Welcome!

Websphere Authors: Carmen Gonzalez, Yeshim Deniz, Elizabeth White, Sanjeev Sharma, Liz McMillan

Related Topics: Websphere, Java, XML, SOA & WOA, Linux, IT SOLUTIONS GUIDE, Eclipse

Websphere: Article

Breaking News: New Internal IBM Report Says "Another Flawed Study"

IBM Response to Study "Comparing Microsoft .NET and IBM WebSphere/J2EE?"

IBM Response to the study entitled

"Comparing Microsoft .NET and IBM WebSphere/J2EE"

by The Middleware Company

 

October 2004

IBM Competitive Technology Lab 

 

Another Flawed Study

 

The latest Middleware Company study is flawed and does not accurately reflect the capability of WebSphere J2EE vs. Microsoft .NET. Like two previous discredited Middleware Company studies, this study was funded by Microsoft. While expert Microsoft programmers were allowed to contribute to the .NET side, neither IBM nor other WebSphere J2EE product experts were invited to contribute to the testing.

 

The Middleware Company publicly retracted the results of its previous J2EE vs. .NET study because of serious errors in its testing methodologies and its failure to invite J2EE vendors to participate. [1] This study has similar problems. The products and toolsets compared in the testing were mismatched, and relatively crude WebSphere J2EE programming techniques were used rather than the most optimal tools and programming methodologies. Statements made within the study show that the choice of tools and methodologies were purposeful.

 

The cost comparison between IBM and Microsoft also is inaccurate and does not represent a real-world environment. In addition, there were important cost considerations missing on the Microsoft side.

 

The Middleware Company's WebSphere J2EE programmers failed to use development practices that would have yielded more favorable results for WebSphere J2EE - for example, practices that would enable software reuse across enterprise architectures. The study also did not attempt to measure the advantages of team development across a business with multiple team members involved. Rather, the study timed the work of three relatively inexperienced WebSphere developers. The results are misleading in each of the categories the tests aimed to measure--Development Productivity, Tuning Productivity, Performance, Manageability, and Reliability.

 

In its apology and retraction letter for its last J2EE vs. .NET test, The Middleware Company wrote: "We also admit to having made an error in process judgment by inviting Microsoft to participate in this benchmark, but not inviting the J2EE vendors to participate in this benchmark." [2]

 

Inviting an expert Microsoft partner to participate while not inviting IBM or an IBM partner to participate was once again a fatal flaw. Using outside experts for the Microsoft .NET programming team while using its own employees for the WebSphere J2EE programming team is an obvious conflict of interest in a study funded by Microsoft.

 

We believe that if J2EE development best practices had been used, the developer productivity would have exceeded that of Visual Studio.NET. The performance and manageability of the WebSphere J2EE application also would have exceeded the published numbers.

 

Microsoft's track record on these types of studies is not good, and users should generally approach them with caution. Besides two previous Middleware Company studies that were retracted, [3] Forrester Research issued a disclaimer of its Microsoft-sponsored study on the cost of ownership of Linux vs. Windows, [4] and a similar IDC Linux/Windows study was discredited in Business Week by one of its authors. [5]

 

A closer look at how the tests were conducted and the results framed reveals why The Middleware Company study is without merit. 


[1] In the Appendix is the complete text of The Middleware Company retraction letter published in November 2002.

[2] The Middleware Company, "A Message to the J2EE and .NET Communities," November 8, 2002.

 

[3] The initial Middleware Company Pet Shop study and the J2EE vs. .NET study cited in the retraction in the Appendix.

[4] "Forrester Alters Integrity Policy," CNET News.com, October 7, 2003. "Forrester published a new policy that forbids vendors that commission studies from publicizing their results. The new policy follows the release last month of a study that concluded that companies spent less when developing certain programs with the Windows operating system than with Linux. Giga polled just 12 companies for the study, which led some critics to question the report's statistical relevance."

[5] "Pecked by Penguins," Business Week, March 3, 2003. Says the report: "One of the study's authors accuses Microsoft of stacking the deck. IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky says the company selected scenarios that would inevitably be more costly using Linux."


