Executive Summary
UCS Services
Staff Organisation
Accountability Report
Windows 2000 – position paper
IT Support on Campus in the 21st Century
University of Newcastle
2000/01 [sic] Planning Statement for the University Computing Service
Executive Summary
December 2000
• Communications &Information Technology (C&lT) is firmly established as a core infrastructure throughout Higher Education. A high quality, resilient and dependable infrastructure with its associated services is prerequisite to the successful HE Institution now and in the future.
• The most serious challenge facing the UCS remains mismatch between the University’s increasing expectations and UCS’ falling resourcing. The MIDS student management developments, a number of other management projects with significant IT requirements, and the process of implementation of the Institutional Plan with its implications for student numbers and teaching and learning delivery, are all sources of additional demands on UCS.
• In order to make effective use of UCS resources, all management and administrative projects with an IT component should be subjected to business case analysis and prioritisation.
• UCS has investigated and implemented some proposals for achieving greater cost- effectiveness and these are further explored in this document.
• UCS will continue to develop the University network to provide the high-speed resilient services that the University’s academic and business activities demand.
• A major task during 2001/02 will be to start migration of UCS clusters and administrative desktops to Windows 2000. There will be an interim period of several years during which UCS runs both Windows 2000 and the older NT4 desktop. There would be corporate advantages and efficiencies in rolling Windows 2000 out across the whole University and this is further explored.
• The student/seat ratio has already suffered in the current year, despite UCS efforts to highlight this major issue to ASSA. This is likely to be the case again in 2001/02 if there is no change in funding level. There are 260 PCs which will be five or more years old, and which are due for replacement in 2001/02 if we are not to further worsen the student:seat ratio. If we spend the same amount (approximately £250,000) in 2001/02 as was available for the current year, we will have a shortfall of around 140 seats which will certainly impact teaching and learning.
• A major part of Administrative Systems Technical Unit and other resources will be consumed in working with MIDS during the current year to effect the implementation of Campus Management in time for the 2001/02 academic year. This will include procurement and implementation of the hardware platform and systems base.
• UCS manages the main University WWW service, together with other associated services such as the cache. The importance of WWW developments to the University needs to be recognised by continuing to build resources and skills in this area.
• UCS will be working during the current year and into 2001/02 on implementation of the national SuperJANET 4 network which will deliver high-spced services to the University, as well as to other members of the NorMAN network.
• The increasing disparity between UCS and commercial salaries is making it difficult to keep and replace able, highly qualified staff.
Appendix A
University Computing Service
2001/02 Planning Statement
UCS Services
Introduction
In summary, UCS provides and maintains the campus network and offers thereon a range of distributed computing facilities to all staff, postgraduates and undergraduates. These are underpinned by a range of support services many of which are also provided for departmental computing resources.
The following is a brief list of all current service areas and is the list used in assigning costs and income to activities in ASSA spreadsheets.
1. Network
UCS provides, manages and supports the campus-wide network which enables communications across campus and provides access to national and international network services including electronic mail. The main service functions are:
1.1 Network enhancement
1.2 Network operation and maintenance
1.3 NorMAN
2. Core computing facilities
UCS makes publicly available, manages and operates, a wide range of computing services over a variety of computing platforms in order to meet the differing needs of University members. These services can be summarised as follows:
2.1 Unix workstations for general use
2.2 PCs and Macs for general use
2.3 Multi-access computing resources
2.4 IT Security
2.5.1 Computation intensive facilities
2.5.2 Printing and plotting
2.5.3 NUinfo
2.5.4 Networked information access (Intranet and Web)
2.5.5 User initiated archiving
2.5.6 Infrastructure support services
2.5.7 Email
2.5.8 Dial-up
2.5.9 Cluster room services
3. Education and training
UCS is committed to support of IT training and education for its many customers. In view of the large numbers involved and in order to make best use of our resources, the current policy is to deliver as much training as possible by ‘open leaming’ methods. The following summarise the main areas of activity:
3.1 Self-teaching materials and documentation
3.2 Advisory assistance and Helpline
4. Applications software support
A wide range of applications software is installed on all supported computing platforms. UCS provides in-depth support for a limited core range of standard widely used packages, mainly to academic staff and postgraduate students. It also installs and implements a wider range of minority interest software which necessarily receives a lower level of UCS support although it may be heavily used in teaching or research by particular disciplines – CAD software in Engineering is a good cxample of this.
4.1 UCS-supported software
4.2 Minority interest and departmental software
5. Direct support for departments
JCS evaluates hardware and software and offers advice to departments on how best to meet their own needs. It also provides a range of directly charged IT services to departments
5.1 Hardware consultancy
5.2 Software consultancy
5.3 Departmental Unix workstations
5.4 Departmental PCs and Macs
S.5 Facilities management of departmental equipment
5.6 UCS shop
5.7 Micro-maintenance scheme
5.8 Data preparation and questionnaire service
5.9 Print room (external service)
6. Exploration and development
UCS has a role in assisting the University to keep abreast of the implications of changes in hardware. networking and software technology. The field of IT changes rapidly and UCS aims to provide the University with timely information which will cnable the deployment of IT in a cost-effective way.
7. Mailbase, Netskills
Until November 2000, UCS hosted the national Mailbase service. In 94/95 we were successful in a first 3 years and continues to generate good retums subject to approval of the future business plan by ASSA.
8. Management IT Services
MITS is now a division of UCS managed by a Deputy Director. This group provides support for a administrative IT, including SAP/MIDS across the University. Its current major priority is the wock required to prepare the technical infrastructure for rollout of SAP Campus Management in Septembe 2001. MITS also supports the legacy MAC systems in the arca of Student Management and has responsibility for a number of other systems and servers including: Accommodation, databases for Alumni, Schools Liaison and Counselling, Smartcard and Syllabus+. MITS staff provide Help Desi and desktop support for staff within Kensington Terrace and departmental SAP users.
