class of 2009 has begun dreaming of proms, diplomas and exit strategies. But the public has yet to learn what percentage of New York State’s Class of 2007 actually graduated from high school.
Blame the state’s new data system, which is expected to cost $39.4 million over six years. Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the state’s Education Department, acknowledged that the system had been “not completely successful” in uploading and processing information from New York’s 695 school districts. He said the move to a single data repository had “caused a number of problems.”
“Those problems are being corrected now,” Mr. Dunn said, adding that the state was in the process of verifying numbers with school districts and expected to release 2007 graduation rates by the end of the month. (Rates for 2008, he said, would be released in February.)
Of all the statistics that increasingly figure into public debate about schools, graduation rates are widely considered among the most crucial indicators of whether a system is working. They are watched with particular urgency in New York City, where the low but slowly climbing graduation rate was a contentious topic during the 2005 re-election campaign of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
For years, the city and state have used different criteria to calculate the graduation rate, and the discrepancy has caused tension among city and state officials and confusion among parents. In 2006, the state said that 50 percent of the city’s seniors had graduated, while the city said 59 percent.
(The state announced 2006 graduation rates in April 2007 — just as the Class of 2007 was suffering late-stage senioritis.)
The new data system was supposed to resolve those differences, with officials in Albany and New York City agreeing to release a single number. Or, as it has turned out, to not release it for a long time.
“Asking the public to be patient here is simply not an answer,” said Merryl H. Tisch, a member of the State Board of Regents, who described the delay as “frustrating and intolerable.”
“I think the public should frankly demand more timely testing results and more timely graduation data,” she said, “because, after all, they’re being asked to invest an enormous amount of money in the system.”
Ms. Tisch said she faulted the state’s Education Department, some local school districts that failed to properly report their data, and McGraw-Hill, whose Grow Network subsidiary is responsible for part of the new data system and is expected to receive $13.3 million over six years for that work.
Kelley Carpenter, a McGraw-Hill spokeswoman, said in a statement that the Grow Network was primarily responsible for the “reporting part of this system” but was “not involved in data entry and collection.”
“We will continue to work with the state to generate reports as data is made available,” she said.
David Cantor, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Education, said the city had given the state the required information in a timely fashion. “Obviously, we’d have liked the numbers sooner,” he said of the graduation rates, adding, “It’s very tough to run a data system of this size smoothly the first time.”
New York, which began creating the new data system several years ago, is among a number of states that have invested millions recently to computerize school information, to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind law and, more broadly, as part of an increased focus on educational accountability.
New York’s new system assigns every student in the state an identification number so they can be tracked throughout their educational careers, even if they switch schools or districts. The system keeps track of test scores and attendance as well as graduation numbers.
Mr. Dunn, the State Education Department spokesman, said that the problems leading to the late release of the graduation rates were not specific to McGraw-Hill’s Grow Network, but that the company had “a share” of responsibility.
“There’s just an enormous amount of new information that’s moving through here at all areas,” Mr. Dunn said. “The new volume has created challenges, from people having to fill out different forms to different verifications and all of the multiple steps involved.”
In an e-mail message to school superintendents this month, Jean C. Stevens, an associate state education commissioner, pointed a finger at school districts, saying that while calculating graduation rates, the state had identified many districts with possible data-reporting problems.
“Many districts may have misreported graduates,” she wrote. “In some cases no graduates were reported.”
Betsy Gotbaum, the New York City public advocate, noted that the city Department of Education’s own $80 million data system, developed by I.B.M. and called ARIS, has been criticized by principals and teachers as cumbersome and difficult to use, even as parents have questioned its hefty price tag.
“We have already seen with ARIS here in the city how expensive and flashy computer systems are turning out to be clunky and flawed,” Ms. Gotbaum said in a statement. “The longer we have to wait for these data systems to produce results, the more skeptical people become.”
Mr. Cantor said the city was improving ARIS. “While it did not come out of the box perfect,” he said, “we got an awful lot of information to a large number of people.”
Jane Hirschmann, the founder and a co-chairwoman of Time Out From Testing, an antitesting group, said the information delay was “just typical” of how the city and state education departments “are spending our taxpayer money with absolutely no results.”
“It would be much better to put money in the classroom and keep track of what’s really important,” Ms. Hirschmann said. “This is the administration of testing and data collection. As far as parents are concerned, we don’t buy it. We don’t think our children are better because of it.”
