Tag Archives: DevOps

Scrum for Operations: Order from Chaos

Welcome to the second installment in Scrum for Operations, a series where I talk about (and go through) the process of doing systems work as part of a DevOps team according to the Scrum methodology. Last time, I introduced the basics of Scrum as it generally is used, and its key benefit of frequently delivering useful functionality. But I already hear the objections – “How can that turn out all right?” It is so light on process that one’s initial inclination is to dismiss it as “cowboy coding”, and we already know not to be “cowboy sysadmins,” right? One’s intuition might be (and mine was in the beginning, I’ll be honest) that this would lead to a metastable process that could not be sustainable without fundamental fatal flaws overtaking it.

Well, as I learned after trying to learn more and kicking the tires with our dev team here, there are several core disciplines that are agile’s saving graces.

Testing

We ops guys are used to testing being a neglected afterthought in the development process, often tossed over the wall to a QA team that isn’t well integrated into the product. Therefore we have a hard time trusting code that’s being handed over to us given our experience – we get it handed to us and it doesn’t work!

Well, agile pretty much understands that without pervasive testing, this kind of fast cycle process is doomed. At its extreme, some practitioners use Test Driven, aka Test First, development where failing tests must be written first and then code filled in behind it till the test passes. This creates a large inherent test framework.

Even agile groups that don’t do this almost always have metrics on unit test coverage and a required bar devs must hit.  Here, our desktop software group that’s newly using Scrum has the mandate that “there must be XX% unit test code coverage or you’re not ready to ship.”

Similarly, acceptance testing (automated continuous testing of user stories vs the code) is a common part of agile. Continuous ongoing testing ensures quality through the dev cycle and reduces the need for time-intensive, and mysteriously always insufficient, big-cycle regression testing.

This is a great culture. And there’s all kinds of different tests – unit test, integration/functional/regression testing, performance testing, fault testing… Starting to get interesting to you?  How about monitoring? In reality application monitoring is a special case of testing – it’s a “lightweight integration regression test.” Our initial approach to DevOps includes making test coverage goals for things like monitors and performance testing, because that plugs into the existing agile mindset well.

Bonus new terminology thing – the quick acceptance test you do upon release, which we always called “critical path testing,” is now being called “smoke testing” by the hip. Update your dictionaries!

A side note on formal QA groups. Just as we are working on DevOps, there has been previous work on how QA teams interact with agile dev teams, and there are a variety of different doctrines on how to split the work – often, it’s devs that are responsible for a lot of the testing. It’s a hard balance – you want the devs to be responsible for some of the testing because the best testing is “close to the code,” but just like with Ops, a real QA team has expertise beyond what a developer can just bolt in with 10% of their attention. Here, we have a dev team and also a remote QA team; devs test their own code on the daily build and then there’s a weekly push to a more stable environment where the QA team does acceptance testing and is moving into performance testing and the like.

Anyway, this endemic focus on testing and automation of testing and testing metrics is the pin that makes this agile flywheel actually turn without just flying off. (You are correct, some agile teams don’t do this – we call those “the unsuccessful ones.”)

And this is for you to do as well! There’s a whole post or series of posts in the topic “What does a unit test mean for something infrastructurey” – it is incumbent on you to figure it out and also have high test coverage with your work.

Refactoring

In general, agile dev is the epitome of horizon planning. You know you can’t get all the requirements ahead of time (or if you do get them all ahead of time, what you come out with won’t serve any real human’s need) and similarly preplanned architecture and design often doesn’t survive contact with the scrum. So it’s not “don’t plan or design,” but it’s “plan and design in an ongoing manner.”

This is one of the scariest parts for an ops person – we assume that we get one “bite at the apple”, and once we’ve set up the systems and let in the developers, we’ll never be allowed to change anything without a fight.  But developers have this problem internally all the time – one dev is working on a core library or API that other developers are using, and they don’t wait for core guy to get done before they start. Instead, they have adopted a concept they call refactoring. Refactoring just means that each sprint, you are open to redoing fundamental stuff that needs to change (or that you realize you did kinda ghetto in the first place).

Because this is an accepted part of the iterative approach, you get to leverage this as well.First iteration they get the basic Tomcat and mySQL install out of the repo, and they can get started – and then in the second iteration you front it with Apache, or tune the DB for security, or whatnot and they have to make some changes to fit. I’m not promising no one will ever cry about this, but it’s a part of what makes the culture successful so it’s there for you to leverage.