[Extracted from Organisation Chart in Appendix D]
Director
P S Salotti
. . . . . . Deputy Director (Academic Computing)
. . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . Assistant Director (National Services and Training)
. . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Mailbase (funded project)
. . . . . . . . . . . . D P Surtees – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Netskills (funded project)
. . . . . . . . . . . . D W Hartland – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . R S Allen
. . . . . . . . . . . . G Brown
. . . . . . . . . . . . H Conroy
. . . . . . . . . . . . D McAlimoney
. . . . . . . . . . . . P B Murray
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . C A Vincent
. . . . . . . . . . . . C J Young
. . . . . . . . . . . . + 1 Temp Relief Assistant
. . . . . . Assistant Director (Microcomputer Systems)
. . . . . . C Gerrard
. . . . . . . . . . . . Client/Server Support Academic Computing
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . M Agar
. . . . . . . . . . . . T Betteridge
. . . . . . . . . . . . D J Clark
. . . . . . . . . . . . A M Lamont
. . . . . . . . . . . . I Nicholson
. . . . . . . . . . . . J O Noble
. . . . . . . . . . . . R G C Pringle
. . . . . . . . . . . . D Slaven
. . . . . . . . . . . . J Stewart
. . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Computing
. . . . . . . . . . . . S Donoghue – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . J Donaldson
. . . . . . . . . . . . P Roberts
. . . . . . . . . . . . S Lisle
. . . . . . . . . . . . J S Snowball
. . . . . . . . . . . . L Stutchbury
. . . . . . Assistant Director (Hardware & Unix)
. . . . . . T J Ratcliffe
. . . . . . . . . . . . Operations Superv.
. . . . . . . . . . . . R E Broughton
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shift Leaders
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J M Gaffney
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M R Paul
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operators
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P Baggott
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A H Bush
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D Harris
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S Palmer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W Oldroyd
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G B Taylor
. . . . . . . . . . . . Print Room
. . . . . . . . . . . . W D Foggo – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . H E Fleming
. . . . . . . . . . . . Unix Systems
. . . . . . . . . . . . R Kerr – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . Q G Campbell
. . . . . . . . . . . . B C Hamshere
. . . . . . . . . . . . P Lomas
. . . . . . . . . . . . P Haldane
. . . . . . . . . . . . Hardware Maintenance & Software Support
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post – Dept Superintendent
. . . . . . . . . . . . P A Boyle
. . . . . . . . . . . . I Gibson
. . . . . . . . . . . . M S Halpin
. . . . . . . . . . . . A Murphy
. . . . . . . . . . . . I Rutherford
. . . . . Assistant Director (Networking)
. . . . . . I D Doak
. . . . . . . . . . . . Network & Development Staff
. . . . . . . . . . . . J N Bain – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . V J Bilton
. . . . . . . . . . . . P A Coates
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . K Heron
. . . . . . . . . . . . E Watson
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical Network Staff
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G A Brown
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J Craig
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D A Fox
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S Hay
. . . . . . . . . . Operators – Cluster Rooms Ancilliart
. . . . . . . . . . . . H E Fleming
. . . . . . . . . . . . S K Minto
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . Assistant Director (User Services. MAN & Security)
. . . . . . D P Surtees
. . . . . . . . . . . . Applications, Information & Education
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . S T Kometa
. . . . . . . . . . . . J A Law
. . . . . . . . . . . . G T Lynch
. . . . . . . . . . . . L M Scammell
. . . . . . . . . . . . G Shearing
. . . . . . . . . . . . J A Wheeler
. . . . . . . . . . . . C H Woodford
. . . . . . . . . . . . IT Systems Security
. . . . . . . . . . . . M H Ellison
. . . . . . . . . . . . NorMAN
. . . . . . . . . . . . M R Lancaster
. . . . . . . . . . . . New Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Data Preparation Service
. . . . . . . . . . . . C L Hellier – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . E Brown
. . . . . . . . . . . . S E Carrick
. . . . . . . . . . . . N Foster
. . . . . . . . . . . . L Grahamslaw
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . approx 120 “outworkers”
. . . . . . . . . . . . WWW Infrastructure Support
. . . . . . . . . . . . D P Surtees
. . . . . . . . . . . . D Querry
. . . . . . . . . . . . S McCready
. . . . . . . . . . . . General Assistants
. . . . . . . . . . . . Cluster Rooms Ancilliary
. . . . . . . . . . . . H S Fleming
. . . . . . . . . . . . S K Minto
. . . . . . Deputy Director (Management Information Systems)
. . . . . . P R Phillips
. . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Systems Technical Unit
. . . . . . . . . . . . T Lawrence – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . M Bell
. . . . . . . . . . . . C Burns
. . . . . . . . . . . . G A Younger
. . . . . . . . . . . . G Parker
. . . . . . . . . . . . M Stonebridge
. . . . . . . . . . . . Applications Development Unit
. . . . . . . . . . . . M Stephenson – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . R Booth
. . . . . . . . . . . . Vacant Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . S Farmer
. . . . . . . . . . . . A Griffiths
. . . . . . . . . . . . P Hitchens
. . . . . . . . . . . . C Newbigging
. . . . . . . . . . . . R Phillips
. . . . . . . . . . . . F Reynolds
. . . . . . . . . . . . S Tucker
. . . . . . . . . . . . J Ramel
. . . . . . . . . . . . Help Desk/Support
. . . . . . . . . . . . A J Burn – Manager
. . . . . . . . . . . . J Bolt
. . . . . . . . . . . . J Butterworth
. . . . . . . . . . . . M Embleton
. . . . . . . . . . . . A Proctor
. . . . . . . . . . . . Smart Card
. . . . . . . . . . . . A Fisher – Manager
. . . . . . Departmental Administration (Admin. Assistant)
. . . . . . M L Coleman
. . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Support Academic Computing
. . . . . . . . . . . . J A Hall – Supervisor
. . . . . . . . . . . . J H Coulson
. . . . . . . . . . . . C D Moffat
. . . . . . . . . . . . A Taylor
. . . . . . . . . . . . Administrative Computing
. . . . . . . . . . . . C Craig – Supervisor
. . . . . . . . . . . . C Brown
. . . . . . . . . . . . L Kerr.
