Minutes - April 8, 2005
1:30 - 3:00 pm - I. G. Greer Hall - Room 224
Persons Present:
Ex Officio members: Doug May (Acad. Computing Serv.), Jeff Williams (Chair, Info. Tech. Serv.)
Voting Members: Joseph Cazier (proxy for Donald Amoroso, College of Business), Toni Becvinovski (proxy for Don Rankins, Registrar), Lynne Lysiak (Belk Library), Emory Maiden (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Tom Leonard (proxy for Teresa Canton, Univ. Advancement), Tom McDonnell (Hayes School of Music), Ed Pekarek (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Dick Riedl (Reich Coll. of Education), Dragan Sefanovic (Coll. of Arts & Sciences), Bill Ward (Academic Affairs)
Visitors: Steve Breiner (Instructional Comp. Serv., ITAC Recorder), Tom Van Gilder (Arts & Sciences), Tung Ong (Electr. Student Serv.), Tony Grant (Dept. of Technology), Wayne Fee (Acad. Comp. Serv.), Jeff Church (Instr. Comp. Serv.), Tom Havelos (Instructional Tech. Ctr.), Steve Hopper (ITS - Applications), Tom Culver (ITS - Network), David Hayler (ITS - Network), David Earp (Acad. Comp. Serv.), Doug Brantz (Fine & Appl. Arts)
1) Welcome, Opening Comments
Jeff Williams (ITS) opened the meeting at 1:32 PM. He greeted the membership and acknowledged a number of new attendees. He then asked attendees, who complied, to introduce themselves and to state from which department or area they had come.
2) Demonstration of iFolder (Storage for Staff/Faculty)
David Earp (ACS) demonstrated Novell’s iFolder remote storage tool to the group. The tool (a local client on one’s machine), currently available to Windows users and available in a beta version to Macintosh users, provides to users the ability to access a remote repository of their files and to synchronize remote and local versions of files on local machines and an iFolder server, as needed. The iFolder server component provides a web interface that gives web-based access to files on the iFolder server from machines virtually anywhere, using a browser-based mechanism for access… changes to files, whether via web or local client, eventually propagate in the background to all of the machines on which the user has enabled the iFolder client. Earp suggested that the iFolder system should address a long-standing desire on the parts of faculty and staff to access to their documents and files from wherever they might need that access, in a reasonably transparent fashion.
Williams asked whether users’ “My Documents” folders were seen to be the appropriate targets for iFolder synchronization and access. Earp replied negatively, because users’ “My Music” and “My Videos” files typically held gigabytes of data that we would not want replicated on servers. He suggested that users should be educated to use the iFolder folders only for data related to their university work, in order to maintain reasonable limits on the amount of user space we would require. Steve Breiner asked whether specific subfolders, like the “My Music” subfolder of users’ “My Documents,” of the designated iFolder target can be “hidden” from the synchronization process in order to allow iFolder to use “My Documents” folders, to minimize the required changes (e.g., learning to save documents to a new default documents folder) to users’ habits… Earp replied that that was not possible with the current version of iFolder, but that might be a feature of future versions of the software. Breiner then asked about the time frame for a full release of the Macintosh version of iFolder. Earp did not have specific dates for that release, but thought it very likely that the general release would occur by the time we were satisfied by testing that we were ready to deploy iFolder for faculty and staff.
Doug May stated that, though initially, only faculty would obtain space for iFolder-based files, he expected to eventually to provide such remote storage capabilities for students as well, with discussions about storage quotas and management to be undertaken by stakeholders before such services were deployed.
Tung Ong asked whether VPN (information about VPNs available here) connections would be required in order to preserve security for users’ file access. Earp replied that the both the iFolder client and web interface were always encrypted between source and destination, so VPN connections would not be necessary for that reason.
3) Discussion of access to remote storage (faculty, staff and students)
Williams reported that, partly in concert with the aforementioned exploration of iFolder, we are currently talking with vendors about purchasing increased storage space for our SAN (Storage Area Network) and for various other purposes, including potential use as general storage for users’ data and documents.