Wrong "WebSphere" Tool

 

One of the largest faults of the study is the focus on Rational Rapid Developer (RRD) as the primary J2EE development tool from IBM. The results for RRD are represented as "WebSphere" and RRD is characterized as the main WebSphere development tool. However, IBM has never marketed RRD as a full-blown WebSphere toolset with all the functionality of WebSphere Studio Application Developer (WSAD). WSAD is the tool intended specifically for building integrated enterprise J2EE applications.

 

Comparing VS.NET to RRD is not a fair comparison, nor is it the comparison IBM would have recommended. Why then did The Middleware Company characterize Rational Rapid Developer as the primary tool for WebSphere J2EE environment? The choice is particularly odd in light of the fact that they were aware that WSAD was the "mainstream" tool for WebSphere development (and that they achieved better results with WSAD). Articles in the trade press reported that the WSAD results were "unofficial" because they were not as controlled as the RRD measurements. This explanation was provided by The Middleware Company and Microsoft.

 

The WSAD results in this study were comparable to VS.NET in developer time spent on the project. The approach to application development in RRD is very different from WSAD, so the theory postulated in the study that the WSAD results were boosted by the experience the team gained using RRD are not credible.

 

The bottom line is that The Middleware Company chose to emphasize and give more weight to a tool that would not be recommended by IBM as the primary tool for WebSphere J2EE development. By focusing on RRD, the study draws attention away from the more favorable results posted by WSAD, which is IBM's premier application development tool and the direct competitor to VS.NET. Representing RRD in this way is inaccurate and misleading.

 

The table below summarizes the development tool comparisons made in the study:

________________________

Development Productivity            .NET beats RRD            .NET  = WSAD              WSAD beats RRD

Tuning Productivity                     .NET beats RRD            .NET  = WSAD              - uncertain -

Performance                              .NET beats RRD            .NET  = WSAD              WSAD beats RRD        

Manageability                            .NET beats RRD            .NET beats WSAD         RRD beats WSAD

 

RRD = Rational Rapid Developer

WSAD = WebSphere Studio Application Developer

_______________________

 

In order to have a fair comparison, you should make more of an attempt at having a level playing field. Here are the specific problems in this study which invalidate the results.

 

Unequal Programming Teams

 

Among the most questionable claims made in the study were that the .NET and J2EE programming teams were equal in programming experience and knowledge of their respective platforms. Having programming teams of equal skills is critical to the credibility of the end results.

 

The report states that three Microsoft "senior developers" were sourced from a Microsoft Solution Provider (Vertigo Software). The J2EE developers were sourced from The Middleware Company. Why were the J2EE developers not sourced from an IBM business partner that would have had some knowledge about IBM products?

 

There is an obvious disparity in the skill level of the .NET and WebSphere team exhibited during the actual development work. The Microsoft team exhibits amazing experience and depth of knowledge. An example is the Microsoft team's decision to code distributed transactions using "ServiceDomain classes" instead of  the "COM+ catalog." ServiceDomain classes are very new, very complex, and not that well understood and documented.

 

Another example of the high skill level of the .NET developers was their use of "Data Access Application Block" (DAAB) for enhancement of performance. This is not a standard part of .NET and one must go out explicitly and download and install it. To decide to code the distributed transactions with ServiceDomain classes and to add DAAB for performance enhancement, and to have it work the first time, shows a deep amount of technical skill.

 

The WebSphere team, on the other hand, exhibited little or no experience with WebSphere Studio Application Developer. Their inexperience is obvious and is easily traced throughout the study.

