Hello all
ITEC will be doing system work as indicated in the following message. While Aleph servers housed at ITEC will be involved, ***NO*** service interruptions are expected. This message is to inform you of these activities.
Maureen
—–Original Message—–
From: Mike Radomski [mailto:mike.radomski@itec.suny.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:43 PM
To: SUNYConnect Technical list
Cc: Mike Radomski
Subject: [sctech] AIX VIO Server reboot
Hello,We are beginning the initial migrations to the XP24000 storage system. In order to begin migrating, we need to reboot our VIO servers on our pSeries systems. The VIO servers are redundant within a managed system and can reboot without interruption to the LPARs running on the system. The reboots will occur between 4a-7a on the designated days. Although there should be no interruption to service, we want to communicate our intentions and thank you for your patience.
This is the current schedule for VIO reboots and the LPARs managed by the systems:
Friday 2/1 - VIO9/10
admdevbuc
admdevnew
admolddev
Monday 2/4 - VIO8, VIO3/4
admorabuc
admoranas
dutapp01
itxmail01 (Old Westbury Lotus Notes)
admoraprod2
bufapp05
bufmail02
seneca
slnoradev
slntomcat
Tuesday - VIO5/6
admoradut
admoranew
appdev02
archive01
bufapp03
bufapp04
bufhub01
delaware
itxmail02 (Old Westbury Lotus Notes)
slnoraprod
sufapp03
sufods
Wednesday - VIO1/2
admorajef
admoraold2
admorasicas
admorasuf
bufapp01
bufapp02
mohawk
saranac
slntomcat
sufhyp01
Mike Radomski
Blog: http://mradomski.wordpress.com
SUNY - ITEC
Information Technology Exchange Center
Supervising Analyst of Systems and Telecommunications Services
E-mail: Mike.Radomski@itec.suny.edu
Phone: (716)878-4832
Mobile: (716)807-4040
Fax: (716)878-3485
We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
-Albert Einstein
Friends in the SUNY community,ITEC and OAS (System Administration) are embarking on the installation and migration phases for our HP XP storage systems. For those that were not at Wizard, both organizations are implementing a common storage platforms, HP XP12000 and XP24000, as the building blocks of the larger dual-data center project. Having a common platform will allow the data centers to replicate data and share a common skill set. This all being said, ITEC will need your support in scheduling the daunting task of migrating to the XP.
Next Wednesday morning, 4a-7a, we will be upgrading our Cisco MDS switches. HP is adding additional line cards, which are hot-add components. I wanted to inform everyone, as the MDS’s are core components and although it is non-disruptive, stranger things have happened.
Over the next 1-3 months, we will be migrating all of the storage currently residing on our IBM Shark to the HP XP24000. ITEC will be migrating approximately 75 systems to the new platform. The target systems consist of development, non-production, redundant and production systems for our hosted offerings in SLN (Classic and Angel), SUNYConnect, Banner and Luminis. We will be publishing a migration schedule next week pending some implementation tasks and migration testing.
For full production systems, we will adhere to our regular 4a-7a Wednesday maintenance window. However, we may need to extend that window to 12a-7a for some of the larger data systems. This will be done on a system by system basis. We will give you at least 1 week notice, with the majority of the schedule for the next 1-3 months published next week.
For redundant, non-production and development systems, we ask for your flexibility in scheduling. We will be asking, on a system by system basis, to schedule migration outside of the Wednesday maintenance window.
Most migrations will require two reboots. The first reboot is to upgrade HBA drivers, followed by data synchronization, concluded with a final reboot to migrate fully to the XP24000.
Thank you for your cooperation and patience.
Earlier this month an email sent out to the Educause CIO Listserv sparked a brief, but heated, discussion among academic CIO’s from across the country. The post that started it all stated:
Walter S. Mossberg, personal-technology columnist for The Wall Street Journal, spoke Monday to more than 250 college presidents and other administrators attending the Chronicle Presidents Forum. “…he began his speech by calling the information-technology departments of large organizations, including colleges, ‘the most regressive and poisonous force in technology today.’” They make decisions based on keeping technology centralized,” he said. “Although lesser-known software may be better,” he said, “technology departments are likely to use big-name products for their own convenience. That may keep costs down for an organization,” he said. “but it puts consistency above customization, preventing individuals from exploring what technology products are best suited to their own needs.”
