Brian Murphy, 214-803-2853
Owner – Private, Independent Consultant Large investment from personal savings Utilize Linkedin as primary dynamic resume Manage 2 groups, guest blogger, published on LinkedIn by way of Scribd (www.documento.com) Contracting is highly inconsistent and combine that with a necessity to be honest, maintain integrity and honor when I assess a situation I am often dismissed from bidding due to my unwillingness to patch bad designs unless the owners are willing to invest money to build solid foundations and trust me as the SME, the history I present in writing, the recommendations validating my accomplishments. However, with downtime presents new opportunity by way of publications and blogging. 15 years with 3 companies, 1 year in April as W2, 1099 consultant. An itch I had to scratch otherwise would always wonder or regretted not attempting to build my own company by practice as a Citrix SME. Now that I am anti-consultant, I just prefer FTE travel or no travel but with travel I already have the passport so all I need is a corporate card (and car?) and I’m ready!
Officially, I am seeking FTE with a great company so that I may contribute the maximum and continue my learning. However, that does not mean I would turn down a great Citrix project if one presents. For more details on this statement, please see my published article: (http://goo.gl/hG63y)
Deliverables/Statement of Work/Personal (ALL PROJECTS – See Below) [And portion of SLA’s]
I found my secret sauce and committed the recipe to memory. On any Citrix SME engagement, I utilize certain “repeatable processes”; it is for that reason, I can safely commit to certain deliverables assuming no red tape and hands and full management approval and support: I would first ask everyone to consider why VOS exists, whether VA’s or VOS (Virtual Operating System) (Virtual Applications). A simple reminder that VOS exists to provide the end-users access to business applications from anywhere, anytime, and ultimately any device including a shift toward smaller devices such as “name your IOS”. My first objective is to assure a solid foundation built around those applications by creating a “Lifecycle Management for Business Applications” that has never failed me; along with a TCOE aka “Testing Center of Excellence” which will never fail you and creates collaboration much needed before the application (internal developers) meet – in my case – Citrix XenApp. I use XenApp to host your applications. I use AppDNA to eliminate months of time using legacy tools of past. However, to use AppDNA the applications must be to a “certain state” and only then, after the initial work is done can AppDNA do the magic that ulti mately saves 50% on port to XenApp and I use it to create my migration plan as to who goes first, second, and so forth. I never install applications in the desktop. I use read-only desktops. One per company, in most cases – but that is the final goal regardless. I use best practice; applications reside on XenApp using Microsoft and Citrix best practices for hosting applications in multiuser RDS environments designed with shared memory / resources. Published applications only to reduce overhead further by eliminating certain processes not required. With all applications now residing in one delivery mechanism designed to provide maximum IOPS savings, it also eliminates further install into any VOS just updates to the single RDS image. Applications are now isolated from the VOS creating “agility”. Particularly when moving to Windows 8 requires no changes to the application. The virtual OS is merely a conduit, I leverage technology to “present” the applications to the desktop so the user sees the application as if through a looking glass but appears to run local yet XenDesktop image might have 30 applications presented and will not exceed 15 IOPS. I provide this information now, because this is the easy part compared to what comes after, all repeatable processes, all documented, all tested, all validated, but if we agree to disagree on my most basic deliverable then I request a disclaimer in the SOW so that at some point, 6 months down the road – all your resources are allocated to working tickets and what should have cost you less every year, blows up, that money is gone, and VOS is given a bad name because there is such a thing as good chef’s and bad chef’s.