He noted that the volume of data that we maintain will soon exceed the limits of our ability to back it up using our current automated ADIC backup system. He noted that even if we expend the resources to upgrade the system to the latest technology and highest capacity, we will still encounter difficulty with the time physically required for backing up that volume of data.
He mentioned that ITS was currently exploring Hierarchical Storage Management (HSM) as a way to address our increasing need for storage management. He explained that such as system uses high speed (AKA expensive) storage for files that require rapid and frequent access, with lesser used files automatically migrated to slower “archive” storage (first to slower, fully mirrored disk arrays, then later to an automated tape library if no further use occurs within a designated interval) until requested by a user. Upon such a user request for a file previously archived, the files would be retrieved automatically from either the “slow” disk space (in seconds or minutes) or from the tape (minutes or possibly up to hours for long-archived files), depending on the previous use patterns for the specific files. Retrieval of files from either type of archive, online (slow disk) or offline (tape), would be initiated by the user request for the file and would not require any additional action on the part of the user. The HSM system would automatically notify the user once a requested file is available.
Williams reported that the university currently has some 1600 employees designated as “knowledge workers” who, if allocated one gigabyte (a 1,073,741,824-byte unit of storage) each, would occupy a 1.6 Terabytes (a 1,099,511,627,776-byte unit of storage) chunk and that a single gigabyte would likely not be sufficient for many users. Students, too, will require storage, and will likely need an increase over the 20 megabyte quotas they currently receive for e-mail. In the recognition that students’ space needs will certainly increase, likely for both e-main and iFolder storage, Williams asked ITAC to consider what would be an appropriate amount of storage to anticipate on a per-student basis. The time frame for increasing storage capabilities will dovetail with the need to soon replace our e-mail servers (currently 3 years old) with more capable servers, and that it would make a great deal of sense to coordinate the renovation of storage capabilities with the corresponding modernization of our e-mail services.
Tom Van Gilder mentioned that the College of Arts and Sciences had internally settled on a 4 gigabyte per person allocation of server space for its faculty and wondered whether that was something that might be purchased and supported centrally or whether the college would need to fund that level. Williams replied that ITS generally recommended suggested central IT needs to the Office of Academic Affairs and suggested that the discussion of funding should be left to that office.
May also noted that, if Appalachian were to implement an HSM solution for storage management, the issue of faculty server space would become much less an issue, since much faculty storage tends to be archival in nature.But Williams responded that, though simply hanging large disk farms on servers would possibly address larger storage needs, a coordinated approach that addresses backup, hierarchical storage and data integrity would involve more expensive hardware solutions, though the current fiber-channel data backbone should have sufficient data transfer capacity to handle any such solutions we might adopt.
4) Update on network refresh
Tom Culver reported that we were reaching the end of service life (typically 4 to 6 years) for many of our campus network components, including hundreds of switches and thousands of ports. To maintain network integrity and reliability, these devices will all need replacement over the next couple of years, and periodically forever more. The first “edge” switches to be replaced will be those housed in the new Library and Information Commons (the secondary computer center), likely in May, followed by those in Raley Hall. Subsequent replacements will occur as the financial resources become available, probably using a parallel install/replace model where newer devices are placed into operation and tested alongside older ones, and connections being moved en mass after testing has been successfully completed. Culver projected an installation cycle of between three and twelve months on the outside with a three to six month cycle most likely. Culver reiterated that Appalachian needs to understand that the replacement of network equipment cannot be thought of or financed as a if it were a “one-time” expenditure - we have to accept the fact that this is a never-ending, expensive renewal cycle for the foreseeable future.
Culver mentioned that the student residential network (ResNet) would be receiving firmware upgrades to existing equipment rather than full switch replacements, beginning immediately after the end of spring semester. This process will first reclaim the thousands of IP addresses held by ResNet and then will bring residence halls back online, one at a time over the summer and complete before the start of fall semester.