  • The study reports (pg.37) that "the .NET team was undoubtedly more experienced with their tool than the J2EE team with theirs."
  • The J2EE team decided to install the Sun JVM rather than the IBM-supplied JVM 1.4.1. WebSphere Studio product requirements state to use the IBM JVM or unpredictable results can occur. The unpredictable results that occurred later (pg. 59-60) were an unrecognized parameter during garbage collection. The time it took to troubleshoot and fix the problem counted against the J2EE team. The substitution of the Sun JVM can only be explained lack of experience with WebSphere Studio. If the intent was to test how WebSphere Studio performed, why would you introduce a non-IBM JVM?
  •  The J2EE team decided not to do any source code management (pg. 32), even though ClearCase LT and CVS were available. "Instead they divided their work carefully and copied changed source files between their machines." The .NET team used Visual SourceSafe for source control. Does the J2EE decision indicate experienced developers?  Problems resulted (pg. 45) for the J2EE developers that increased their development time. It appears again that lack of experience played a role in this poor decision.
  •  The J2EE team decided to use the Sun J2ME wireless toolkit in Sun One Studio to create an application for a mobile device that was part of the specification. The code generated from the Sun wireless toolkit did not work with the RRD-generated application. Again, this displays a lack of experience in not using the WebSphere Studio tools to interface with the mobile device.

  • It took the J2EE team extra time to discover that they had a SIMPLE rights (SELECT rights) user error when they went to access the Oracle database. This counted as developer productivity time and again showed lack of  experience.
  • The J2EE developer team used POJO (Plain Old Java Object) instead of what best practice might have indicated here - EJBs. It was noted later in the report that the team created a "framework" to handle the JDBC access. If they had used EJB's, they would have had the container handle the pooled requests and it can be argued that the performance would have been better. In the POJO scenario, a new connection had to be created for EVERY call to the database which is very expensive. In addition, they spent extra time developing a "crude" framework to handle the requests, which counted against them.
  • The J2EE team chose not to use (or did not seem aware of) the more productive tools available such as Java Server Faces and Service Data Objects.
  • The J2EE team specifically chose not to use the Model View Controler approach such as STRUTS technology.

 

Despite the fact that the three J2EE assigned developers from The Middleware Company had little or no experience with WebSphere Studio, and did not use recommended best practices, WebSphere Studio was still robust enough to allow the J2EE team to equal the results of the expert Microsoft team using VS.NET in the areas of developer productivity, configuration, tuning and performance.

 

Software Platform Disparity

 

For a fair performance comparison, the software platforms being tested should be equal. However, in addition to the lack of J2EE developer experience, different databases and operating systems were used in this test. Consider the following:

  •  Although an attempt was made to make the hardware equivalent, that did not hold true for the base development systems. The Microsoft development team's system consisted of Windows XP and a pre-loaded SQL Server database. The J2EE team's system had Windows XP and a pre-loaded Oracle database. These two different databases were used in the production environment as well. Why were two different databases used by the two teams? At the very least, the databases should have been tuned, optimized, tested, and certified that they were performing equally. We have no information or data to indicate how they compared.                   

This flaw by itself should be enough to call the entire performance results into question. Before a single line of code was written, the entire study was suspect.

  • Linux was mandated to run the performance tests. A real performance test should compare one competitor to another with as much commonality as possible. The WebSphere J2EE tests should have been run on the same platform (Windows Server 2003) as the .NET tests.

 

Single-Tier Restrictions

 

The configurations in The Middleware Company study were restricted, which benefited Microsoft in performance vs. the J2EE application. The study did not allow for multiple-tier implementations - configurations that would mirror real-world usage. Customers like to separate physical tiers of Web applications because it gives them more flexibility for allocation of resources on a tier-by-tier basis and the ability to separate tiers for security and/or geographical concerns.

 

There were a number of other factors in The Middleware Company study that impeded the J2EE application's performance:

 

  • The Edge server is not needed and adds another layer that is not required. Using the IBM HTTP Server where the Edge Server is, and deleting the two IBM HTTP Servers from the Application Server machine would suffice. This would decrease the complexity and total path length of the application, and allow more processing power for the application servers.

  • The teams used different patterns to design the applications. The Microsoft team used a stored procedures pattern while the J2EE team did not. It is quite possible that better performance had been achieved on the J2EE side if it had had the same playing field.