VCISSGROUP – ENTERPRISE CONTRACTS
First Data, High Security Government Division
Deliverables/Statement of Work:
Citrix SME requested by way of referral to assess current VOS solution and provide alternative recommendations focused primarily on CAPEX, ROI, TCO and OPEX st Provide proposal by December 1 of 2012 for centralized, agile, VOS solution with local HA, using no Fiber Channel with end state goal to eliminate cost of dual-HBA, FC fabric costs, utilizing POD design and NAS only with NFS for VDISKS store and CIFS NAS for 30,000 users Emphasis on streamlining procurement process and IT Security Fulfillment process, and disproportionate high number of tickets to user ratio
Brian Murphy, 214-803-2853
Provide input for low cost, efficient way for users to access existing View environment consisting of unmatched hardware, shared and private mode images utilizing EMC thin provisioned storage. Extensive background check, including fingerprints and FBI Background Check (For jobs requiring higher security requirements – copies available per request) Windows 7, Windows 8, and other with built in support for offline mode and streamlined update process utilizing metadata and delta updates all encompassed in an internal shared private cloud across IT utilized by all teams with emphasis on customer first/EUC satisfied with final end-state. Common goals and objectives versus silo organization resulting in a slow release to production versus focused, single IT, multidisciplinary, core specialties, seamless collaboration and goal of shared private cloud methodology for every portion or technology stack leveraging cloud whether IaaS, PaaS, SaaS (Intranet apps) for development. Internal/External development support for virtual business application, virtual operating system, virtual lab for developers with ability to self-provision from hosted templates, set time constraints, use of dynamic capacity on demand combined with ROL (resources on loan) to create a shared private cloud utilizing 70% or running at 70% allocation versus typical 1-2% utilization majority. Replacement for “Good”, BYOP strategy using personal phones. BYOC strategy for WFH programs, consultants. Offline support. Large “road warrior” group, laptops, high travel rate.
Hit the floor running day 1, participating in multiple conference calls 1 day, made multiple observations regarding scenarios whereby “putting the horse before the cart” was used with utmost compassion. By day 2 contacted and accumulated extensive amounts of information by essentially “cold calling” key individuals and simply introducing myself and asking questions. st By Day 3 had spoken with and obtained enough information to provide a list of show stoppers well in advance of my December 1 deadline for proposed solution. Show stoppers not to indicate “wrong” just as technical SME proactively identifying or comparing to proposed design that would require changes, some small, some significant – but all backed by best practices and validation of increased agility, simplicity, less complexity, higher security – technical changes ranged from load balances, SSL VPN, firewall rules, external SSL Certificates, potential DNS (DDNS/reverse lookup) issues. Week 2 immediately engaged Citrix local vendor and third-party Company requested by customer to create a non-FC, NAS only, Citrix only (XenServer, XenDesktop, Netscaler, Netscaler SDX, Netscaler VPX, AppDNA, ShareFile, Cloud Gateway. Week 2 provided recommendation to access entire disparate VMware View environment utilizing Remote Desktop Session Host (RD Session Host) server accessible by using Remote Desktop Gateway (RD Gateway); regardless of shared or version RD Gateway RD Gateway uses the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) over HTTPS to help establish a secure, encrypted connection between remote users on the Internet and the internal network resources on which their productivity applications run. Windows EULA allows for per user remote connection to their machine. Hence, it requires a terminal server on the network but utilizes the unlimited pool from the RDS licensing server and must only be present and the customer machine on the domain. More than likely, a pair of servers already exist with only a few requirements: Remote procedure call (RPC) over HTTP Proxy, Web Server (IIS) [Internet Information Services], IIS must be installed and running for the RPC over HTTP Proxy feature to function – One external VIP. Latest version of MSTSC Client configured on the Advanced Tab to use RDS Gateway, type computer name, login from any Windows device with MSTSC/RDP Client. No CAL costs. Services available on any 2008 R2 server, simply enable, 1 SSL external hosted and supported by most internet browsers. By week three, provided third party vendor enough feedback to produce a first draft POD cabinet design based on my provided S LA’s of 12-15 IOPS per read-only desktop, 2000+ applications leveraging NDA privileged design averages 50,000 IOPS per 2000 applications utilize Citrix and Microsoft Best Practice for RDS hosted applications. Leveraged AppDNA provided by Citrix Team to create initial ratings list of 1 to 5. 5 being most remediation steps, spoke directly with the manager responsible for EUC, described the process, requested permission to run against the LANdesk share for initial results with amazing results where some applications at 13 months reduced to 5 months. Citrix AppDNA is truly remarkable. Initiated conversations regarding utilizing the existing packages and training or hiring elite packagers with experience in RDS packaging aka multi-user environments using Wyse Packager where merge modules, “dynamic link library” isolation tactics, triggers, MST, MSP, naming-conventions, UAT/Run-Book preliminary documentation provided as a starting point. Leveraged this list to identify customer and/or business unit with highest number of low hanging fruit and presenting how to leverage this concept to identify migration candidates. Proposed Wyse Zenith Zero Clients (not thin client) for initial migration candidates to eliminate cost of PC’s, encryption so ftware, 50% reduction in AMPS per device, substantial network impact leveraging ICA only. This proposal was significant to what on average was 2-3 weeks for acquiring PC to zero days being my device simply bolts on the back of any LCD monitor and further recommended utilizing Role Based Access to create a template user with one Domain Local Group per VOS instance and 1-1 ratio of XenApp to published application. Provided “been there done that” documentation and validation to leverage one OU per customer and 1 VDISK for 30,000 users with zero applications installed in XenDesktop eliminating Application Lifecycle Failures due to large, unmanageable VDISKS where applications instead are centralized to XenApp, installed once time, and presented to 1 VDISK image where 2000+ AD policies are now available to host on SYSVOL providing isolation and full customization per desktop using GPO’s not manual processes. Reduced cost further with proposal to use customer dynamic allocation by demand for key infrastructure components that also streamed from single read-only VDISK with processor running at 70% versus 2 percent. Demonstrated how utilizing single read-only VOS VDISKS for infrastructure and automation based on certain key metrics maximized # of users a single XenServer can hosts in a 24 hour period.
