About a few years ago Microsoft started to change the name of its suite of management products to System Center. It looked like SMS and MOM becoming a single product but that didn’t happen. The only result is the introduction of a new product SCE (System Center Essentials) which is basically targeting the low end market.
Just after the System Center name saw the light of day Microsoft also started with some smoke and mirrors stuff called DSI (Dynamic System Initiative) and IOI (Infrastructure Optimization Initiative) but lately these two started to become quite clear.
About one year ago DCM (Desired Configuration Management) for SMS was introduced and just after that MOM and SMS and a bunch of other products changed their names to System Center Configuration Manager and System Center Operation Manager.
I just flew back from Seattle where I was at the SCCM 2007 TAP airlift and am now at the Microsoft Architecture forum in Copenhagen with a terrible jetlag running thru the agenda for today. I can remember one of the talks I had with a Microsoft Architect in Seattle about SDM (System Definition Model) and SLM (Service Modeling Language). The Architect actually managed to bring our talk to System Center Service Desk via DCM.
And again I look at the agenda of the Architect Forum in Copenhagen and I see a track about Service Desk “Take a first look at the tool that will be the “brain” of our Self Managing Dynamic Datacenter. See how we are planning to automate ITIL based processes and let the other members of System Center family execute them. The new possibilities for Self Service, and see our implementation of CMDBâ€?.
I do some queries on the MS site and I find the following quite interesting document http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/3/8/b38239c7-2766-4632-9b13-33cf08fad522/sdmwp.doc
But the odd thing I remember about the Seattle talk is that I did not only talk about management of products with the MS Architect I also talked about deployment and he is actually a member of a deployment solution team.
Wouldn’t it be fun if CMDB becomes a Deployment Database besides a Configuration Database? System Center Configuration Manager has a Operating System Deployment component so it is capable of doing deployments and it would solve the problem that the CMDB info is never up to date.
Rob
Entries (RSS)
http://www.itskeptic.org/node/81
Rob,
I just returned (not completely true I’m now stuck at Detroit) from the System Center SDv1 Partner Design Preview (http://weblog.stranger.nl/very_interesting_system_center_sdv1_partner_design_preview) and can confirm the SD will become very important to the System Center suite. I want to tell more but it’s all NDA info
Going to sleep in cold and snowy Detroit.
Stefan
http://weblog.stranger.nl
I think “solve the problem that the CMDB info is never up to date” is a bit strong
How about “solve the problem that technically discoverable information about the subset of CIs in the CMDB supplied by Microsoft and partners is never up to date”.
The IT Skeptic contends that CMDB can never be fully automated: see http://www.itskeptic.org/node/37 and http://www.itskeptic.org/node/38. For more on CMDB in general see http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/6?, including the grotesque news that Microsoft are attempting to patent CMDB, as mentioned by Scott in a previous comment.
The link you provided is fascinating, thankyou. the operational-integration-standards space is getting pretty cluttered: it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. One thing you can be sure of is that redmond will be working to skew it their way, and one thing that is a good bet is that Microsoft will come out with subtly-corrupted proprietary versions of everything, then blame everyone else for not implementing properly.