  • Heap size affects the amount of memory allocated to the Java Virtual Machine. One would want to dedicate as much memory as possible to the heap size. The heap sizes were allocated stating that the servers had 1 GB of memory each. This appears to be incorrect. The diagram on page 26 states the servers are 2 GB each, as does the CN2 Technology auditor report. A higher heap size should have been used, something like a minimum heap size of 1,256 MB and a maximum of 1,536 MB.

  • The standard method of storing data in the HTTP sessions was not used. The standard method of storing session data for both should been used.

  • The use of two datasources in the J2EE case affects performance negatively. The two datasources allocated were one, an XA compliant for two-phase commit; the other one was not XA compliant. Their claim was that by splitting the requests to each of the data sources, performance would improve. In theory that might be true; however, it basically precludes sharing of data connections between the two datasourses, and all the database requests going through the XA datasource would lock the tables for other transactions. If they had a single XA datasource, they could satisfy the two-phase commit and the connection pooling. Performance might have improved because of the ability to cache the connection pools.

  • In general, the performance runs were done based on achieving a maximum response time of one second. The servers were not driven to maximum capacity.  It is never stated what the limiting resource was on the system. A more realistic view of performance and stability is a stress run, where there is no "think time" or wait time between interactions, and the only constrained resource is the application server under test.

  • On the integrated scenario, the testers conveniently chose to implement 75% of the application where Microsoft is slightly better than IBM, and only 25% of the application where IBM is better than Microsoft on a 2 to 1 ratio, when run together. If one does the math on the separate scenarios, IBM should have been 650 vs. 550 for Microsoft, yet with integrated scenario IBM is 482 vs. 855 for Microsoft.  There are no details on the throughput for each application in the integrated scenario, and there is no attempt to ascertain the limiting resource(s) during the runs, yet we are expected to believe that the applications themselves ran slower because they were run concurrently on separate servers. 

Cost Manipulations

 

The study's cost assessment is inaccurate -adding costs to the IBM side while excluding costs that should have been associated to Microsoft. One such extraneous cost was the use of high-end 4-way servers, which was unnecessary and raised the WebSphere configuration cost significantly.  For example, a typical configuration like the one in the study could have been deployed on three 2-way servers instead of the 4-way servers that were used.

 

The Middleware Company's J2EE team initially used a three-node configuration (pg. 28) but added a fourth server to run WebSphere MQ Series.  The developers' lack of experience added unnecessary cost to the configuration because a JMS server ships native with the WebSphere Application server at no extra cost.  This unnecessary use of hardware and software increased the cost of the WebSphere configuration by more than $200,000.

 

While IBM's costs were inflated, we believe the Microsoft configuration costs were understated.  The Microsoft configuration was missing an extra year of Software Assurance for the Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Server license.  This was due to The Middleware Company's misinterpretation of the terms of the Open Value Agreement, which is three years, not two.  The Microsoft configuration should be increased by $595 per server to cover the cost of an extra year of software assurance.

 

 

In a typical configuration, users are required to authenticate before gaining access to Web applications. Each client device would require a Microsoft client access license (CAL).  Client access licenses are fees Microsoft charges customers for each user or device that accesses a Microsoft Windows server and Microsoft's middleware server. These fees are costly and are in addition to the base server pricing.  In Microsoft's Software Assurance licensing scheme, users pay an additional 25% of the CAL cost per year for three years.  The WebSphere configuration doesn't require users to pay an extra cost for client access and also allows unlimited customer and external customer access to the middleware servers. As shown in the charts below, the inclusion of CAL cost increases the overall price of the Microsoft configuration.

 

Another omission was the MSDN enterprise subscription cost that reflected only one year rather than the three-year terms of the Open Value Agreement.  This would add an additional $5,000 to the Microsoft pricing.

 

The study's assessment of pricing is skewed in other ways that favor Microsoft.  For example, the Microsoft configuration is based on a nonsecure environment that would be considered a security risk in a real-world deployment. The WebSphere architecture provides native reliability and security as a standard and does not require users to pay an extra cost for secure client access.

 

The Microsoft configuration does not require users to authenticate against Active Directory, allowing anonymous users access to the studies' Web applications. Not using authentication or security simplified the development of the .NET application and left the environment open to the types of security risks that dominate the news headlines.

