Skip to main content

Presence

Instant messaging isn't about messaging. It's about presence.
I'll admit that even though I've had IM accounts for a decade, I rarely if ever signed in. I found the pop-up like nature of the common clients to be far too disruptive and annoying, and I simply preferred e-mail or voice for routine communication. Lately though, I'm finding IM, under the right conditions, to be far more than just a quick a dirty communications tool. I'm figuring out presence. 
If I want to communicate with a coworker, what's the first thing I do? Check IM. If they are around, and if they are available, I'll know right away. If they don't show up on IM, they set the 'do-not-disturb' bit and I know they are busy. If they are 'on call' but no near their computer, they set their status to 'Call my cell phone @ nnn-mmm-zzzz'.

It's presence.

What's next? 

I don't see any reason why things other than persons can't have presence. We've got a thousand or so network & server devices that really matter to us. People we provide service to tend to notice when the devices aren't happy. And we've tended to notice that when people that depend on us aren't happy, neither are we. So we like our devices to be happy.

So here's what I want my devices to do. When they are happy, they set their status on IM to Green & 'Happy'. When they are sad, because they don't have enough CPU, memory or bandwidth, or whatever, they set their status to 'Sad', and perhaps even 'Sad, need more CPU.' Now if I'm a person that either manages or depends on these devices, I build myself a buddy list populated with the devices (servers, routers, firewalls) that I care about, and I see right away if they are green & happy, yellow & sad, or red & dead. 

My Mac can even make funky noises when my devices transition from happy to sad  & back again.  So when my devices change status, they can tell me. Nicely 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

“imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance” --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup is necessary, b…

Ad-Hoc Verses Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to …

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:
In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. The…