Know 10 Biggest Myths about Performance Management

Know 10 Biggest Myths about Performance Management

Although performance management has the potential to come up with a return on investment for your company, there is a variety of misconceptions that would stymie your efforts in this area. During this post, we’ll dispel several widely held misconceptions regarding performance management and capacity planning.

Controlling all aspects of a computer system’s performance with the assistance of a computer is what performance management, also called PPM, refers to. It’s a vital component of system management and, together with other functions like resource management, event management, and security management, is one of all the functions that frame this component.

Measurement of the system, monitoring of the system, analysis of the system, accounting of the resources, tuning, and optimization are all included in performance management. It’s a process that’s ongoing in any data center that’s efficiently managed, and also the only thanks to avoiding it’s to own a workload that’s completely static or to possess a machine that has been grossly over-configured, both of which are extremely unusual circumstances.

It is essential to possess a solid understanding of the very fact that performance management may be lessened into two distinct categories:

• Analysis of performance, which incorporates monitoring, tuning, and adjusting
• Planning for capacities, which also involves capacity assessments

It’s possible that the amount of specificity needed to unravel a performance problem goes to show a discrepancy from the extent of detail needed to hold out successful planning.

The Truth behind Ten Common Misconceptions about Performance Management and Capacity Planning

Following is an analysis of ten commonly held beliefs regarding performance management and capacity planning, followed by a discussion of the foremost effective thanks to refuting each of these beliefs within the world.

1. I do not should worry about performance management unless I run into some quiet issue.

REALITY: it’s preferable to be proactive by anticipating problems and putting solutions into action.

The primary objective of performance management is to anticipate resource requirements, recognize challenges while they’re still potential problems and put into action the acceptable solution before a blunder occurs.

2. The value of hardware is so low that there’s now no necessity for performance management or capacity planning.

REALITY: The overall expenditure on information technology (IT) remains on the increase, which suggests there’s increased cost justification leverage.

The performance of costs for hardware is improving by approximately 40 percent each year. The demand for information technology resources is growing at an annual rate of roughly 60 percent. Additionally, the unit price of every component is also lower, but the complexity and size of knowledge technology systems are growing to the purpose where circumstantial and informal planning methods aren’t any longer adequate.

3. The method of managing performance only must be administrated once a year.

REALITY: The reality is that it’s most effectively distributed as an ongoing process of measuring, analyzing, forecasting, and monitoring.

Management of performance and planning of accessible resources are both ongoing processes. The monitoring and analysis that takes place on a regular basis throughout the method of development and production are the inspiration for the projection of future requirements. you will not be able to accurately project what your needs are going to be in the future if you do not have a firm grasp not only on this circumstance but also on how it came to be. If there’s no continuity, performance is determined by individual events.

4. All that’s required of you is real-time monitoring, tuning, and optimization.

REALITY: For analysis, you wish a mixture of detailed monitoring and aggregation, and for planning, you wish the previous.

The timeframe of varied systems determines the degree of real-time which will be applied to those systems. It’s possible to manage an outsized number of business systems using snapshots taken every five minutes, providing the system is often viewed because it appeared five minutes ago on a browser at any time. The utilization of finer granularity for the needs of cockpit-style displays is ineffective for the aim of finding effective solutions to real problems that involve the patterns of behavior of enormous populations of users.

5. Before I’ve got my system tuned, I will be {able to I’ll} not be able to perform performance management.

REALITY: The reality is that the 2 processes complement one another in the best way.

There is no such thing as a system that’s completely tuned. To our relief, the Performance Management process draws attention to bottlenecks within the system and makes it easier to determine which corrective actions to require. If you’ve got an honest model for performance management, it’ll enable you to see the advantages that may be obtained from making tuning adjustments. Once the worst excesses of poor tuning are removed, it’s obvious that the Performance Management model is more reliable; however, such a model will still highlight the unnecessary bottlenecks.

6. The frequent reporting of management takes up an excessive amount of your time.

REALITY: All of this could be automated if you’ve got the proper tools.