And for you to adhere to! Be open to refactoring your infrastructure based on the emerging project needs.

Source Control

A developer might not even mention this, and most books on agile don’t, because to them it’s so fundamental a discipline that it’s like breathing air. Sadly the same can not be said of Ops folks, so I’m mentioning it. When code is changed, it is in a shared source control repository – which gives other people on the group visibility into it (a collaboration touchpoint), is a common place to source it from (a deployment touchpoint), and can be used to easily manage multiple versions, even experimental ones, and merge or roll back changes.

This is the most fundamental empowering technology of modern software development (not just agile) and you must uptake it immediately or you have lost.  Fair warning. It is the stepping stone that will allow subsequent Cool DevOps Automation to happen.

Conclusion

These three disciplines convert agile/Scrum from dangerous free-for-all to a new technique that gets your product done both more quickly and with higher quality than a waterfall method. I’ll talk further next time about how Ops slots into all this, and how you can fit your systems admin work into a Scrum mindset.

Also note, there’s some other agile disciplines surrounding agile design and encapsulation and patterns and whatnot, which I don’t understand well enough yet to speak authoritatively on. Feel free and chime in with other core disciplines if you are!

Leave a comment

Filed under DevOps

GeekAustin DevOps #1 – Puppet, Chef, bcfg2, but no Dev

All three Agile Admins were at this Austin event last Saturday; GeekAustin had a set of back to back presentations on puppet, chef, and bcfg2 downtown at Elysium. A good crowd was there, maybe 50 people.

Matt Ray presented on chef, and has posted his slides. Jeff McCune spoke on Puppet and Sol Jerome spoke on bcfg2, I’ll link their slides here whenever I become aware of them being posted.

I had to leave before bcfg2, but the chef and puppet presentations were interesting.  One of the main audience comments was “these are pretty similar,” which is true. Both are real good.

Probably the one problem with the event was that it wasn’t really DevOps.  It was just tool presentations for sysadmins.  Our developers took one look and didn’t come; we met one or two developers at the event that weren’t getting a lot out of it.

It’s fine to have an event looking at these tools – but I want to caution the DevOps community that the value of DevOps is the different approach to life. I think the excellent dev2ops post on “DevOps is not a technology problem, DevOps is a business problem” explains this perfectly. PEOPLE over PROCESS over TOOLS. If you don’t have engagement from the developers, you don’t have DevOps, no matter what whizbang gadgets you have.  Frankly I’d like to see the tool vendors address this in their presentations. A little bit of “you’re a sysadmin, this saves you work, isn’t it cool” is fine but how about talking about how this can be used to collaborate with the developers?  How does that model work?

At DevOpsDays US I warned about adopting new tools without adopting new tactics, using the example of the deployment of the Minie ball to muskets used in the American Civil War.  Greater accuracy and range, but everyone still just stood their in lines and charged in formation, and the slaughter was profound.  You may have a shiny new weapon, but if you are just using it back in your dark sysadmin cave, the problems that beset you will never go away. You’ll still be the bottom of the food chain, only taken seriously when someone can’t get their email.

I know the guys at Puppet Labs, Opscode, etc. are all big into DevOps – but I guess I’d like to see the tool presentations and value props speak to developers as well somehow. What would that look like?  Ideas?

6 Comments

Filed under DevOps

Scrum for Operations: What Is Scrum

Agile

It’s not a mandatory part of DevOps, but I believe that DevOps works a lot better if operations teams adopt Agile.  But all that most systems teams know about Agile is that “it’s that thing that makes the development teams not plan worth a damn any more.”  Well, though there may be some truth to that, a well run agile process is very effective and not uncontrolled at all. Constructing and maintaining infrastructure in an agile manner is very possible – we’ve done it. In the beginning it seems daunting, just as it did initially to the legions of software developers who were steeped in waterfall based thinking, but once you adopt it I think you’ll see a lot of traditional pain points get a lot better – that was our experience. This is the first in a series of posts about using Scrum for Web operations, and I thought I’d start with explaining what Scrum is from an ops guy’s point of view.

Scrum

Scrum is one of the more popular agile methodologies.  Agile was initially defined by the Agile Manifesto and from there got turned into more specific implementations of its principles, methods, and practices, and Scrum is one of those more specific prescriptions on how to “do” agile. Other methodologies have been used for DevOps – like check out this great presentation on how Stephen Nelson-Smith (@LordCope) did a XP DevOps implementation at a British government agency.

