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