| MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR loses occur every day | | | | designs--and missing the true "gotchas." |
| due to poor application testing plans, too | | | | Network & Application testing crosses many |
| much trust in automated testing tools and a | | | | corporate departments and boundaries. This |
| general lack of the big picture. Plans are | | | | wears people down and makes them ready to |
| made without understanding how IT all works | | | | accept any result that will at least get the |
| together. Yet more automated tools hit the | | | | testing completed. The results are not |
| market every day. The Web is alive with ads | | | | surprising from this perspective. The |
| for software that will do the following: | | | | incident of "successful" application |
| Analyze your application response time from | | | | performance in testing is not equal to the |
| the perspective of the User experience. End | | | | incidence of successful application |
| to End transparent application monitoring. | | | | performance in real-life. Network & |
| Create "Load" that exactly simulates user | | | | application performance problems continue |
| experience. Automate application performance | | | | on--month after month, year after year. Users |
| analysis & troubleshooting. Based on these | | | | stop sending in tickets but still complain to |
| products and their claims, you would think | | | | their manager. This results in a schism |
| that the goal of IT Management is to automate | | | | between perceived problems and reported |
| all aspects of Network & Application | | | | problems. The Solution: There is really only |
| Performance Troubleshooting. Nevertheless, | | | | one consistently successful approach to |
| here is an important question: Is that not a | | | | troubleshooting under-performing networks & |
| little like asking a chicken to guard the | | | | applications, the Network & Application |
| chicken coop? Who is monitoring the monitor | | | | Performance Analysis Team. This approach has |
| tool? Is it not just another application? | | | | a near 100% success rate at providing |
| This goes around in circles. Humans use | | | | resolution. It involves utilizing a highly |
| tools, highly skilled and experienced humans. | | | | skilled "SWAT" team of individuals that look |
| To rely so heavily on automation to monitor | | | | at all the component factors. These factors |
| other automation is to hope one potential | | | | include the following: Servers Directory |
| failure catches another potential failure. | | | | Services Operating Systems TCP issues Other |
| Furthermore, our experience has shown that | | | | Protocol Issues Workstation builds LAN Issues |
| companies all too often utilize under-skilled | | | | WAN Issues User Skills & Training Database |
| staff for these roles, hoping that the tool | | | | Optimization Interaction with other |
| will know what to do with itself or simple | | | | Applications Server Consolidation / |
| default configurations will apply. Catch 22? | | | | Virtualization Issues The team works with a |
| Well, yes. You cannot take the need for | | | | client's Subject Matter Experts for the |
| skill, training and experience out of the | | | | application and database involved. |
| equation; even if you believe automated tools | | | | Frequently, a Network & Application |
| can do the job. Yet experience has shown that | | | | Performance Analysis Team member is the first |
| not only do many automated tools not perform | | | | to understand the application from the bottom |
| exactly as anticipated, the skill level of | | | | up to the top. People working with other |
| the human being configuring these tools and | | | | humans--interviewing users, network staff, |
| tests is critical to the success of the test. | | | | application staff and others--utilizing |
| Here are a few typical problems: It is the | | | | protocol analyzers such as Sniffer, Ethereal, |
| business user, possibly backed up by the | | | | WireShark and others, will find the problem |
| application Subject Matter Expert (SME) that | | | | consistently. Resolution is always the |
| designs most automated application tests. | | | | Primary Goal. Barry Koplowitz founded |
| Between them there is little expertise | | | | Interpath Technologies Corporation in 1999. |
| regarding the network components, Operating | | | | He has been consulting in the IT field since |
| Systems and TCP aspects of the way the | | | | 1984 and has specialized in the area of |
| application works on a network--or across a | | | | Network & Application Analysis |
| WAN. Frequently they create problems that are | | | | Troubleshooting--with various Protocol |
| not reality based, resulting in testing | | | | Analysis Tools--for the last 11 years. |
| artificial problems due to incomplete testing | | | | |