This article is part of our "Tiger Bridge - Under the hood" series, where we uncover technical details about our product, dive deep into the solutions it offers, and explain which decisions we had to make while designing it.
Overview
Tiger Bridge is Tiger Technology’s on-premises first hybrid data management solution – a product we’ve been developing extensively in the past few years. While doing so, we had to make some decisions mainly towards usability from end user perspective. Our aim was for users to experience maximum comfort while using the application. They have come with certain requirements and needs, and we have tried to fulfill all of them.
The decisions we made along the way, including the reasoning behind them, can be summarized within the following structure:
-
- Dilemma
- Background
- Pros/Cons Analysis
- Decision
- Arguments
- Conclusion
We will be talking about our platform selection and installation/removal processes.\
Dilemma
While designing the product, one of the first decisions was whether to make an installable file and deliver the product as a software solution, or create a turn key hardware appliance.
Background
A hardware appliance is a finished product – in the eyes of the end user, it is the ultimate solution to their problem. Almost like buying a car – you get in and drive. A box with a start key.
The software is part of the solution – like a car navigation system. Without the car itself, it will do nothing. However, it is really powerful and can give you one hundred different configuration items.
Our dilemma was between the simple box with a start key and the hundred configuration settings.
Pros/Cons Analysis
While considering a software solution, we saw the following pros and cons:
|
Pros (software) |
Cons (hardware) |
|
Cost – you do not buy expensive hardware that breaks and is hard to maintain |
Complex installation – the software is harder to set up, there are OS, updates, and other software dependencies |
|
Lack of infrastructure complexity – for a HW appliance, you might need to configure networks, hardware, etc. |
Requires a systems administrator |
|
Flexibility – in a HW appliance, it is harder to benefit from others’ innovations (security compliance, performance improvements) |
Internal vulnerability – the new software presents a potential vulnerability, but an experienced systems administrator can isolate that |
Decision
Taking into consideration the above analysis, we decided to implement a software solution.
Arguments
Because of systems administrators, software solutions are generally easier to monitor. There are logs which can be reviewed as needed. Furthermore, our clients get much desired flexibility thanks to all the different settings we support.
Hardware is effortless to deploy as long as the infrastructure meets its prerequisites. If not, there may not be a good way to work with it. A software solution remains more preferable.
The hardware route is taken when there are no systems administrators, even at a higher cost.
Conclusion
We stand by our on-premises first hybrid cloud approach because it hits the sweet spot when it comes to serving mission-critical deployments. Since most of them have systems administrators, some of the cons in our analysis do not really apply. The majority of our clients have enough resources to serve complex deployments with our software, relying on our help and active support in the process. We firmly believe that with the right administrative staff, a software solution is the better approach.
Our decision was also driven by the desire to serve our most demanding clients. Although it is easier to build and maintain a hardware solution, we have put extra effort to provide what we believe is needed at a lower cost and with less infrastructure complexity, resulting in less disruption for our end clients.