While developing our first two products that we delivered on the cloud using DevOps, we used an “agile-ish” methodology, which is to say not a formal agile approach.  This time, we’ve decided to run Scrum by the book, not just for the feature developers but for our systems engineers, operations staff, security engineers, and system automation developers. Some folks are talking about hybrid models like Scrumban (Scrum + Kanban/Lean) to better incorporate ops work, but we’re going to start with Scrum first and see where we get to.

As a system administrator, that’s scary, because we don’t know Scrum. But Scrum is pretty darn simple.

Here’s two short videos that give a pretty good intro to Scrum.

Scrum in Under 10 Minutes, courtesy Axosoft:

Scrum Basics:

(P. S. Scrum master lady from this video… Call me!)

But if like me you think videos are not an efficient method of conveying information, here’s the short form.

The Team

In Scrum, you form a small crossfunctional team to all work together on a product instead of having to cross organizational boundaries and fill out forms to get any work done.  The roles consist of:

  • product owner – the “business guy” who has say over what features get greenlit and when
  • scrum master – the project manager who keeps everyone on track
  • team – ideally 5 to 7 developers writing code (this is where Ops will plug in, in DevOps)
  • testers, security, other folks – probably should be included too, but adoption of that varies

Of course in a mid to large sized organization there are other stakeholders, like customers and management and legal and whatnot. But you form a team that has everything it needs to complete its work.

The Backlog

All needed features are brainstormed and put into a master list of features called a “product backlog.” This backlog contains everything – including your systems tasks. The backlog is then broken up into smaller chunks, like release backlogs (features targeted for a specific release) and sprint backlogs (specific tasks for a sprint). The sprint backlog is basically your work breakdown structure, if you’re more comfortable with that terminology, except that the tasks are worded more in terms of what feature they provide instead of in terms of what specific things you need to do; this fosters communication with the product owner.

The developers (and, ideally, operations staff)  on the team help generate the backlog and provide time estimates in hours for each task. The product owner owns the prioritization and ordering (as constrained by things that are actual dependencies).

The Sprint

Work is performed in month-long iterations called “sprints.” Requirements are frozen for the sprint and the development is time-boxed – it must end at the termination of the sprint. At the end of the sprint, whatever features were put in that sprint should be complete and “ready to ship.”

The Standup

As the scrum, or sprint, progresses, there are daily “standups” – 15 minute meetings where everyone stands up, reports what they have done since the last standup, what they plan to accomplish by the next standup, and any roadblocks they are encountering. By keeping this meeting short it doesn’t waste time, but by having an actual face to face meeting you get very rapid and effective collaboration that cannot be achieved via managing project plans, sending emails, generating status reports, or the like.  It cuts out all the busywork and keeps the kernel of coordination that lets a team keep up velocity.

The Burndown

The progress of the team against the sprint backlog is tracked by a “burndown chart.” As each team member completes their tasks for the sprint you can easily see whether you are on track for successful completion or not.

And that’s Scrum in a nutshell.  Five things. Small integrated team, backlog, sprints, standups, burndown.

Next Time

I’ll talk about each of these areas more in depth later in the series, as we go through them ourselves as we develop a real product, and explain how a system administrator (aka systems engineer, infrastructure admin, operations ninja) can fit their work into this structure. But first, I will explain why Agile/Scrum is not just “crazy talk.” To a hardened system admin, or really to anyone used to working in a waterfall environment, it is very counterintuitive that this approach doesn’t just degenerate into the IT equivalent of orcs pillaging a city. But agile has several interesting practices that make it work, and should be very interesting to an operations person.

4 Comments

Filed under DevOps

Dev vs Ops vs Sec vs Mgmt

I was just reading this interesting InfoWorld post on The Most Common Turf Wars in IT – very relevant to what we talk about around here. It’s mainly about stakeholders not properly integrated into the product/project/release planning process. Their most common turf wars are so true:

“Ops vs. Dev” – A cry for DevOps. One of the reasons we have this blog.

“Admin on Admin” – And a good bit of the challenge with that is that admins themselves are a bit grumpy by nature and need them a little “OpsOps.” Being chronically marginalized and given a vision of “contain costs!” is to blame, but it means we sysadmins have a little more personal-skills work to do in order to go from BOFH to team collaborator.