. . . . . . . . . . . . Reception & User Registration
. . . . . . . . . . . . R Dickinson – Supervisor
. . . . . . . . . . . . L Jamieson
. . . . . . . . . . . . K L Patterson
. . . . . . . . . . . . Porter
. . . . . . . . . . . . R McRae
Appendix E
University of Newcastle
University Computing Service
Accountability Report 1999/2000
UCS is pleased to provide this report on the highlights of our 1999/2000 activities. As in previous years, this summary document covers significant achievements, changes and developments. Once again, despite a very successful year, demands on UCS have been such that the staff resource available for some activities has been overstretched because of a number of major simultaneous demands on time. ASSA is also asked to note significant resource input to activities which were deemed essential but not part of UCS’ formal Planning Statement for 1999/2000, for example, the relatively unexpected upgrade of SAP from 3.1 to 4.6 which was completed by November 2000 and involved not only the upgrade of SAP itself but that of the Operating System and High Availability Cluster.
UCS is pleased to note here that all co-ordination and upgrade work connected with the “Millennium Bug” was completed on time and no known significant problems were experienced by the University. A total of £98k (including Year 2000 Officer’s salary) was spent against a contingency fund of £250k. The Director, as Chairman of the Millennium Problem Steering Group, notes here with very many thanks the degree of effective co-operation by colleagues across the entire University in this unique project.
Appended to this report is an interim “Progress in Implementation of UCS 1999/2000 Plan” presented to Computing Service Committee in May 2000. As will be seen, the bulk of equipment spend and staff changes had been completed by that date.
1. Support for Management Information Systems
UCS put enormous effort into the infrastructure support necessary for the maintenance and further development of the MAIS SAP-based applications.
• The final batch of MAIS users went live as planned in August 1999 and the system then supported a potential user base of around 800.
• The SUN platforms have been stable and very little down-time has been suffered as a result of hardware or system faults. Planned down-time has been kept to a minimum, but a large amount of out-of-hours work has been put in at weekends to cope with data re-organisations, the application of R3 support and SAP kernel packages.
• The Basis team had to be increased in size to five, as a considerable amount of effort was required in procuring and building servers for the Campus Management Project.
• The major SAP effort was, however, concerned with preparing for the production system upgrade (finally completed for November 2000). Discussions with SUN in April 2000 led us to comprehend the true scope of the upgrade project, particularly in respect of the cluster environment. From May onwards, test upgrades were performed on a single server landscape to allow the MIDS configurers and users to test the applications in the new environment. • The SAP Basis team suffered more staff turnover and although the newer members could have benefited from further training, there was no opportunity to release them for this owing to operational pressures.
• The Applications Development Unit continued to provide and develop the ABAP/4 programming resource to support the SAP systems.
Alongside SAP work, other activities continued.
• The MAC systems continued to support Student Management and the distributed online Registration system again handled Registration 1999. The system was modified to produce proof of registration in the form of a bar code which could be ‘swiped’ by the new Smart Card issuing system which produced cards for some 2000 staff and 12000 students.
• Considerable programming was completed to transfer the appropriate staff and student data from SAP and MAC in order to initialise records for the Smart Card system.
• In May 2000, with the appointment of a Smart Card System Manager, the system moved onto a more stable operational footing.
• An unplanned task (consumed 0.5 FTE) was to implement an interface to permit the exchange of module data between MAC and Syllabus+ for teaching time- tabling. Student module choice data were then successfully uploaded into the Registration system for September 2000.
• The new Accommodation system was delivered and successfully coped with the busiest part of the accommodation cycle, which began in June. A second phase will deliver further extra functionality during 2000/01.
• We continued to provide support for a growing number of in-house data-base applications and preparations for RAB submission support were also made during the year.
• It was a successful year for the administrative users’ Help Desk, which grew (by one) to four analysts. It received 10500+ calls not only from SAP, but also MAC users. Whilst at the beginning of the year the Help Desk was closing 50% of queries without referral, by July 2000 knowledge of systems had greatly increased and that figure had risen to 75%.
2. Network
• As part of the multi-year campus cabling project, the Cassie recabling was finished, users’ equipment transferred to it, and the old cable removed. Similar work took place in Kensington and Park Terraces. Planning and specification of the Bedson recabling was carried out in conjunction with Estates and implementation commenced.
• Fibre optic cable was installed to provide a resilience route to the Medical School, King George VI, Bedson, Armstrong, Herschel, and Old Library buildings.
• Work started on upgrading the cabling in the UCS Computer Room in Claremont Tower, on upgrading network operation speed at clusters in the Bedson, Old Library, and Robinson Library buildings, and on reconfiguring the primary network distribution room in the Medical School
• Gigabit Ethernet switching/routing equipment was purchased for use in the network backbone, and is now in use. This was the only major network equipment item funded during 99/00, apart from campus recabling.
• Approximately 1,700 new computers and printers were attached to the network. We have provided in the Old Library connection points for authenticated network access from student laptops.
• JANET charges for incoming transatlantic network traffic were kept below £30,000 as a result of UCS actions, a 50% saving on the plan estimate.
• Preparatory planning was carried out for the introduction of SuperJANET IV in early 2001.
• The HEFCE bid to add resilience to NorMAN was successful, and these facilities will be installed during the current year (00/01). The link to CAl centre at North Shields was installed. Planning and preparatory work was carried out in readiness for FE colleges to route their JANET traffic through NorMAN.
• A Security Co-ordinator was appointed in September 99. UCS and University responses to network attacks are better integrated as a result. Tests of Kerberos authentication is well advanced. Improved defences against hacking are being implemented.
3. PC services
• UCS funded CAD workstations in the Tree (80 machines, Stephenson Building) and Farm Clusters (22, Building Science) were replaced. 5 CAD workstations were installed in the 24-hour Old Library User Area. The old CAD stations were then relocated within other clusters, displacing 5 year old PCs which were redeployed, as appropriate, in departmental and open clusters.
