Carnegie Mellon Andrew Overview Walter Wong Computing Services

Carnegie Mellon Andrew Yesterday Building the next generation campus computing environment Funded by IBM in 1982 Early large scale distributed system

Carnegie Mellon AFS AUIS AMS Workstation Configuration Significant Contributions Workstation config AFS AUIS AMS

Carnegie Mellon AFS Scalable Distributed Filesystem Client Side Caching Global Namespace Server Independence Understandable ACLs Volumes

Carnegie Mellon AUIS Andrew User Interface Software Objected orientated, customizable, multi-media environment

Carnegie Mellon AMS Andrew Messaging System Built on AUIS Authenticated Shared folders (bboards)

Carnegie Mellon Workstation Management Operating system and configurations remain consistent Synchronization of existing files on AFS for central maintenance Removal of files that “don’t belong”

Carnegie Mellon Andrew/Unix Workstations Andrew/Unix Workstations Original Andrew Information Backup Mail/News Printing ClientsServicesInfrastructure AFS Fileservers AFS Fileservers

Carnegie Mellon Transition to Production Default campus environment in 1988 Rapid Growth Software Release Management Delegation and Distribution of Administration Personal Computers

Carnegie Mellon Rapid Growth Need for monitoring and reporting Stable services Reduce incremental administrative costs through automation and tools Otherwise, no time for development

Carnegie Mellon Software Release Management Identify all software components Controlled test environments Rollback support Implemented under Unix with Depot & EMT

Carnegie Mellon Distributed Administration Provide a default configuration Provide an infrastructure for customization at multiple levels Allow one to control what they want - ignore what they do not want Vendor Central Departmental Workgroup Personal

Carnegie Mellon Personal Computers More affordable than workstations Difficult to port AFS and other applications Missing key features in the operating systems

Carnegie Mellon Architectural Problems AFS is complicated, but necessarily so System built on AFS inherit its complexity, often unnecessarily AFS has not been ported to many platforms (Mac, DOS, Windows 3.x) Performance problems in AFS are inherited by other services AFS is not good over slow links AFS is going to be replaced with the DFS.… Or maybe not...

Carnegie Mellon Personal Computers Personal Computers Andrew Plus ClientsServicesInfrastructure Andrew/Unix Workstations Andrew/Unix Workstations Information Backup Mail/News Printing Andrew/Unix Workstations Andrew/Unix Workstations AFS Fileservers AFS Fileservers

Carnegie Mellon Andrew II Initiated in 1992 to cope with DCE/DFS No single system or single delivery date Multiple projects with common goals

Carnegie Mellon Andrew II Filesystems Other Workstations Other Workstations Andrew Workstations Andrew Workstations Information Backup Mail/News Printing

Carnegie Mellon Andrew II Goals Standards based or in wide spread use Avoid unnecessary filesystem dependencies Simple independent scaleable services PC and Mac integration Disconnected operation

Carnegie Mellon Andrew II Strategies Limit operating system modifications Layer local changes on vendor solutions Seek vendor solutions when ever possible Seek vendor and external use of local solutions Integrate external solutions Adapt local environment when market forces dictate change

Carnegie Mellon Major Andrew II Projects Messaging - Cyrus Information Services - Polaris, Infoserver, Userweb

Carnegie Mellon Project Cyrus Inspired by ancient Persian Royal Postal System System linked an Empire 1500 miles broad (delivery time from end to end: 3 weeks) Postal System was integral to ordered organization of society Durable, enterprise communications -- lasted for over 1500 years

Carnegie Mellon Project Cyrus Goals Scalable Enterprise Wide Mail System Access Control Lists Quota per User/Mailbox Server Independence Message Service Integration: Mail, Netnews, local bulletin boards, internet mailing lists, wire services, etc.

Carnegie Mellon Project Cyrus Status Implemented high quality IMAP server Work progressing with ACAP for server independence IMAP proxy as interim measure Waiting for client vendors to catch up SASL Library SMTP AUTH

Carnegie Mellon Polaris Web based help service Dynamic Browse Space Can be designed and built by documentation staff or by developers as they release help pages Full-text searching AUIS, man, and HTML support

Carnegie Mellon Infoserver CMU Online Information System Web based Depot managed Full-text searching

Carnegie Mellon User/Course Web Service Distributed filesystem manages quota Immediate publishing No release management Full-text searching

Carnegie Mellon Major Current Initiatives Full NT integration Directory Services Security Services

Carnegie Mellon Orpheus NT provides a ‘real’ operating system on PCs Microsoft considers interoperability as a method of conquest Challenge is fully integrating NT environment with existing infrastructure

Carnegie Mellon Directory Services Provide the integration missing when filesystem is removed LDAP based Integration with Microsoft Active Directory

Carnegie Mellon Security Services Integration/co-existence of public and secret key systems Unsolved public key infrastructure issues

Carnegie Mellon Andrew Today and Beyond Educational environments differ in interesting ways Rapid changes Innovative Integration with focused development

Carnegie Mellon Educational Environment Differences Security Greater (recognized) internal threats Conflicting goals of collaboration vs. privacy Less rigid hierarchy A person may be staff, student and faculty Nomadic behavior A person may use multiple machines, some they do not have administrative control over Some machines may be shared among many diverse individuals

Carnegie Mellon Rapid Changes Local solutions can not keep up with the features On going support of legacy systems is expensive Porting local solutions to new environments is expensive Other groups and individuals on campus adopt commercial systems

Carnegie Mellon Adopting New Technologies Seek vendor solutions Cooperate with vendors Seek public solutions Cooperate to enhance public solutions Cooperate to develop new technologies and get those technologies on standards tracks Do it ourselves

Carnegie Mellon Scalability Models Monolithic Have a single highly redundant system Simplifies administration Single point of failure

Carnegie Mellon Scalability Models Distributed - server dependent Multiple servers provide redundancy, better performance Burden on users to know about the servers Higher administrative cost in managing multiple machines

Carnegie Mellon Scalability Models Distributed – server independent Actual server(s) hidden by a layer of indirection Additional client/server support

Carnegie Mellon Integration Problems Scale The market is still primarily producing work group solutions Can’t scale to a single computing community of over 10,000 users and over 6,000 networked machines Interoperability Many solutions do not work together Many solutions do not exist across architectures

Carnegie Mellon Focusing Development Focus on key areas and do proof of concept development (and maybe deployment) Force issues in standards bodies (IETF, etc.) Leverage development efforts with vendors to influence directions

Carnegie Mellon Unique Users

Carnegie Mellon References Khanna, Raman, ed. “Managing Distributed Systems” and “System Management Strategies” in Distributed Computing: Implementation and Management Strategies. Prentice Hall Khanna, Raman, ed. “Personal Computer Integration in the Andrew System” in Integrating Personal Computers in a Distributed Client-Server Environment. Prentice Hall, 1995.