On campus, Network Services will be bringing new wireless zones and capabilities online, using a parallel install/replace model similar to that mentioned for the “edge” switches. The newer equipment will be switch-based, allowing for significantly enhanced management and control of wireless connectivity using “lightweight” access points. “Lightweight” points allow for management from a central server with authentication off of a central authority rather than continuing with “legacy” access points that can be established by anyone with access to an ethernet port without any authorization whatsoever. Williams stated that wireless access in academic areas would be partially funded by E&T (Education and Technology fee) monies, since they will directly support instruction.
Van Gilder asked if Network Support Services (NSS) would be willing to coordinate with the college specialists to insure that network changes and/or installations occur in concert with planned renovations of academic building or residence halls. Culver agreed to do so to the extent that is possible, given the schedule NSS must meet for completion of its project. Hayler stated that NSS would coordinate with the specialists and other stakeholders to minimize the amount of rework that would be required during renovations or installations.
Williams mentioned that these actions and the move toward a managed wireless network was spurred by the clear need for standardization and security in the campus wireless environment.
Breiner noted that he and Culver had spoken about the need to develop an education program for faculty, to inform them about the strengths and limitations of wireless access. Both were concerned that faculty would see wireless access as a full replacement for wired connections and that many might erroneously assume that wireless bandwidth and security are the equals of the wired counterparts. To emphasize the point, Ong noted that when cards with different wireless protocols connect to the same access point, the bandwidths on all such connected devices are downgraded to that of the slowest protocol. Culver suggested that faculty should understand that multiprotocol adapters (rather than simply the cheapest ones) will provide the most reliable and versatile set of connection possibilities.
Tony Grant asked whether wireless devices would have access to the same network subnets as wired devices. Culver answered that wireless networks would not be able to access Appalachians “trusted” networks unless the users installed and configured VPN clients on their machines… with a VPN connections, users would have access to virtually all services. Culver also noted that the newer wireless infrastructure would eventually allow us to deploy 802.1x (information about 802.1x authentication available here) for automated generation and exchange of authentication keys for wireless devices.
Breiner asked whether there was yet an approved VPN client for Macintosh computers. Culver replied that there was not a yet a client for Macintosh that would work with our VPN because Macs use the IPSec protocol (information about IPSec available here) for VPN capabilities, but that communications with Macs can be enabled if we purchase add-on equipment for our network infrastructure.
Williams concluded this discussion by mentioning that the improvements to our network infrastructure over the last few years had were mainly financed by monies provided by the 2000 Higher Education Bond Program, funds from which have now been exhausted. Williams noted that this leaves the university without an established funding source for further development and maintenance of the network infrastructure and that the university must identify a way to insure that those needs will be addressed.
5) Update on TLT (future directions for course management software (CMS))
Breiner reported on the status of CMS at Appalachian, noting that we are currently using WebCT Campus Edition, version 4.1 for course management services. He informed the group that, due to SCT dropping support for the current version of its integration software (the components which automatically create courses, assign course sites to faculty, and enroll students in those sites), ICS would be installing the new Luminis Data Integration Services (LDIS) this summer and that there should be little if any effect on courses being offered during the changeover.
He noted that WebCT will be phasing out the version of WebCT software currently in use at Appalachian over the next one to two years and that the replacement products would represent radical changes from both end user and administrative standpoints. He suggested that the university begin a process to involve faculty and other stakeholders to evaluate whether to migrate to the upcoming WebCT products or to change CMS system altogether. Breiner stated that he would contact the college specialists and other stakeholders to discuss how to start and proceed with gathering the information needed to design a reasonable migration approach. He noted that he can now provide access for interested faculty or staff to WebCT’s current successor product, Vista 3.0, and asked ITAC to help identify volunteers to help evaluate that product and other possible options.