“Security vs Everyone” – Bringing security to the DevOps table can be challenging; if there’s one group more elitist and cynical than sysadmins, it’s security professionals. The job obviously requires a little bit of that mindset. But there’s some movement in the security community to understand the need for collaboration in a DevOps style.

“Management vs. Staff” – Well, that’s more of a question for the ages.

There are others, but these are definitely the “big four” in my experience.  What do y’all think?

Leave a comment

Filed under DevOps

JClouds “State of DevOps”

Hey, looks like I got quoted in Adrian Cole’s new “State of DevOps” presentation.  Some quick thoughts on current state and futures of DevOps from a bunch of important DevOps people and then little old me.

Leave a comment

Filed under DevOps

Specific DevOps Methodologies?

So given the problem of DevOps being somewhat vague on prescriptions at the moment, let’s look at some options.

One is to simply fit operations into an existing agile process used by the development team.  I read a couple things lately about DevOps using XP (eXtreme Programming) – @mmarschall tweeted this example of someone doing that back in 2001, and recently I saw a great webcast by @LordCope on a large XP/DevOps implementation at a British government agency.

To a degree, that’s what we’ve done here – our shop doesn’t use XP or really even Scrum, more of a custom (sometimes loosely) defined agile process.  We decided for ops we’ll use the same processes and tools – follow their iterations, Greenhopper for agile task management, same bug tracker (based off HP), same spec and testing formats and databases.  Although we do have vestiges of our old “Systems Development Framework,” a more waterfally approach to collaboration and incorporation of systems/ops requirements into development projects.  And should DevOps be tied to agile only, or should it also address what collaboration and automation are possible in a trad/waterfall shop?  Or do we let those folks eat ITIL?

Others have made a blended process, often Scrum + Lean/kanban hybrids with the Lean/kanban part being brought in from the ops side and merged with more of a love for Scrum from the dev side. Though some folks say Scrum and kanban are more in opposition, others posit a combined “Scrumban.”

Or, there’s “create a brand new approach,” but that doesn’t seem like a happy approach to me.

What have people done that works?  What should be one of the first proposed roadmaps for people who want to do DevOps but want more of something to follow than handwaving about hugs?

7 Comments

Filed under DevOps

My Take On The DevOps State of the Union

DevOps has been a great success in that all the core people that are engaged with the problem really ‘get’  it and are mainly on the same page (it’s culture shift towards agile collaboration between Ops and Dev), and have gotten the word out pretty well.

But there’s one main problem that I’ve come to understand recently – it’s still too high level for the average person to really get into.

At the last Austin Cloud User Group meeting, Chris Hilton from Thoughtworks delivered a good presentation on DevOps. Afterwards I polled the room – “Who has heard about DevOps before today?” 80% of the 30-40 people there raised their hands.  “Nice!” I thought.  “OK, how many of you are practicing DevOps?”  No hands went up – in fact, even the people I brought with me from our clearly DevOps team at NI were hesitant.

Why is that?  Well, in discussing with the group, they all see the value of DevOps, and kinda get it.  They’re not against DevOps, and they want to get there. But they’re not sure *how* to do it because of how vague it is.  When am I doing it?  If I go have lunch with my sysadmin, am I suddenly DevOps?  The problem is, IMO, that we need to push past the top level definition and get to some specific methodologies people can hang their hats on.

Agile development had this same problem.  And you can tell by the early complaints about agile when it was just in the manifesto stage.  “Well that’s just doing what we’ve always done, if you’re doing it right!”

But agile dev pressed past that quickly.  They put out their twelve principles, which served as some marching orders for people to actually implement. Then, they developed more specific methodologies like Scrum that gave people a more comprehensive plan as to what to do to be agile.  Yes, the success of those depends on buyin at that larger, conceptual, culture level – but just making culture statements is simply projecting wishful thinking.

To get DevOps to spread past the people that have enough experience that they instinctively “get it,” to move it from the architects to the line workers, we need more prescription.  Starting with a twelve principles kind of thing and moving into specific methodologies.  Yes yes, “people over process over tools” – but managers have been telling people “you should collaborate more!” for twenty years.  What is needed is guidance on how to get there.