Obviously no one liked the comments (including me), and we all (I would assume) liked even less the presumption of responsibility for running such “regressive and poisonous” departments. But after the sting from the slap to my face subsided, I reflected, just how far off was he, if at all? After some thought, I realized, a few months ago, before stepping into the role of a CIO, I might have been Mr. Mossberg’s strongest supporter…
Prior to my current position, I served as the Director of Technology for The State University of New York’s Office of Learning Environments (LE) which administered the SUNY Learning Network (SLN). SLN is a Learning Management System built on Lotus Notes/Domino and served approximately 40 campuses within the system. For various reasons LE had determined it was time to migrate off of the Lotus Notes/Domino technologies, yet was committed to provide the same teaching and learning environment that had been cultivated by SLN’s instructional designers and faculty, focusing on: “a range of teaching and learning modalities,” (from constructivist/constructionist pedagogical approach to “traditional” methods), integration (content repositories, SIS integration, cross-campus enrollments, common course catalog), centralized hosting and user support, off-line development and others. Affirming this direction was the LE Taskforce Report–twenty-two members from the SUNY community including faculty, CIO’s instructional designers and vice presidents–who focused on business process and teaching and learning “affordances.”
Based on SLN’s historical traditions and the LE Taskforce’s recommendations, LE published the SLN2.0 Whitepaper, which summarized a vision for development:
SLN has identified the best solution to be a component strategy, as no single-platform LMS solution exists today to meet our needs. This powerful component strategy would integrate several carefully chosen Open Source projects, each with strong technical compatibility, resulting in a whole far greater than the sum of its parts.
While the development of such an environment would be significant, so were the business and functional requirements defined by SLN’s users: a centrally supported, yet architecturally distributed, LMS available to, and integrated with, any one or all of SUNY’s 64 campuses—understanding that each campus uses disparate student information systems, academic calendars, identity management, course/section & student ID’s, and each campus operates with different academic missions, course development processes, business practices, academic policies, educational programs, teaching & learning styles and classroom tools & functionality.
SLN2.0 affirmed Mossberg’s statements, where “lesser-known software may be better,” in this case to fulfill SUNY and SLN’s unique requirements. SLN also recommended a service-oriented architecture providing, what Mossberg described as, “technology products best suited to [campuses and faculty's] own needs.”
SLN2.0 was not rejected by the technology industry…
Unicon stated, “The proposed SLN 2.0 is educationally appropriate on several levels.” Eduventures recognized SUNY as an “innovator.” SUN Microsystems offered support in development through a Center of Excellence. IBM provided strategic and technical support.
SLN2.0 was not rejected by instructors or instructional designers…
Despite these questions and concerns, we are very excited about the possibilities that SLN 2.0 can offer. [Our campus] is supportive of the concepts outlined in this proposal and if this project adheres to past principles of partnership and “pedagogy first” we are excited about the possibilities that SLN 2.0 presents.
We are supportive and excited about the possibilities offered by SLN 2.0.
This open model allows SLN 2.0 to have a modular framework which would permit the easy integration of tools that meet the needs of [this campus'] unique curriculum. Online learning can thus be driven by pedagogical needs rather than the reverse (where technology could constrain pedagogy). We heartily agree with the statement in the report that “LMS [learning management system] development should be focused on the development of tools and functionality for narrower teaching niches.”
SLN2 was, however, most strongly rejected by just those groups Mossberg identified as regressive, IT departments, who recommended the use of “big-name products for their own convenience.”
Under the circumstances the Blackboard/WebCT merger is a key opportunity for SUNY. We ask that the System Office initiate and lead discussions with these companies as soon as possible so that SUNY can be influential in and benefit from the upcoming Bb/WebCT merger. Discussions with Angel should be pursued as well.
Across SLN and non-SLN campuses alike there is concern that the process for arriving at the SLN2 direction did not adequately consider commercial alternatives as an option. The concern has two principal foci 1) that there are commercial products in use on campuses that are capable of supporting full online courses and in use by SLN competitors and 2) that building a SUNY-specific CMS may not be a viable business proposition for SUNY. SUNY has been successful when it identifies a preferred commercial vendor as a standard and builds services to surround that offering.
SUNY has a large investment in major commercial CMS and SUNY Learning Network offerings and should consider this an opportunity to review all migration alternatives from the current SLN platform and to leverage its position with commercial providers.
With respect to SLN2.0, the IT Departments put “consistency above customization, preventing individuals from exploring what technology products are best suited to their own needs” in favor of “big-name products for their own convenience.”
A final note. Mr. Mossberg made his comments while I was attending a system-wide technology conference. While there I attended a presentation on portals. The presenter, the Director of Academic Computing, proudly displayed the campuses real-time integration between their student information system and their learning management system. When one in the audience asked if they had any plans to upgrade the LMS to the current version offered by the commercial provider, the presenter said flat out, “No.” The reason? The IT Department already had SIS/LMS integration and they did not want to have to invest in rebuilding what was already working. The presenter’s final comment, “Besides, the faculty are just going to want another thing next year” met with laughter and acknowledgment throughout the room.
Yeah, I think Mossberg has a point.
- Adhd Online Continuing Education Courses
Online Continuing Education Course Login Page ** You cannot access courses until after 2 pm on the day the course begins.**
- Olntv 2005 Cycling Schedule
- Texas Board Of Education Website
- Schedule For Nfl
- Sln Suny Edu Commons