 

The Middleware Company's cost model understated the full Microsoft costs required for the scenario.  A more thorough study of the total costs of ownership shows that Linux and WAS Express have costs slightly lower than the Microsoft solution.  This is in strong contrast to their claim that WebSphere would cost ten times more than the Microsoft solution. Below is our assessment of IBM and Microsoft pricing based on a typical customer deployment.

 

...continued on page 2

More Stories By Jeremy Geelan

Jeremy Geelan is Chairman & CEO of the 21st Century Internet Group, Inc. and an Executive Academy Member of the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences. Formerly he was President & COO at Cloud Expo, Inc. and Conference Chair of the worldwide Cloud Expo series. He appears regularly at conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences across six continents. You can follow him on twitter: @jg21.

Comments (18) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
Tabby Rasah 11/03/04 12:04:37 AM EST

Is the Middleware Company really independent? I think they're a subsidiary of Veritas--not that they are a platform vendor, but you have to figure there's some cross-interests there.

Movie Lover 10/31/04 12:20:23 PM EST

What is TMC? The Movie Channel?

Al 10/28/04 11:43:58 PM EDT

This so-called "leaked" report is as questionable as the .NET/J2EE comparison including the claim that even with the inexperienced J2EE developers, they were still more productive than the experienced .NET developers using WebSphere. C'mon, SysCon, stop wasting our time and perpetuating this debate publishing this dribble. You might as well be publishing articles to pursuade people to change their political leanings.

Edu 10/28/04 04:36:52 PM EDT

Chris, it doesn't metter what 'staff' you like more. It metter what technology is more suitable for which task. I would like to see someone who had made Windows drivers with Java?

Mario, there isn't a question about Microsoft trying to strengthen .NET position in 'MS native' market. MS try to put .NET based solutions into J2EE market. This is why they participate in this study. This is a MS way marketing.

Consultant 10/28/04 11:27:15 AM EDT

I find it hard to believe that a J2EE developer worth their weight would design their own framework, not use struts, not use connection pooling, and not at least use session EJB's in the design for this application. There's no benchmarking of the databases, and you're telling me that the results are not based on stress tests? What industry do they work in? I've consulted and assisted with implementations at many Fortune 500 companies, and I can tell you that the tests were not anything like what happens in the real world.

Mario 10/27/04 03:25:31 PM EDT

It is amazing how Microsoft is so scared of J2EE that they have to cheapen themselves by taking part in the study. If .Net is as great as they profess it to be, I am sure that more companies would be using it.

It is just like politics - say anything to ruin your competitor and the common un-educated folks will believe it.

With the money that Microsoft has to throw around it is amazing that everything we use is not running some kind of Microsoft OS on it.

Software Architect 10/27/04 12:36:01 PM EDT

You cannot take any of these comparisons seriously. The fact that the J2EE project was developed by non-experts is a plus in my eyes since most projects do not have so called "experts" on it. I never take development time comparisons seriously either since that is always dependent on the team and the project. So which tools were used are almost irrelevant to me. In fact, any platform dependent on a specific tool for development is a poorly designed platform. More important is how the platform performs, so the fact that the IBM JVM was not used is probably the most valid complaint. The fact that the DAAB was used for the .NET and has to be downloaded is a petty complaint. IBM has tons of tools downloadable from their site to aid development as well. I'd like to see a test where two non-expert teams can pick whatever tools they like, use any generally available software from the vendors, and given a specific amount of time to attach the same problem.

WebSphere Lover 10/27/04 09:14:22 AM EDT

Sure Microsoft should sponsor the report like they did and the clowns at TMC should announce the results as an independent study. Way to go Chris

Chris 10/27/04 09:07:41 AM EDT

Sounds like the old, it's not the tools its the programmer who uses them issue. True enough in most circumstances I suppose. Then again, I have no doubt that an newbie coder could be productive with .Net in a much shorter time. I love the Java stuff tools and mindset, but the .Net stuff is by far much easier to develop with.