• With the UP&RC ‘adopted’ cluster funds, UCS replaced the Fayol (26, Armstrong Building) and Linn (31, Cookson Building) clusters. It had been intended also to start replacement of the Galen Cluster (Ridley Building), but this had to await the Faculty of Medicine providing necessary electrical and cooling upgrade work. This delay led to these funds being carried forward, still earmarked for that cluster.
• 130 new PCs were purchased, configured and deployed throughout the Administration and the 220 SAP workstations in academic departments were revisited to ‘tune’ them to local requirements in respect of printing etc.
• Large amount of effort was required in order to deliver the new 4.6C SAP GUI to all 800 workstations.
• Four PC filestore servers were replaced and new disks were added, increasing capacity by 200Gb. Four tape backup units were also added. This involved moving approximately 8000 user accounts on the replaced servers and 4000 on other servers due to disk re-arrangement. The City server disk configurations, supporting SAP users, were re-designed and re-configured in the light of experience with running mirrored disk arrays.
• The Windows NT4 desktop deployed in clusters was “frozen” in order to release resource for planning and development of the replacement Windows 2000 service. However, installation of “non-invasive” departmental software on central servers has continued. In order to complement the refreshed CAD clusters, a new version of AutoCad (2000) with various advanced features including Architectural Desktop, Mechanical Desktop etc. was built and deployed.
• A powerful thin client server was purchased and configured with NT4 Windows Terminal Server and Citrix Metaframe. Access was extended to three departments with over 100 users.
• Servers were purchased to investigate SMS and Windows 2000. Following the release of final code for Windows 2000, a development domain was designed and constructed to prototype the pilot Windows 2000 service planned to start in Summer 2000. This requires substantial, highly skilled staff time.
• The first year of contracted-out hardware maintenance under the MMS was successfully completed.
• Colour printers were installed in a further 6 student clusters.
• The total number of charged pages printed in the year increased by 21% to 2.8 million.
4. Unix based services
• The replacement timesharing machine (Aidan) was successfully brought into service.
• Upgrades took place to electronic mail, WWW and a number of other infrastructure servers.
• The number of messages handled by the mail system remained steady but the total volume increased dramatically from a peak 161Gb per week in 98/99 to 303 Gb per weck in 99/00.
• Line printer services were stopped and withdrawn.
5. Reprographics
• The new printer/copiers installed in the Reprographic Service have proved very reliable and demand for the service exceeded the minimum targets set. 3.3 million pages were printed during the year, comfortably exceeding the break-even figure of 2.4 million.
6. WWW infrastructure support for Inter- and Intranet
• The infrastructure team was highly effective in ensuring that our web and caching configuration not only provided robust service but also did so highly cost- efficiently, thus minimising the University’s transatlantic network costs. As a result, our 2000/01 costs will be still further reduced.
• UCS has continued to deliver a WWW publishing service that has grown rapidly in terms of both users and content. We have delivered CGI and database access facilities. UCS has worked closely with the Learning and Teaching Support Unit to delive erver support for the University’s MLE environment, Blackboan
• In conjunction with Human Resources, policies with respect to WWW content have been developed with a view to applicability to all University staff.
7. Academic User Services
This report would be very incomplete without reference to UCS User Services who have responsibilities in the areas of applications support and advice, information, user education and cluster support. Although this document tends to focus on major projects and milestones, it would be impossible without the ongoing effort of User Services to bring technological changes and developments into reliable, professionally delivered services easily accessible to students, academic, administrative and other staff.
• A Software Licence Administrator was appointed. This was partly new staff resource and partly redeployed effort. This has already enabled improvement in level of service although further work remains to be done.
• After discussion with CSC and ASSA, UCS did not refill the vacant post of Graphics Advisor. In consequence, there is now no central advice available concerning choice and use of graphics and related software. UCS believes this is a backward step, and will result in substantial numbers of users not benefiting fully from the this area of software. UCS will achieve a measurable saving which should be weighed against the less measurable loss across the University.
8. Mailbase
This service was wound down following non-acceptance, on cost rather than technical grounds, of our tender to JISC. The national service ended at the end of November 2000 although the Neweastle local service continues.
9. Netskills
Netskills was able to exceed its business plan targets and provide the University with agreed overheads as well as a substantial amount of ‘free’ training. While JISC funding was reduced, as planned, Netskills was able to generate more than sufficient extra income to cover this reduction. Income is produced from two main sources – training workshops and sale of training materials licences. Approximately 3000 people attended 185 workshops up from 2100 and 120 respectively in the previous year. Income from sales of materials was £60,000 exceeding the target of £50,000. While the HE sector remains the primary market for Netskills, other sectors such as public libraries, govemment, business and FE have all grown. Netskills has received extra JISC funding for the current year to provide a programme of workshops for Further Education, now part of the JANET network and so entitled to JISC services.
Computing Service Committee
9″ May 2000
Progress in Implementation of UCS 1999/2000 Plan
This interim report is based mainly on Section 9 of the UCS Planning Statement for 1999/2000. At year end UCS will, of course, prepare an Accountability Report for ASSA as well as an Annual Report. This document concentrates on progress to date against spending plans. The Executive Summary from the Planning Statement is also attached as an aide-memoire.
1. Capital equipment replacement
As always, the 1999/2000 Planning Statement requested funding to allow for replacement of capital equipment levels on a five year cycle – this is the funding required to keep central computing provision in a ‘steady state’. This is included in the list of items below. Items requested in the original Plan are in normal type, Comments on progress in italie.
• Early spend on UPS equipment for the Claremont computer room: £35,000. This was completed in early 1999 with the assistance of special funding from ASSA.
• PC and Unix filestore replacements: £80,000. Complete – actual spend £81,000.
• Campus backbone hardware: £75,000. Completed by purchase and installation of gigabit switches and routers – actual spend £75,000.
• NorMAN annual contribution: £10,000. Complete.
• Janet network charges: £60,000. UCS is pleased to report that by careful use of caching policy and other techniques for minimising our consumption of transatlantic bandwidth during 98/99 our 99/00 bill will be under £30,000, a 50% saving on the plan estimate.
• Alternative routes to central servers: £31,000. No funding available for this item.
• Alternative fibre route installation: £25,000. No funding available for this item.