An interesting article from The New York Times:
Crucial Data on Graduates Is Elusive
By ELISSA GOOTMAN
The Class of 2008 has already tossed aside caps and gowns for swimsuits and tank tops. The Class of 2009 has begun dreaming of proms, diplomas and exit strategies. But the public has yet to learn what percentage of New York State’s Class of 2007 actually graduated from high school.
Blame the state’s new data system, which is expected to cost $39.4 million over six years. Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the state’s Education Department, acknowledged that the system had been “not completely successful” in uploading and processing information from New York’s 695 school districts. He said the move to a single data repository had “caused a number of problems.”
“Those problems are being corrected now,” Mr. Dunn said, adding that the state was in the process of verifying numbers with school districts and expected to release 2007 graduation rates by the end of the month. (Rates for 2008, he said, would be released in February.)
Of all the statistics that increasingly figure into public debate about schools, graduation rates are widely considered among the most crucial indicators of whether a system is working. They are watched with particular urgency in New York City, where the low but slowly climbing graduation rate was a contentious topic during the 2005 re-election campaign of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.
For years, the city and state have used different criteria to calculate the graduation rate, and the discrepancy has caused tension among city and state officials and confusion among parents. In 2006, the state said that 50 percent of the city’s seniors had graduated, while the city said 59 percent.
(The state announced 2006 graduation rates in April 2007 — just as the Class of 2007 was suffering late-stage senioritis.)
The new data system was supposed to resolve those differences, with officials in Albany and New York City agreeing to release a single number. Or, as it has turned out, to not release it for a long time.
“Asking the public to be patient here is simply not an answer,” said Merryl H. Tisch, a member of the State Board of Regents, who described the delay as “frustrating and intolerable.”
“I think the public should frankly demand more timely testing results and more timely graduation data,” she said, “because, after all, they’re being asked to invest an enormous amount of money in the system.”
Ms. Tisch said she faulted the state’s Education Department, some local school districts that failed to properly report their data, and McGraw-Hill, whose Grow Network subsidiary is responsible for part of the new data system and is expected to receive $13.3 million over six years for that work.
Kelley Carpenter, a McGraw-Hill spokeswoman, said in a statement that the Grow Network was primarily responsible for the “reporting part of this system” but was “not involved in data entry and collection.”
“We will continue to work with the state to generate reports as data is made available,” she said.
David Cantor, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Education, said the city had given the state the required information in a timely fashion. “Obviously, we’d have liked the numbers sooner,” he said of the graduation rates, adding, “It’s very tough to run a data system of this size smoothly the first time.”
New York, which began creating the new data system several years ago, is among a number of states that have invested millions recently to computerize school information, to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind law and, more broadly, as part of an increased focus on educational accountability.
New York’s new system assigns every student in the state an identification number so they can be tracked throughout their educational careers, even if they switch schools or districts. The system keeps track of test scores and attendance as well as graduation numbers.
Mr. Dunn, the State Education Department spokesman, said that the problems leading to the late release of the graduation rates were not specific to McGraw-Hill’s Grow Network, but that the company had “a share” of responsibility.
“There’s just an enormous amount of new information that’s moving through here at all areas,” Mr. Dunn said. “The new volume has created challenges, from people having to fill out different forms to different verifications and all of the multiple steps involved.”
In an e-mail message to school superintendents this month, Jean C. Stevens, an associate state education commissioner, pointed a finger at school districts, saying that while calculating graduation rates, the state had identified many districts with possible data-reporting problems.
“Many districts may have misreported graduates,” she wrote. “In some cases no graduates were reported.”
Betsy Gotbaum, the New York City public advocate, noted that the city Department of Education’s own $80 million data system, developed by I.B.M. and called ARIS, has been criticized by principals and teachers as cumbersome and difficult to use, even as parents have questioned its hefty price tag.
“We have already seen with ARIS here in the city how expensive and flashy computer systems are turning out to be clunky and flawed,” Ms. Gotbaum said in a statement. “The longer we have to wait for these data systems to produce results, the more skeptical people become.”
Mr. Cantor said the city was improving ARIS. “While it did not come out of the box perfect,” he said, “we got an awful lot of information to a large number of people.”
Jane Hirschmann, the founder and a co-chairwoman of Time Out From Testing, an antitesting group, said the information delay was “just typical” of how the city and state education departments “are spending our taxpayer money with absolutely no results.”
“It would be much better to put money in the classroom and keep track of what’s really important,” Ms. Hirschmann said. “This is the administration of testing and data collection. As far as parents are concerned, we don’t buy it. We don’t think our children are better because of it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
