other page actions:
sorted by: recent | see :
popular
Content Tagged enterprise
Comparison - Monolith vs. MySQL Enterprise Dashboard
I’m attempting this is be as unbiased as possible, since I write the Monolith application. This will hopefully help one decide between a free MySQL server monitoring system and paying for a per-server based licensed product. Both have strengths and weaknesses that should be pointed out before making a decision. You can infer the weaknesses based on the strengths below. That said, let’s just get into it.
Strengths of each product over the other
Monolith - MySQL DBA Console
- presents overall database size, index size, data size, number of schema per server, and aggregate statistics for all monitored servers
- runs mysql server backups remotely and reports on backup state execution
- collects cnf files from each server during the talkback script execution for historical viewing
- built on the LAMP stack, no need for tomcat/jboss knowlege
- provides overall server report, and change control documentation with recommended actions for tuning the server(s)
- application can run under Redhat Cluster Services for high availability
- comes with XML export API for off-application data processing and trending
- compatible with Visual Mining
- is FREE software, GPL licensed, costs absolutely nothing to the user
MySQL Enterprise Dashboard
- customizable alerting instead of fixed alerts
- fine tuned date range graphing (from date to date instead of last X days)
- support for bug tracking that utilizes hooks into bugs.mysql.com
- uses local server agent for information gathering, allows CPU and OS memory to be reported on
- presentation design is arguably more easy on the eyes
- comes with the MySQL Enterprise Server software, and thus a support contract from MySQL/Sun.
- customizable organization of server list instead of organization by client name
Feel free to post your viewpoints on each if you have used both products. I’m always interested in what users have to say.
You can get Monolith here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/monolith-mysql
You can get MySQL Enterprise here: http://www.mysql.com/products/enterprise/
Images of Organization
I completely agree with Neil Ward-Dutton when he argues that Businesses aren't machines, and enterprise architecture can't make them so. There is a fantasy that Enterprise Architects are architecting the enterprise, when they are at best architecting systems of systems to support the enterprise.
The people who are really making structural decisions about the business organization itself are not called enterprise architects, they are called CEOs or COOs or something like that. And you can bet they aren't playing Zachman bingo.
Neil and I agree about a lot of things, but one of the things we disagree about is the word "alignment". (See previous debate on Business-IT Alignment). I think this word completely misrepresents the relationship between IT and business, and I think Neil's argument here just reinforces my opinion on this.
But the image of a business as a machine is a powerful one, not restricted to enterprise architects. Gareth Morgan devotes the second chapter of his modern classic Images of Organization to this metaphor, and to showing the limitations of this bureaucratic view. (Essential reading for enterprise architects.)
The people who are really making structural decisions about the business organization itself are not called enterprise architects, they are called CEOs or COOs or something like that. And you can bet they aren't playing Zachman bingo.
Neil and I agree about a lot of things, but one of the things we disagree about is the word "alignment". (See previous debate on Business-IT Alignment). I think this word completely misrepresents the relationship between IT and business, and I think Neil's argument here just reinforces my opinion on this.
But the image of a business as a machine is a powerful one, not restricted to enterprise architects. Gareth Morgan devotes the second chapter of his modern classic Images of Organization to this metaphor, and to showing the limitations of this bureaucratic view. (Essential reading for enterprise architects.)
Images of Organization
I completely agree with Neil Ward-Dutton when he argues that Businesses aren't machines, and enterprise architecture can't make them so. There is a fantasy that Enterprise Architects are architecting the enterprise, when they are at best architecting systems of systems to support the enterprise.
The people who are really making structural decisions about the business organization itself are not called enterprise architects, they are called CEOs or COOs or something like that. And you can bet they aren't playing Zachman bingo.
Neil and I agree about a lot of things, but one of the things we disagree about is the word "alignment". (See previous debate on Business-IT Alignment). I think this word completely misrepresents the relationship between IT and business, and I think Neil's argument here just reinforces my opinion on this.
But the image of a business as a machine is a powerful one, not restricted to enterprise architects. Gareth Morgan devotes the second chapter of his modern classic Images of Organization to this metaphor, and show the limitations of this bureaucratic view. (Essential reading for enterprise architects.)
The people who are really making structural decisions about the business organization itself are not called enterprise architects, they are called CEOs or COOs or something like that. And you can bet they aren't playing Zachman bingo.
Neil and I agree about a lot of things, but one of the things we disagree about is the word "alignment". (See previous debate on Business-IT Alignment). I think this word completely misrepresents the relationship between IT and business, and I think Neil's argument here just reinforces my opinion on this.
But the image of a business as a machine is a powerful one, not restricted to enterprise architects. Gareth Morgan devotes the second chapter of his modern classic Images of Organization to this metaphor, and show the limitations of this bureaucratic view. (Essential reading for enterprise architects.)
[from bushwald] Global data roaming costs sink iPhone 3G use for enterprises
"Until we have an international data rate plan that isn't extortion, we're holding off deployment of iPhone 3G," said the IT manager. "IPhone sucks down data like no tomorrow."
Tech Trader Daily - Barron's Online : Apple: Dow Jones OKs iPhone Use; Support Limited
I actually think this may be the direction that many companies go: grant employees the ability to use them, without necessarily offering to pay for them.
MODAF Version 1.2
A new version of MODAF has just appeared, which puts MODAF firmly ahead of other enterprise architecture frameworks in terms of its support for SOA.
MODAF is the enterprise architecture framework produced by the UK ministry of defence. Version 1.1, which appeared last year, contained a Strategic View, described in terms of Capabilities and Capability Dependencies. Version 1.2 now contains a Service (or "Service-Orientated") View, driven by the Strategic (Capability) View, and sitting above the Systems View.
http://www.modaf.org.uk/
This clearly goes further than the latest version of DoDAF (a roughly similar framework produced by the US Department of Defense), which has a single view for Systems and Services, and no Strategic View.
Meanwhile TOGAF remains stuck in a time-warp. In December 2003, when I wrote an article on Enterprise Architecture for the CBDI Journal, I was told that TOGAF 9, which would have some support for SOA, was "coming soon". Nearly five years later and it is still "coming soon". Soumen Chatterjee expects that "too many players" will produce a "mixed-up world".
There are a few bloggers talking about possible SOA support within TOGAF, including Raj Ajora and Awel Dico, and some good ideas coming out of the SOA Working Group within the Open Group. But they've got some catching up to do.
MODAF is the enterprise architecture framework produced by the UK ministry of defence. Version 1.1, which appeared last year, contained a Strategic View, described in terms of Capabilities and Capability Dependencies. Version 1.2 now contains a Service (or "Service-Orientated") View, driven by the Strategic (Capability) View, and sitting above the Systems View.
http://www.modaf.org.uk/
This clearly goes further than the latest version of DoDAF (a roughly similar framework produced by the US Department of Defense), which has a single view for Systems and Services, and no Strategic View.
Meanwhile TOGAF remains stuck in a time-warp. In December 2003, when I wrote an article on Enterprise Architecture for the CBDI Journal, I was told that TOGAF 9, which would have some support for SOA, was "coming soon". Nearly five years later and it is still "coming soon". Soumen Chatterjee expects that "too many players" will produce a "mixed-up world".
There are a few bloggers talking about possible SOA support within TOGAF, including Raj Ajora and Awel Dico, and some good ideas coming out of the SOA Working Group within the Open Group. But they've got some catching up to do.
soa
Enterprise
architecture
enterprise_architecture
modaf
togaf
cbdi
Page 1 | Next >>