• Replacement of 5year old PCs (including networking): £240,000. Complete. This funding was used for CAD cluster replacement (tree, farm and yard) with subsequent roll-down of older machines into less demanding locations. Actual spend £245,000.
• Multi-user Unix machine: £100,000. Complete – advantageous deal from Sun resulted in lower spend of £66,000.
• Network management equipment: £16,000. No funding available for this item.
• Other support service machines: £30,000. Complete – but only £10,000 could be made available.
• Training suite PC replacements: £80,000. Complete but funded from Training Suite income during 98/99.
• Filling of empty spaces left by HP withdrawal with PCs: £170,000. No funding available for this item.
• Unix machines instead of PCs 10 replace retired HPs: £34,000. No funding available for this item.
• Higher powered Unix workstations: £30,000. No funding available for this item.
• Specialist Unix machines: £30,000. No funding available for this item.
The Plan also requested additional equipment for a number of ‘new’ developments
1. Funding for third phase of campus recabling project: $230,000. In hand, with Estates now committed to the joint project and supporting the installation process. The Bedson building is almost fully surveyed and it is anticipated that the Claremont complex will be tackled if PCA funding permits.
2. UP&RC funded departmental PC replacement: £150,000. £140,000 committed.
3. Hardware/software for Smartcard support: £unknown
4. Additional student PCs: £140,000. No funding available for this item.
5. Early replacement of 4yr old machines: £160,000. No funding available for this item.
2. Additional staffing needs identified for development of services
2.1 Pre-merger UCS
1. One ALC FTE for support of increased number of clusters. Approved by ASSA and appointed.
2. Appointment of 1 ALC FTE dedicated security staff. Approved by ASSA and appointed.
3. Junior network Technician post. Approved by ASSA and appointed.
4. Manpower to undertake evaluation of Netware 3.12 replacement. No additional resource but some existing effort diverted into this.
5. Manpower to move to production quality service from initial Common Desktop project. This project had to become a production service in order to deliver SAP applications to departmental desktops. This had to be completed during early 1999 and considerable UCS effort had to be diverted into this.
6. Effort to improve co-ordination with departmental support staff. No additional resource available.
7. JANET charges – budget 0.5 FTE to monitor and minimise charges. No additional resource available but UCS successfully diverted existing resource resulting in 50% savings on anticipated costs.
8. Development of Intranet facilities requires 1 ALC FTE with WWW programming skills. Modest temporary increase in staffing possible due to part-time secondment to Mailbase Manager post and full-time replacement recruited.
2.2 Pre-merger MITS
1. As set out in the Appendix F table [to the Planning Statement), assuming that no support of MAIS configuration continues to come from UCS/ASSA, there is an additional need for two additional ALC FTEs and one Clerical FTE. (Otherwise, six ALC and one Clerical). ASSA was able to confirm early in 1999 that in order to support the MAIS implementation these three posts could be filled immediately. Discussions are currently underway with ASSA over staffing levels required to support the anticipated Student Management systems.
2. Staff training £15,000. MITS staff trained in SAP Basis and ABAP.
Appendix F
Windows 2000 – position paper
Introduction
The UCS Planning Statement 2000-2001 Section 5.21 “Responding to Microsoft Novell product releases” makes the following observation:
“As planned, in summer 1999 we completed migration of all UCS PC clusters to Windows N14. During the year 99/00 we propose to stabilise this desktop and begin investigation of issues underlying migration to Windows 2000, the next major operating system release. In order to resource Windows 2000 investigation we do need to announce that there will be no major new items of software (c.g. Office 2000, Internet Explorer 5 etc.) installed on the existing desktop; they will only be made available on the new Windows 2000 desktop. Requests for installation of departmental software will still be processed.”
With the attendant resource implication that UCS will freeze the existing NT4 desktop.
This paper details the “drivers” for these changes, outlines proposed UCS plans and explains the service changes these will introduce – in particular the impact of placing the existing NT4 desktop on “care and maintenance”. It does not address the question of provision of uniform versions of software across campus, which is primarily a licensing issue.
Drivers for change
There are many sources of pressure for change, some are critical in the sense that certain technologies underlying the present systems are becoming obsolete and unsupported; services based on these systems thereby become increasingly difficult and costly (and eventually impossible) to provide and support. Other drivers include the need to provide technologies that are required to enable new services expected of the UCS.
Critical issues
• Netware 3.2 support is disappearing fast. Server certification for this operating system has now ceased and we are unable to obtain software device drivers for the newer disk storage technologies. Novell are withdrawing the product from sale and support as of October 2000. We need a new file store operating system to replace Netware currently used on the 25 Netware servers in UCS/MITS. Migration to either Netware 5 or Windows 2000 Server will involve a similar level of investment, experience at Newcastle has shown that there are more integration problems between a Microsoft Windows desktop and a Netware based file system than a Microsoft Windows based file system. There is also evidence from other sites that attempting to mix a Microsoft desktop with a non-Microsoft server infrastructure is problematic.
• Lifetime of Windows NT4/95/98 desktop is limited – we will have to change anyway in time. Windows 2000 Professional is now upon us and there is no realistic alternative desktop operating system.
• Windows NT4 does not provide Plug-and-Play support for new hardware, but Windows 2000 does. Hardware will develop beyond the ability of NT4 to support it, forcing a change on the desktop OS..
• Managing the installation, running and remote distribution of software to 1500 PCs on Windows NT4/95/98 is an increasing problem. Experience with the Common Desktop approach has highlighted the need for additional local configuration (e.g. printers, software etc) that cannot be supported under such operating systems (the so called “DLL hell” problem). Device driver quality under NT4/95/98 is often questionable. Windows 2000 addresses all these issues.
“Enabling technology” issues
• Pressure is increasing rapidly for improved security: secure login, secure session, access controlled on a “who” rather than “where” basis etc. These services need technologies such as Kerberos, PKI, IPSec.
• Pressure for newer versions of software – keeping software up to date is much easier on Windows 2000 since remote update and configuration is built in. In time these issues could become critical
• Pressure for better e-mail support (e.g. remote and Web access) for both students and staff, and for shared diary/meeting/appointment – UCS has set up a mail project addressing this very important issue.