Mike Driver 10/27/04 07:38:55 AM EDT

The damage is done now, even if the report is discredited.
IBM could respond by sponsoring it's own impartial study using experts from both sides of the arguement. But that would probably end up being biased in favour of Websphere/J2EE.
It would take a truely impartial group to create a truely impartial study... but where is the incentive.

Ben 10/27/04 07:16:31 AM EDT

Cameron, this is in response to a *new* TMC study, not the original one in 2002.

malcolm davis 10/27/04 12:28:35 AM EDT

I read the Middleware report, and the details. After investing a great deal of time in both J2EE and .NET, I knew the report was serious flawed.

The TMC report also led you to believe that they had invited IBM developers. The Middleware had demonstrated that it is nothing more than a political hack. Unfortunately, damage is done when reports like TMC are published at legitimate sites.

What should happen now? Legitimate sites should ban printing anything from TMC, even if TMC has genuine news. The only way to kill a political hack is to cut its output venues.

Cameron 10/26/04 07:52:21 PM EDT

odd that it takes IBM two years to get a response out ..

Matthew Quinlan 10/26/04 06:26:03 PM EDT

Interesting. It is easy to throw stones at any benchmark or comparison study. However, it is a much more difficult task to actually design and conduct one. While the funding by Microsoft is clearly a conflict of interest, I would expect that even a truly independent comparison would generate many of the same inconsistencies. The fact is that these kinds of comparisons must take into account so many variables that have their own tradeoffs (and no clear corresponding variable on the competitor's platform) that the margin of error is larger than the absolute results.

This type of analysis is therefore relegated to for-hire companies (e.g. TMC) who provide fodder for customer executives who wish to defend their existing or upcoming technology decisions.

Alexander 10/26/04 06:16:11 PM EDT

The whole buzz in this article mainly shows one thing - it doesn't matter what tool and environment is used, the question is who is using it.
Use bad programmer and you get bad application.
However one more thing is also evident. The dot.com boom dropped to the market a lot of half baked programmers and most of them know the Java as their only tool.

Scott Simmons 10/26/04 11:13:54 AM EDT

I find it a very large concern when an "independent" group (The Middleware Company) professes vendor neautrality and then publishes a report which would not even qualify for an undergraduate Computer Science class homework assignment -- it is clear that they are not acting in the best interest of the market when they publish these types of reports. It could be said that they are only harming themselves (as per limiting their credibility) but I take exception as lead decision makers depend on these types of reports to make critical business decisions. Makes you wonder about how the report has been funded ... and brings to mind the ongoing LINUX versus Windows ramblings that Microsoft is pushing. You would think that Microsoft should be spending money on fixing the huge number of security glitches (that still remain after SP2) versus engaging it what looks like a well-funded attack campaign. It actually reminds me of the political election process we are witnessing across the US ...

Heath 10/26/04 05:11:09 AM EDT

Yes lets make sure all comparisons are actually equal. The Vendor interests must be taken into account in a way that enables true best practise and (as close as possible to) real-world deployment.

By the same token, vendor interests that unnecessarily bias against others must be avoided or, if that is not possible, clearly identified and 'costed' into the comparisons.

I wonder how TMC would feel about an orgainsation committing itself to a big project based on their 'test' results with open slather to sue them for each discovery that was contrary to their findings? That is the real test.

(I'm not troubled by the '3 fonts', but your link to Table 2 for the Microsoft costings is wrong - it points to the IBM Table. It is important to see the MS details as well)

sa 10/26/04 02:36:03 AM EDT

Completely ignoring the content of the article, why do you have to publish this with so many fonts?!?! There has to be at least 3 sizes and two faces in use throughout this article. I expected better....