Agile itself has gotten sufficient definition that if you ask a crowd of developers if they are doing agile, they know if they are or not (or if they’re doing it kinda half-assed and so do the slow half-raise of the hand).  We need to get DevOps to that same place.  I find very few people (and even fewer who are at all informed) that disagree with the goals or results of DevOps – it’s more about confusion about what it is and how someone gets there that causes Joe Dev or Joe Operator to fret.  Aimlessness begets inertia.

You can’t say “we need culture change” and then just kick back and keep saying it and expect people to change their culture.  That’s not the way the world works.  You need specific prescriptive steps. 90% of people are followers, and they’ll do DevOps as happily as they’ve done agile, but they need a map to follow to get there.

3 Comments

Filed under DevOps

Austin Cloud User Group Nov 17 Meeting Notes

This month’s ACUG meeting was cooler than usual – instead of having one speaker talk on a cloud-related topic, we had multiple group members do short presentation on what they’re actually doing in the cloud.  I love talks like that, it’s where you get real rubber meets the road takeaways.

I thought I’d share my notes on the presentations.  I’ll write up the one we did separately, but I got a lot out of these:

  1. OData to the Cloud, by Craig Vyal from Pervasive Software
  2. Moving your SaaS from Colo to Cloud, by Josh Arnold from Arnold Marziani (previously of PeopleAdmin)
  3. DevOps and the Cloud, by Chris Hilton from Thoughtworks
  4. Moving Software from On Premise to SaaS, by John Mikula from Pervasive Software
  5. The Programmable Infrastructure Environment, by Peco Karayanev and Ernest Mueller from National Instruments (see next post!)

My editorial comments are in italics.  Slides are linked into the headers where available.

OData to the Cloud

OData was started by Microsoft (“but don’t hold that against it”) under the Open Specification Promise.  Craig did an implementation of it at Pervasive.

It’s a RESTful protocol for CRUDdy GET/POST/DELETE of data.  Uses AtomPub-based feeds and returns XML or JSON.  You get the schema and the data in the result.

You can create an OData producer of a data source, consume OData from places that support it, and view it via stuff like iPhone/Android apps.

Current producers – Sharepoint, SQL Azure, Netflix, eBay, twitpic, Open Gov’t Data Initiative, Stack Overflow

Current consumers – PowerPivot in Excel, Sesame, Tableau.  Libraries for Java (OData4J), .NET 4.0/Silverlight 4, OData SDK for PHP

It is easier for “business user” to consume than SOAP or REST.  Craig used OData4J to create a producer for the Pervasive product.

Questions from the crowd:

Compression/caching?  Nothing built in.  Though normal HTTP level compression would work I’d think. It does “page” long lists of results and can send a section of n results at a time.

Auth? Your problem.  Some people use Oauth.  He wrote a custom glassfish basic HTTP auth portal.

Competition?  Gdata is kinda like this.

Seems to me it’s one part REST, one part “making you have a DTD for your XML”.  Which is good!  We’re very interested in OData for our data centric services coming up.

Moving your SaaS from Colo to Cloud

Josh Arnold was from PeopleAdmin, now he’s a tech recruiter, but can speak to what they did before he left.  PeopleAdmin was a Sungard type colo setup.  Had a “rotting” out of country DR site.

They were rewriting their stack from java/mssql to ruby/linux.

At the time they were spending $15k/mo on the colo (not including the cost of their HW).  Amazon estimated cost was 1/3 that but really they found out after moving it’s 1/2.  What was the surprise cost?  Lower than expected perf (disk io) forced more instances than physical boxes of equivalent “size.”

Flexible provisioning and autoscaling was great, the colo couldn’t scale fast enough.  How do you scale?

The cloud made having an out of country DR site easy, and not have it rot and get old.

Question: What did you lose in the move?  We were prepared for mental “control issues” so didn’t have those.  There’s definitely advanced functionality (e.g. with firewalls) and native hardware performance you lose, but that wasn’t much.

They evalled Rackspace and Amazon (cursory eval).  They had some F5s they wanted to use and the ability to mix in real hardware was tempting but they mainly went straight to Amazon.  Drivers were the community around it and their leadership in the space.

Timeline was 2 years (rewrite app, slowly migrate customers).  It’ll be more like 3-4 before it’s done.  There were issues where they were glad they didn’t mass migrate everyone at once.

Technical challenges:

Performance was a little lax (disk performance, they think) and they ended up needing more servers.  Used tricks like RAIDed EBSes to try to get the most io they could (mainly for the databases).