• Pressure for better web “Intranet” support, particularly at the departmental level. This includes simplified production and publishing of web pages, support for roaming profiles (i.e. desktop “moves” with the user) etc.
• Pressure for a “Common Desktop” system that can support local modifications, e.g. user installation of other application software. Windows 2000 offers “self-repair” and encapsulation features that should case this problem.
• Major new projects such as support for Managed Leaming Environments (MLEs) will demand more advanced server infrastructure than Netware/NT4 can offer. The Audio Visual Centre are piloting a Windows 2000 based Streaming Video server – this is likely to require integration into UCS systems in order to provide authentication. Similar pressures may arise from Kerberos support to replace Secude and for Campus Management (SAP).
• Pressure for remote access to UCS desktop. The UCS desktop has become a de-facto standard for many users – access to this desktop via the web would be of great benefit to many users.
• Some pressure to offer better integration with Unix using standard technologies including TCP/IP, DNS, Kerberos and IPSEC.
Windows 2000 offers the underlying software and hardware technologies which can support these needs, and that is absent from Netware and NT4. Departments also recognise these pressures for change: the School of Architecture and Planning and Landscape (APL) has recently undertaken a major roll-out of Windows 2000 and several other departments are asking the UCS for advice and support on Windows Windows 2000 is designed to scale to “enterprise wide” deployments but this needs to be planned, delivered and managed in a consistent manner across the entire campus. The next section describes proposed actions to respond to these pressures and demands.
Windows 2000 plans
UCS has been following Windows 2000 developments at other sites and within the APL department at Newcastle University with interest. In addition, key PC staff have attended Microsoft seminars and read the available documentation extensively. To support this activity UCS has set up a small Windows 2000 development system.
The next stage is to set up a pilot Windows 2000 system that can service a small number of machines in selected public and staff areas so that we can evaluate the provision of real services on Windows 2000. This level of activity is mirrored across other UK HE sites, see:
http://www.york.ac.uk/services/cserv/ms-os/survey/w2kuse.htm
Desktop:
It is proposed that during the period Summer 2000 to Summer 2001 UCS pilot Windows 2000 Professional (i.c. desktop) in a number of UCS cluster areas and in some selected staff offices. Upgrading a significant percentage of teaching clusters is inappropriate at present since UCS will have too little time to assemble a full desktop, but more importantly advisers and teaching staff will have had no opportunity to familiarise themselves with it. Therefore we would propose creating two small (20- 30 PCs Windows 2000 clusters in the public (non-teaching) Robinson Library and OLUA cluster areas by converting existing NT4 cluster PCs. In addition some teaching clusters might benefit from the conversion of a small number of PCs from NI4 to Windows 2000 (e.g. Cookson Computing Centre have expressed an interest in this possibility). These desktops would be under continuous development during the pilot period and available to a limited number of volunteer users. They would also act as the vehicle to service requests for software installation that would otherwise require wholesale rebuilds of the NT4 clusters. Users of these Windows 2000 clusters would need to be registered on the proposed Windows 2000 domain (see below).
Since summer 1999 UCS has taken care to ensure that all new cluster PCs purchased under the S-year replacement cycle are of an adequate specification to be converted to Windows 2000. Further, UCS is purchasing licences for Windows 2000/Oflice 2000 (but running NT4/Office 97) for PC clusters to eliminate upgrade costs. As of summer 2001 we would expect that approximately 400 PCs could be converted from NI4 to Windows 2000 at little additional expense, however, teaching and learning needs should determine the required number.
Initial content of proposed Windows 2000 Professional desktop
Desktop productivity suite: MS Office 2000 Premium (includes e-mail and web tools).
E-mail MS Outlook 2000 / Web based e-mail
Web browsers MS Internet Explorer 5
Web plugins Flash 4 etc.
Viewers Acrobat 4.0
Administrative software SAPGUI 4.6B
Statistical software Minitab, SPSS
Departmental software Various
Only software that complies with the Windows 2000 certification model (http://msdn.microsoft.com/certification/ will be installed. Starting from Summer 2000 UCS will attempt to migrate the existing departmental software portfolio to Windows 2000 and will inform departments of software that cannot be installed.
Thin client desktop
UCS proposes that a “thin client” desktop be developed in parallel with the Windows 2000 Professional cluster desktop. Further, as soon as possible, to migrate the existing thin client “Common Desktop” pilot into a production system based on Windows 2000 Windows Terminal Server (WTS). This will involve some negotiation with existing trial users of the system, but will offer a more powerful and flexible service. Any large-scale deployment of a thin client Common Desktop remains hampered by software licensing restrictions.
Servers:
The most important issue that UCS must address during summer 2000 – 2001 is that of migrating the services currently based on Netware 3.2 server to Windows 2000 server. Since we will not be able to run a mixed server environment (Netware 3.2 + any other server operating system) there can be no phased changeover:- moving UCS services off Netware 3.2 will require a “big bang” switch over a summer vacation moving all PC accounts to the new system. A Windows 2000 system with adequate provision for testing all aspects of this migration must be set up and thoroughly tested, these include:
• Server infrastructure required to manage Windows 2000 domain
• Provision of user file / e-mail store
• Backup of file / e-mail store
• Management of accounts on file / c-mail store
• Access to related services – printing, web, MILE
• Access to file / e-mail store from Windows 95/98/NT4/2000 desktops and the web
Therefore it is proposed that UCS set up and run a pilot Windows 2000 server infrastructure including secure authentication, file store, e-mail, print and web services during summer 2000 – 2001. UCS would provide access to these services from Windows 2000 pilot clusters, existing NT4 clusters, and departmental Windows 95/98 PCs, and limited thin client access. Windows 2000 clusters could only be used by users with Windows 2000 server accounts, we could offer these preferentially (c.g. to postgraduate students) to provide better quality of access to certain groups.
Service impact
Detailed below is the precise service impact of the above statement on software installation during the next few years.