@ThingsExpo Stories
Scott Jenson leads a project called The Physical Web within the Chrome team at Google. Project members are working to take the scalability and openness of the web and use it to talk to the exponentially exploding range of smart devices. Nearly every company today working on the IoT comes up with the same basic solution: use my server and you'll be fine. But if we really believe there will be trillions of these devices, that just can't scale. We need a system that is open a scalable and by using the URL as a basic building block, we open this up and get the same resilience that the web enjoys.
The Internet of Things is tied together with a thin strand that is known as time. Coincidentally, at the core of nearly all data analytics is a timestamp. When working with time series data there are a few core principles that everyone should consider, especially across datasets where time is the common boundary. In his session at Internet of @ThingsExpo, Jim Scott, Director of Enterprise Strategy & Architecture at MapR Technologies, discussed single-value, geo-spatial, and log time series data. By focusing on enterprise applications and the data center, he will use OpenTSDB as an example t...
P2P RTC will impact the landscape of communications, shifting from traditional telephony style communications models to OTT (Over-The-Top) cloud assisted & PaaS (Platform as a Service) communication services. The P2P shift will impact many areas of our lives, from mobile communication, human interactive web services, RTC and telephony infrastructure, user federation, security and privacy implications, business costs, and scalability. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Robin Raymond, Chief Architect at Hookflash, will walk through the shifting landscape of traditional telephone and voice services ...
The Domain Name Service (DNS) is one of the most important components in networking infrastructure, enabling users and services to access applications by translating URLs (names) into IP addresses (numbers). Because every icon and URL and all embedded content on a website requires a DNS lookup loading complex sites necessitates hundreds of DNS queries. In addition, as more internet-enabled ‘Things' get connected, people will rely on DNS to name and find their fridges, toasters and toilets. According to a recent IDG Research Services Survey this rate of traffic will only grow. What's driving t...
Enthusiasm for the Internet of Things has reached an all-time high. In 2013 alone, venture capitalists spent more than $1 billion dollars investing in the IoT space. With "smart" appliances and devices, IoT covers wearable smart devices, cloud services to hardware companies. Nest, a Google company, detects temperatures inside homes and automatically adjusts it by tracking its user's habit. These technologies are quickly developing and with it come challenges such as bridging infrastructure gaps, abiding by privacy concerns and making the concept a reality. These challenges can't be addressed w...
Explosive growth in connected devices. Enormous amounts of data for collection and analysis. Critical use of data for split-second decision making and actionable information. All three are factors in making the Internet of Things a reality. Yet, any one factor would have an IT organization pondering its infrastructure strategy. How should your organization enhance its IT framework to enable an Internet of Things implementation? In his session at Internet of @ThingsExpo, James Kirkland, Chief Architect for the Internet of Things and Intelligent Systems at Red Hat, described how to revolutioniz...
Bit6 today issued a challenge to the technology community implementing Web Real Time Communication (WebRTC). To leap beyond WebRTC’s significant limitations and fully leverage its underlying value to accelerate innovation, application developers need to consider the entire communications ecosystem.
The definition of IoT is not new, in fact it’s been around for over a decade. What has changed is the public's awareness that the technology we use on a daily basis has caught up on the vision of an always on, always connected world. If you look into the details of what comprises the IoT, you’ll see that it includes everything from cloud computing, Big Data analytics, “Things,” Web communication, applications, network, storage, etc. It is essentially including everything connected online from hardware to software, or as we like to say, it’s an Internet of many different things. The difference ...
Cloud Expo 2014 TV commercials will feature @ThingsExpo, which was launched in June, 2014 at New York City's Javits Center as the largest 'Internet of Things' event in the world.
SYS-CON Events announced today that Windstream, a leading provider of advanced network and cloud communications, has been named “Silver Sponsor” of SYS-CON's 16th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 9–11, 2015, at the Javits Center in New York, NY. Windstream (Nasdaq: WIN), a FORTUNE 500 and S&P 500 company, is a leading provider of advanced network communications, including cloud computing and managed services, to businesses nationwide. The company also offers broadband, phone and digital TV services to consumers primarily in rural areas.
"There is a natural synchronization between the business models, the IoT is there to support ,” explained Brendan O'Brien, Co-founder and Chief Architect of Aria Systems, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at the 15th International Cloud Expo®, held Nov 4–6, 2014, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
The major cloud platforms defy a simple, side-by-side analysis. Each of the major IaaS public-cloud platforms offers their own unique strengths and functionality. Options for on-site private cloud are diverse as well, and must be designed and deployed while taking existing legacy architecture and infrastructure into account. Then the reality is that most enterprises are embarking on a hybrid cloud strategy and programs. In this Power Panel at 15th Cloud Expo (http://www.CloudComputingExpo.com), moderated by Ashar Baig, Research Director, Cloud, at Gigaom Research, Nate Gordon, Director of T...