Every customer had a SSL cert, and they had 600 of them to mess with.  That was a problem because of the 5 Elastic IP limit.  Went to certs that allow subsidiary domains – Digicert allowed 100 per cert (other CAs limit to much less) so they could get 100 per IP.

App servers did outbound LDAP conns to customer premise for auth integration and they usually tried to allow those in via IP rules in their corporate firewalls, but now on Amazon outbound IPs are dynamic.  They set up a proxy with a static (elastic) Ip to route all that through.

Rightscale – they used it.  They like it.

They used nginx for the load balancing, SSL termination.  Was a single point of failure though.

Remember that many of the implementations you are hearing about now were started back before Rackspace had an API, before Amazon had load balancers, etc.

In discussion about hybrid clouds, the point was brought up a lot of providers talk about it – gogrid, opsource, rackspace – but often there are gotchas.

DevOps and the Cloud

Chris Hilton from Thoughtworks is all about the DevOps, and works on stuff like continuous deployment for a living.

DevOps is:

  • collaboration between devs and operations staff
  • agile sysadmin, using agile dev tools
  • dev/ops/qa integration to achieve business goals

Why DevOps?

Silos.  agile dev broke down the wall between dev/qa (and biz).

devs are usually incentivized for change, and ops are incentivized for stability, which creates an innate conflict.

but if both are incentivized to deliver business value instead…

DevOps Practices

  • version control!
  • automated provisioning and deployment (Puppet/chef/rPath)
  • self healing
  • monitoring infra and apps
  • identical environments dev/test/prod
  • automated db mgmt

Why DevOps In The Cloud?

cloud requires automation, devops provides automation

References

  • “Continuous Delivery” Humble and Farley
  • Rapid and Reliable Releases InfoQ
  • Refactoring Databases by Ambler and Sadalage

Another tidbit: they’re writing puppet lite in powershell to fill the tool gap – some tool suppliers are starting, but the general degree of tool support for people who use both Windows and Linux is shameful.

Moving Software from On Premise to SaaS

John Mikula of Pervasive tells us about the Pervasive Data Cloud.  They wanted to take their on premise “Data Integrator” product, basically a command line tool ($, devs needed to implement), to a wider audience.

Started 4 years ago.  They realized that the data sources they’re connecting to and pumping to, like Quickbooks Online, Salesforce, etc are all SaaS from the get go.   “Well, let’s make our middle part the same!”

They wrote a Java EE wrapper, put it on Rackspace colo initally.

It gets a customer’s metadata, puts it on a queue, another system takes it off and process it.  A very scaling-friendly architecture.  And Rackspace (colo) wasn’t scaling fast enough, so they moved it to Amazon.

Their initial system had 2 glassfish front ends, 25 workers

For queuing, they tried Amazon SQS but it was limited, then went to Apache Zookeeper

First effort was about “deploy a single app” – namely salesforce/quickbooks integration.  Then they made a domain specific model and refactored and made an API to manage the domain specific entities so new apps could be created easily.

Recommended approach – solve easy problems and work from there.  That’s more than enough for people to buy in.

Their core engine’s not designed for multitenancy – have batches of workers for one guy’s code – so their code can be unsafe but it’s in its own bucket and doesn’t mess up anyone else.

Changing internal business processes in a mature company was a challenge – moving from perm license model to per month just with accounting and whatnot was a big long hairy deal.

Making the API was rough.  His estimate of a couple months grew to 6.  Requirements gathering was a problem, very iterative.  They weren’t agile enough – they only had one interim release and it wasn’t really usable; if they did it again they’d do the agile ‘right thing’ of putting out usable milestones more frequently to see what worked and what people really needed.

In Closing

Whew!  I found all the presentations really engaging and thank everyone for sharing the nuts and bolts of how they did it!

Leave a comment

Filed under Cloud

Our First Cloud Product Released!

Hey all, I just wanted to take a moment to share with you that our first cloud-based product just went live!  LabVIEW Web UI Builder is National Instruments’ first SaaS application.  It’s actually free to use, go to ni.com and “Try It Now”, all you have to do is make an account.  It’s a freemium model, so you can use it, save your code, run it, etc. all you want; we charge to get the “Build & Deploy” functionality that enables you to compile, download, and deploy the bundled app to an embedded device or whatnot.