In a related vein, Breiner reported that the UNC Teaching and Learning with Technology Collaborative (TLTC, information available here) would likely sponsor a collaborative effort to install and make available to interested institutions the Sakai open-source CMS (Sakai project information available here). Sakai is being developed by a number of core universities and some 65 “partner” institutions to provide a license-free, full featured course management system, its program code available to any interested institutions at no cost. He stated that the TLTC board members from several UNC constituent institutions expressed enthusiastic interest for establishing a formal relationship between the UNC system and the Sakai organization.
Lastly Breiner reported that the TLTC in conjunction with the Academic Affairs division of the UNC Office of the President were exploring possibilities for establishing a system-wide review service for faculty interested in peer review of their online materials and/or courses. He stated that numerous practitioners of online teaching have expressed interest in establishing something analogous to peer review of publications for online TLT efforts, both to identify credible “best practices” and to promote the appropriate consideration of such efforts in tenure and promotion decisions. He then suggest that interested ITAC members contact him for further information and to participate in some of the ongoing discussions related to this issue.
6) Update on AppLEAP
Williams reported that the AppLEAP project to implement the Sungard SCT academic application suite (AKA Banner) had received some additional resources to help ease some implementation issues that have arisen. The expected deployment timeline includes Banner Finance (July 2005) and Banner Advancement (January 2006), though he noted some issues with a lack of consistency in and a fairly steep learning curve for the reporting features in the Banner Finance package. Despite the reporting concerns, he suggested that the Banner Self Service components, coupled with the user training very soon to begin, will provide much simpler operation than is currently the case with our FRS system.
Williams introduced Toni Becvinovski (Registrar’s Office) to discuss the AppLEAP web site, designed to provide timely information about the AppLEAP project. Becvinovski is developing the site a a central point for dissemination of information and training regarding the project and suggested that his office will coordinate development of training using multiple media and approaches to prevent some of the problems that arose during implementation of the Banner HR package. He announced that a committee had been established to identify and address issues than might otherwise lead to problems with database tables that must be shared by multiple components of the Banner system. The committee will also be investigating some possible service gaps in the Banner Student product over the summer.
Williams stated that, to address the need for improved training for the Banner system, ITS and the AppLEAP team are designing and plan to install a training facility, likely to be available before the end of this summer.
7) Status of inventory on student lab workstations and classroom presentation types
Williams reported that an inventory conducted with the help of the distributed college specialists had determined that Appalachian supports roughly 1500 computers in distributed public laboratories. Follow up are needed to determine whether the labs are open to the general student population or open only to students in certain majors or classes. Williams asked for suggestions for determining what would be appropriate numbers for centrally supported lab computers and for establishing a reasonable mechanism for adding or subtracting machines or labs to that centrally supported group.
He also mentioned a study underway to determine the needs and/or desires for technology in campus classrooms. Since such technology directly impacts student academic activity, the recently approved increase in the Education and Technology (E&T) fees can help provide and maintain those technologies. Williams introduced Jeff Church (ICS) who described a survey soon to be distributed to faculty to help assess what technologies are currently used, which would be used if available, and which would have little utility in the academic arena. He will send the proposed survey to the “Friday Tech Group” for comments and suggestions, and will distribute to faculty after that round of input.
Ed Pekarek (CS) asked whether it might be possible to establish a mechanism whereby purely academic considerations can inserted into any design or change processes involving construction of academic spaces. Breiner Pekarek asked whether he was proposing an “official” ITAC policy recommendation to require such consideration in the D & C process. Pekarek answered that his suggestion at this point was just a suggestion for a better mechanism to insure that academic issues be seriously considered. Bill Ward (AA) suggested that the new position in Space Management and Planning, held currently by Art Rex, would be an appropriate liaison for including such considerations into the design and construction process.
Other business
Williams mentioned to the group that the most recent State Information Resources Auditor’s report required Appalachian to address all of the recommendation therein within six months of the receipt of the report by the university. The end of that period is approaching and its end will see full implementation of the scanning requirements and other recommendations previously reported and described to the ITAC membership.
9) Adjournment
Williams bid the group a good weekend adjourned the meeting at 3:05 PM.