ARMONK, N.Y., Nov. 20, 2014 /PRNewswire/ --  IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced that it is bringing a greater level of control, security and flexibility to cloud-based application development and delivery with a single-tenant version of Bluemix, IBM's platform-as-a-service. The new platform enables developers to build ap...

An entirely new security model is needed for the Internet of Things, or is it? Can we save some old and tested controls for this new and different environment? In his session at @ThingsExpo, New York's at the Javits Center, Davi Ottenheimer, EMC Senior Director of Trust, reviewed hands-on lessons with IoT devices and reveal a new risk balance you might not expect. Davi Ottenheimer, EMC Senior Director of Trust, has more than nineteen years' experience managing global security operations and assessments, including a decade of leading incident response and digital forensics. He is co-author of t...
Technology is enabling a new approach to collecting and using data. This approach, commonly referred to as the "Internet of Things" (IoT), enables businesses to use real-time data from all sorts of things including machines, devices and sensors to make better decisions, improve customer service, and lower the risk in the creation of new revenue opportunities. In his General Session at Internet of @ThingsExpo, Dave Wagstaff, Vice President and Chief Architect at BSQUARE Corporation, discuss the real benefits to focus on, how to understand the requirements of a successful solution, the flow of ...
The security devil is always in the details of the attack: the ones you've endured, the ones you prepare yourself to fend off, and the ones that, you fear, will catch you completely unaware and defenseless. The Internet of Things (IoT) is nothing if not an endless proliferation of details. It's the vision of a world in which continuous Internet connectivity and addressability is embedded into a growing range of human artifacts, into the natural world, and even into our smartphones, appliances, and physical persons. In the IoT vision, every new "thing" - sensor, actuator, data source, data con...
"BSQUARE is in the business of selling software solutions for smart connected devices. It's obvious that IoT has moved from being a technology to being a fundamental part of business, and in the last 18 months people have said let's figure out how to do it and let's put some focus on it, " explained Dave Wagstaff, VP & Chief Architect, at BSQUARE Corporation, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at @ThingsExpo, held Nov 4-6, 2014, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
Focused on this fast-growing market’s needs, Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (Nasdaq: VTSS), a leading provider of IC solutions to advance "Ethernet Everywhere" in Carrier, Enterprise and Internet of Things (IoT) networks, introduced its IStaX™ software (VSC6815SDK), a robust protocol stack to simplify deployment and management of Industrial-IoT network applications such as Industrial Ethernet switching, surveillance, video distribution, LCD signage, intelligent sensors, and metering equipment. Leveraging technologies proven in the Carrier and Enterprise markets, IStaX is designed to work ac...
C-Labs LLC, a leading provider of remote and mobile access for the Internet of Things (IoT), announced the appointment of John Traynor to the position of chief operating officer. Previously a strategic advisor to the firm, Mr. Traynor will now oversee sales, marketing, finance, and operations. Mr. Traynor is based out of the C-Labs office in Redmond, Washington. He reports to Chris Muench, Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Traynor brings valuable business leadership and technology industry expertise to C-Labs. With over 30 years' experience in the high-tech sector, John Traynor has held numerous...
The 3rd International @ThingsExpo, co-located with the 16th International Cloud Expo - to be held June 9-11, 2015, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY - announces that it is now accepting Keynote Proposals. The Internet of Things (IoT) is the most profound change in personal and enterprise IT since the creation of the Worldwide Web more than 20 years ago. All major researchers estimate there will be tens of billions devices - computers, smartphones, tablets, and sensors - connected to the Internet by 2020. This number will continue to grow at a rapid pace for the next several decades.