Essentially it’s a Silverlight app (can be installed out of browser on your box or just launched off the site) that lets you graphically program test & measurement, control, and simulation type of programs.  You can save your programs to the cloud or locally to your own machine.  The programs can interact via Web services with anything, but in our case it’s especially interesting when they interact with data acquisition devices.  There’s some sample programs on that page that show what can be done, though those are definitely tuned to engineers…  We have apps internally that let you play frogger and duck hunt, or do the usual Web mashup kinds of things calling google maps apis.  So feel free and try out some graphical programming!

Cool technology we used to do this:

And it’s 100% DevOps powered.  Our implementation team consists of developers and sysadmins, and we built the whole thing using an agile development methodology.  All our systems are created by model-driven automation from assets and definitions in source control.  We’ll post more about the specifics now that we’ve gotten version 1 done!  (Of course, the next product is just about ready too…)

Leave a comment

Filed under Cloud, DevOps

A DevOps Manifesto

They were talking about a DevOps manifesto at DevOpsDays Hamburg and it got me to thinking, what’s wrong with the existing agile development manifesto?  Can’t we largely uptake that as a unifying guiding principle?

Go read the top level of the Agile Software Development Manifesto.  What does this look like, if you look at it from a systems point of view instead of a pure code developer point of view?  An attempt:

DevOps Manifesto

We are uncovering better ways of running
systems by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes over tools
Working systems over comprehensive documentation
Customer and developer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.

That’s not very different. It seems to me that some of the clauses we can accept without reservation.  As a systems guy I do get nervous about individuals and interactions over processes and tools (does that promote the cowboy mentality?) – but it’s not to say that automation and tooling is bad, in fact it’s necessary (look at agile software development practices, there’s clearly processes and tools) but that the people involved should always be the primary concern.  IMO this top level agile call to arms has nothing to do with dev or ops or biz, it’s a general template for collaboration.  And how “DevOps” is it to have a different rallying point for ops vs dev?  Hint: not very.

Then you have the Twelve Principles of Agile Software. Still very high level, but here’s where I think we start having a lot of more unique concerns outside the existing list.  Let me take a shot:

Principles Behind the DevOps Manifesto

We follow these principles:

Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer
through early and continuous delivery
of valuable functionality. (more general than “software”.)

Software functionality can only be realized by the
customer when it is delivered to them by sound systems.
Nonfunctional requirements are as important as
desired functionality to the user’s outcome. (New: why systems are important.)

Infrastructure is code, and should be developed
and managed as such. (New.)

Welcome changing requirements, even late in
development. Agile processes harness change for
the customer’s competitive advantage. (Identical.)

Deliver working functionality frequently, from a
couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a
preference to the shorter timescale. (software->functionality)

Business people, operations, and developers must work
together daily throughout the project. (Add operations.)

Build projects around motivated individuals.
Give them the environment and support they need,
and trust them to get the job done. (Identical.)

The most efficient and effective method of
conveying information to and within a development
team is face-to-face conversation. (Identical.)

Working software successfully delivered by sound systems
is the primary measure of progress. (Add systems.)

Agile processes promote sustainable development.
The sponsors, developers, operations, and users should be able
to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.  (Add operations.)

Continuous attention to technical excellence
and good design enhances agility. (Identical.)

Simplicity–the art of maximizing the amount
of work not done–is essential. (Identical – KISS principle.)

The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams. (Identical.)

At regular intervals, the team reflects on how
to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts
its behavior accordingly. (Identical.)

That’s a minimalist set.

Does this sound like it’s putting software first still?  Yes.  That’s desirable.  Systems are there to convey software functionality to a user, they have no value in and of themselves.  I say this as a systems guy.  However, I did change “software” to “functionality” in several places – using systems and stock software (open source, COTS, etc.) you can deliver valuable functionality to a user without your team writing lines of code.

Anyway, I like the notional approach of inserting ourselves into the existing agile process as opposed to some random external “devops manifesto” that ends up begging a lot of the questions the original agile manifesto answers already (like “What about the business?”).  I think one of the main points of DevOps is simply that “Hey, the concepts behind agile are sound, but y’all forgot to include us Ops folks in the collaboration – understandable because 10 years ago most apps were desktop software, but now that many (most?) are services, we’re an integral part of creating and delivering the app.”

Thoughts?

20 Comments

Filed under DevOps