Windows NT4 desktop
Software installation or update ranges in difficulty from simply copying a file to a server to a complete desktop re-engineer and attendant re-build of over 1200 PCs. There is no simple way to categorise software – departmental software that performs complex calculations and generates detailed graphical output could be in the “easy” category and a simple web plugin could be in the “hard” category. Only detailed examination and trial installation can determine the possibility and cost of installation. Rebuilding and distributing the desktop is no longer feasible if UCS is to make the necessary progress on migrating from NT4/Netware 3. Software that can be installed by means of SMS, loader programs or simple file copies can be accommodated, hopefully this will include most departmental software requests – other software must be considered “frozen”. The short list below highlights some of the implications:
Desktop productivity suite: MS Office 97 (frozen)
E-mail: Pegasus 2.55 / MS Outlook 98 (frozen)
Web browsers: MS Internet Explorer 4 (v 4.72.3110.8) (frozen) *
Netscape Navigator 4.08 (frozen)
Web plugins: various (frozen)
Statistical software: Minitab 12 (frozen), SPSS 9 (frozen)
Viewers: Acrobat 3.0 (frozen)
Administrative software: SAPGUI 3.1H **
Departmental software: Various DOS/Win16/Win32 ***
* MS IE4 will be the default web browser as from Summer 2000. Netscape will remain available under the Communications program group.
** Administrative desktops still running on Windows 95/98/NT4 will have SAPGUI upgraded from 3.1H to 4.6B Summer 2000.
*** Departmental software ranges from simple “self contained” programs to highly invasive software that requires extensive work to craft into the NT4 desktop. Accommodating this software has resulted in PCs being much more difficult to maintain than UCS can resource. UCS has already committed to installing the following items on NT4 desktops for Summer 2000:
• AutoCad 2000 and add-ins
• SAPGUI 4.6B
Full details of all software installed on the UCS NT4 PC clusters is listed on:
http://squall.ncl.ac.uk/scripts/users/ncg/Software/Software.asp?0STypc=NT4
C.Gerrard 12 April 2000
IT Support on Campus in the 21st Century
Summary:
This paper describes the evolution, over the last decade, of desktop computing and support on campus. It draws out several key points which need addressing in the decade ahead. It then describes how a revolution in software practices, involving a wholesale move to Windows 2000, can address these key points, noting along the way that staff support practices and training will need to be radically overhauled as well.
1. The Present:
1.1 Numbers of Machines:
Over the last ten years the number of conputers on campus has grown rapidly, from about 1,000 then to about 8,000 now. By any measure, this is one of the most remarkable changes on carpus in that period.
There is evidence that we have reached a steady state – there is, perhaps, no more physical space for many more machines. Certainly, we are now seeing the bulk disposal of older machines matching the acquisition of new machines.
1.2 Types of Machines:
While the overall number of machines seems to have settled, relative numbers of different types of machines has also stabilised. Replacements are now seen to be like with like – the takeover of the desktop by Microsoft Windows operating systems is all but complete. with other operating software now remaining mainly in infrastructure and specialist roles.
1.3 Desktop Software:
The explosion, and subsequent settling, in numbers and types of machines was matched by an initial explosion in the diversity of desktop software, followed by a settling upon Microsoft Office desktop software as the campus standard.
The reader will note that these changes came about, not by conscious design, nor by institutional policy, but by departments on campus responding to market forces. We reached the present from the bottom up – and like the Lambton worm, it just grawed and grawed. In truth, there was probably no better way – we had little choice, dominated as we are by external, worldwide forces which are outside of our control.
1.4 Dependency:
With these changes has come dependency. Whereas ten vears ago using a computer system was an optional activity, taken up only by those with aptitude and desire, computer systens on campus today are part of almost everyone’s job – and folks rely upon them. Information technology has become critical to the running of the business.
1.5 Support:
Given the informal way in which we have reached the present, with each department working out its own destiny, it is hardly surprising that there is enormous variability in the quantity and quality of provision – both in terms of machines and in terms of support.
Many departments and some faculties on campus employ their own IT support staff, while some others do not. In many areas. local IT support is in the hands of those who are not directly employed to do it – for example, academic staff. Predictably, the quality of support delivered is much better where there is local support.
Those without local support need to rely on what the UCS provides from the centre – and that is a service which might have been OK ten years ago, but is now totally inadequate to cater for dependency.
It is interesting to note that there are more IT support staff on campus outwith the UCS than than inside it. Further, there is neither formal coordination of these IT resources across campus nor any formal training for such posts.
1.6 Vulnerability of Data:
One of the most disturbing features about the status quo on campus is that there is now far too much University data – whether document, spreadsheet, database, mail folder or contact list – which is held on the hard disks of individual desktop computers on campus. That data is vulnerable to hardware failure, software failure, viruses and hardware theft.
The University needs to ensure that its data is properly managed: and that means housing it on servers which are backed up and cared for. Not only does server based data allow the University to manage its holdings properly, it also provides better quality of support to customers who no longer need to rely upon the correct working of any particular desktop machine.
1.7 Software Versions and Licensing:
A continuing problem across campus is the range of different versions of Microsoft Office which are in use. As information is more and more a shared comodity, version incompatibilities are increasingly disruptive.
Keeping everyone at the same software level is a treble challenge: we need to fund the very large number of ongoing software licences: we need to provide hardware across the board which can cope with the software, and we need mechanisms by which new versions can be rolled out in sync.
All three challenges involve large costs. But there are large costs in the status quo.
1.8 Windows 95/98:
The most common operating software on campus, by a distance, is Windows 9x. Since it came out in 1995, it has been the normal purchase with a new machine, and it remains so today. Thus it has almost totally supplanted MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 on campus. And nothing else has gained so much popularity: Windows 9X machines are everywhere.
Windows 9X is now well understood: it works well until it breaks when, suddenly, the costs appear. But it is powerful, flexible and friendly. So we live with it. But it is costly to configure and support. Our several thousand Windows 9X machines are almost all manually configured, hand crafted if you like.
We need a better way. One that allows us the flexibility that Windows 9X provides, but one that allows us to automate in large neasure the software configuration, and one that isn’t liable to seize up at the most inappropriate moment without either notice or apparent reason.
