Completion Report
Project Summary
Servers have been migrated and load balancers replaced.
There was virtually no interruption to services during this processes (one instance of Euclid being unavailable for a day).
|
|
Description of the Objective |
Success Criteria |
|||
|
|
Description of the Deliverables needed to achieve the objective |
|
|||
|
Objective 1 |
Migrate all servers as soon as possible |
A date will be set once analysis of migration process is doen during planning phase |
Achieved | ||
|
Deliverable D1.1 |
Identify all servers to be migrated
|
Signed off by Technical Lead |
Delivered | ||
|
Deliverable D1.2 |
Migrate the Servers |
Signed off by Service owners/Enterprise | Delivered | ||
|
|
|||||
|
Objective 2 |
Replace current Load Balancers |
|
Achieved | ||
|
Deliverable D2.1 |
Migrate all services from using existing Load Balancers to new |
Signed off by Technical Lead | Delivered | ||
| Objective 3 |
Decommission servers not migrated |
Achieved | |||
|
Deliverable D3.1 |
Identify all servers not to be migrated |
Signed off by Technical Lead | Delivered | ||
|
Decommission the servers | Signed off by Technical Lead | Delivered |
Benefits
Benefits already enabled by the Project
|
Benefit |
Description |
|
|
Reduction in day-to-day cost of operation |
|
|
Increased agility in delivering infrastructure to customers |
|
|
Increased productivity |
|
|
reduced time-to-production for service delivery |
|
|
Consolidating hardware to a smaller footprint is more energy efficient |
|
|
Improved power efficiency |
|
|
Reduction in carbon emissions in Datacentres. |
|
|
High resilience and availability and adaptive performance to ensure the most efficient use of infrastructure to meet the changing usage of services over time whilst maintaining security |
Lessons Learned - Issues and Risks
The reliance on the suppliers to provide an automated solution proved to be a decision that cost the project around six months of delay - it turned out that taking an 'in-house' manual approach was fasster and effective.