The higher the business criticality of a system, the greater the need there’s to produce regular management reports. The bulk of websites now wants automated dynamic reports that may be viewed in an exceedingly browser that show the present status of any node instead of handing out stacks of paper or sticking colored plots on the wall.

7. The method of analyzing and interpreting performance reports is overly complicated.

REALITY: The data are made much simpler to understand because of the automated advice and exception reporting.

In order to stay up with the proliferation of distributed systems that contain an oversized number of nodes, management reports have to be exception-based and have the capacity to automatically incorporate some kind of intelligent interpretation.

8. Money is wasted on equipment that’s obsolete or now not relevant.

REALITY: The reality is that excessive spending doesn’t become apparent until it’s measured through capacity planning.

The problem will be solved by developing and adhering to a well-controlled and timely procurement plan for the advantage of the business. The choice is the challenging problem of attempting to calm performance panics and reduce the length of procurement cycles.

9. There’s not enough time within the planning process for network capacity to define traffic and workloads

REALITY: The reality is that network capacity is often easily expanded, and utilization is measured in terms of bandwidth.

The ideal solution entails the automated collection by the network manager of a regular set of performance data, which has not yet been defined, so as to supply input to new tools and facilitate the efficient planning of networks.

Tools for planning network capacity model the operation of a network to see what quantity of a delay in time interval will be attributed to the network. Planning the capacity of a network won’t be a discipline that requires significant effort to gather traffic statistics and relate them to workloads. Today, however, this has changed.

When the bulk of communications was conducted in batches and point-to-point, typical network utilizations were relatively low. E-commerce, email correspondence, image processing, the increased distribution of computers, and therefore the introduction of graphical user interfaces are all factors that have led to concerns about network saturation. These factors all contribute to a rise in traffic, which successively has led to concerns about network saturation. The expertise required to use the network planning tools and also the amount of your time needed to characterize the workload traffic are the 2 primary factors that contribute to the cost of implementing these tools.

It has been determined up to the current point that this is often only worthwhile for major networks which have already got formal service level agreements. Increasing network loadings and also the close integration of networks and processing nodes, like in client/server systems, may, on the opposite hand, force a reevaluation of attitudes. It’s possible that we’ll need a fresh generation of network management tools and planning tools that combine computers and networks into one cohesive model.

The interdependence of networks and open systems will result in greater adoption of software packages, despite the actual fact that the differential cost of upgrading networks could also be not up to that for mainframes, and also the procurement cycle is also shorter.

10. Establishing and maintaining service level agreements (SLAs) require an excessive amount of labor.

REALITY: Service-level agreements (SLAs) are only agreed to when the service provider is confident that he is going to be paid.

The functionality, simple use, performance availability, and reliability of service are all important aspects that contribute to its overall quality. Traditionally, IT managers have focused their attention on the system’s functionality, usability, and reliability, and they have assumed that the technicians will address any issues with the system’s performance once they have successfully made the system function.

A cursory examination of the articles published within the computer press makes the outcomes of this strategy abundantly clear: applications are postponed or discarded because it absolutely was impossible to induce them to function properly and computers and networks have needed unscheduled upgrades to be ready to handle their workload. This policy might have been adequate when information technology systems were relatively straightforward, but now that those systems have significantly increased in size, complexity, and importance, it poses a big risk. It is public knowledge at this time that effectively defining and managing service levels is extremely important, particularly within the context of online commerce.

When businesses operate under the belief that these myths are grounded in reality, they often face the challenge of overcoming obstacles that are not necessary so as to prove the need for a model that integrates continuous performance management and capacity planning. Once you take the time to develop a thoughtful approach to establishing your model, you may ultimately be rewarded with a never-ending update on the understanding of your system, reliable and automatic reporting, and assistance in helping to regulate spending.

About Enteros

Enteros offers a patented database performance management SaaS platform. It proactively identifies root causes of complex business-impacting database scalability and performance issues across a growing number of clouds, RDBMS, NoSQL, and machine learning database platforms.