1.9 Windows NT:
The second most common operating software on campus is Windows NT. This is manifest mostly in the UCS PC Clusters and in the departmental SAP machines, although a few departments use it in preference to Windows 9X.
Windows NT was chosen for those roles because it is much cheaper to set up and support than Windows 9x. A fixed software configuration is provided on the PC Cluster and SAP machines. This works well but is inflexible when faced with new or different hardware and software.
We need a better way. One that allows us the predictability and control that Windows NT provides, but one which also gives us the flexibility to cope easily with new hardware and new software.
Key Points:
To summarise the foregoing in a few short sentences, we seem to have entered a period of stability as regards the numbers and types of computers on campus; and also in regard to the software we use and our total dependency upon it. Thus we are in a position to move the agenda on. Specifically:
a) we need better ways of supporting a rolling, but stable, population of many thousands of desktop machines;
b) we need to move all University information off individual desktop hard disks onto properly managed servers;
c) we need better ways of licensing, running and managing the University’s core software.
3. The Future:
3.1 Windows 2000:
Windows 2000 can help us address all of these points. As a directory based network operating system, it provides a range of facilities which would appear to match our reguirements like a glove.
Thus a pilot Windows 2000 service domain, named Campus, is currently being constructed so that we can prove Windows 2000 in action. Initially, between now and summer 2001, this will support two small PC clusters and a variety of departmental situations.
What happens thereafter depends, of course, on the success or otherwise of the pilot.
3.2 Configuration Management:
Windows 2000 is really Windows NT version 5. It therefore inherits features which allow us to set up a secure desktop system. But, critically, it allows us the flexibility we need: both in terms of plug and play support for new and different hardware, and in terms of devolved software management where a core of software can be configured and locked centrally whilst other software may be added by a department.
Thus, for example, we would no longer need to have something called a SAP machine. SAP would be part of the locked core desktop software, but the machine could be connected to departmental resources as required locally.
Nothing comes free, of course, and the hardware specification of such windows 2000 machines will need to be suitable and substantial. There will also be considerations of ongoing hardware replacement.
3.3 Login Service:
At the core of Windows 2000 is its directory – the Active Directory. A customer logs in, not to a server, but to the directory, which holds details of the resources to which the customer is entitled.
These resources will typically be, for starters, a home directory, a mailbox and a software profile. As well as supporting PC clusters and administrative machines, this will provide us something we have long needed on campus: a properly founded login service for desktop machines.
Existing Windows 9X machines will be capable of being client machines, but the fullest functionality, for example the software profiles, will only be available to Windows 2000 clients.
A campus login service will allow us, almost at a stroke, to move University data off local hard disks and onto managed servers.
It will also herald the gradual demise of many departmental login servers as accounts are folded into the single, campus wide directory.
3.4 Software Licensing:
If we were able to fund the necessary licences for Microsoft Office, then Windows 2000 provides two features which would allow us to sensibly deploy those licences.
Firstly, Windows 2000 Terminal Server (aka thin client) allows us to run the latest desktop software on older hardware. This is not free of cost, but it does allow us to move to a position where everyone can run the same software.
Secondly, Windows 2000 provides substantial functions which allow desktop machines to have their software updated from the server. This would allow us to move versions in an organised, synchronised fashion.
These capabilities would allow us to take the fullest advantage of the Microsoft Campus Agreement: its costs would not then appear to be so high.
3.5 Implementation:
Implementation would, of course, be spread over several years since the campus in so large and diverse. We do not see this being any more expensive than what we do now: departments will be buying new machines and software anyway. This will just be a better way of deploying the same equipment.
Such new machines would run Windows 2000 from day one. Existing Windows 9X and NT desktop machines would be converted as needed.
Nor need anything be compulsory. We would confidently expect the Windows 2000 arrangements to be so superior to current practices that customers would volunteer.
3.6 Staffing:
Moving to a campus wide Windows 2000 domain will, inevitably, make substantial demands on all our IT support staff. We do not see this being any more expensive than it is just now. But we certainly need to work smarter and to marshal our IT staff resources across campus better.
Supporting something like Windows 2000 needs not just people, but good people. And, for maximum effect, those people will need to work together in ways which have not been needed before. We are going to need to evolve a more linked and more formal set of arrangements between central and departmental IT support staff.
Training needs to be a focus here. There is a lot for everyone to learn – and to keep learning. Training is the key to working smarter.
Externally sourced training remains a disappointment in terms of focus and quality. We need to develop on campus our own regime for both initial and ongoing training of our IT support staff.
3.7 Other Points:
Quite aside from being able to fix current problems, Windows 2000 can provide us with a superior email service, courtesy of the Outlook mail user agent working in conjunction with the Exchange back end to provide access to public, shared mail folders as well as private ones.
Windows 2000 also promises to offer us a different style of Web service: one where you can save pages directly to the Web from the desktop. Indeed, Windows 2000 is woven into the Web: web mail access is built in to Exchange and web desktop access is built in to the thin client software.
These moves to Windows 2000 are deliberate and well timed in many regards. For example, it is timely that we approach this just as Windows 3.1 is disappearing from campus. And the recabling campus dovetails neatly: that extra bandwidth will be needed.
3.8 Positioning:
Recent developments and discussions are leading us to consider new and more flexible modes of access, especially the medical and cross-institutional ones made possible by the NorMAN infrastructure.
Remote access, domestic access, mobile access, roaming access: all of these will be growing features of the new decade.
We believe that a Windows 2000 campus domain will place us in the optimum position to respond to all or any of these initiatives and technologies. The eUniversity will only be possible with the right infrastructure.
3.9 Conclusion:
The driver for Windows 2000 is not any particular technology, application or service – it is how we contain resource costs in the decade ahead.
This is not a quick fix. Rather, it should be a strategic direction for the next decade. The design will need to be top down rather bottom up. It will therefore be a much more formal, centralised set of arrangements – one more suited to supporting what is now the cardiovascular system of the University: its information management.
Martin Lamont.
1st November, 2000