Brian Murphy, 214-803-2853
Further recommended analysis of every site and their site’s prior to implementation to obtain a latency reading using specialized tools in the initial “Baseline VOS”. This determines issues prior to implementing production services that would only result in unhap py customers. Furthermore, suggested after baseline and post implementation the customer should see areas where bandwidth is drastically reduced allowing for possible new contracts lowering network costs per month equating to substantial OPEX savings for that customer providing “word of mouth” appreciation marketing. Without discussing hardware, initial thoughts for hardware prior to examining applications and utilizing a very distinct and underutilized design my proposal called for 4 PODS versus 14 PODS. Eliminated provisioning process by pre-population of zero-OS equipment at the site at cost basis of 100.00 versus 1500.00 and 50% reduction in power use, no moving parts, 15K bandwidth, traffic fully isolated per customer using Netscaler HIGH-VIP to dedicated SDX virtual node creating a dynamic 2048 Bit dedicated tunnel from customer Zero Client running ICA/HDX to dedicated VOS group. Recommended replacing Good with Citrix Mini-VPN functionality which utilizes Netscaler combined with adding one additional component – Cloud Gateway. **Update: Prior to acquisition of Zenprise. See my publication.
Deliverables/Statement of Work:
Citrix SME requested by way of referral to assess current VOS solution and provide alternative recommendations focused primarily on CAPEX, ROI, TCO and OPEX Citrix SME requested to assess existing Microsoft Hyper-V and XenDesktop (no XenApp) environment. Assess backup / DR strategy – existing strategy consisted of SCCM full image backups of every server, including SQL Determine root cause for daily VDISK corruption issues. 4 PVS servers, 4 LUNS, FC connected. EMC. Determine root cause of unusually high XenDesktop SQL IOPS with SQL being a stand-alone server, brick backup. Production implementation and any test/development allocations owned by outsourcer, 4 weeks to get 4 VOS’s. Other constraints; example – nothing can be moved by individuals, processes impeded by requests to move equipment requires 3 individuals from union, 2 to move 1 to watch – billing $1500.00. (Nothing I can do here) Customer presenting write cache to the image and add-on vdrive. Customer template also includes boot.iso in image with IP’s. Considered several solutions such as CSV – cluster storage volumes versus single NFS Volumes for PVS and dedicated write cache. Customer expressed interest in new alternative design to existing Citrix running on Microsoft Hyper-V for DOM 0. Presented XenServer as alternative being both supports native VHD format but eliminate CSV for standard NFS LUN. Customer leveraged 4 PVS servers with 4 PVS LUN's attached by FC to each server. Customer experience high ticket volume of 100 plus tickets per day for 3000 user POC environment. Customer goal is 60,000 users
Week 1, Friday – Recommend fundamental changes, Visio provided, Citrix solution utilizing the latest technology. Utilized XenDesktop 5.6 with HDX/Flexcast/and HDX 3D, XenApp 6.5 with HDX Multimedia/Multi-stream ICA/Desktop Director/Dynamic Data Center/Private Cloud Solutions, Provisioning Server 6.0, 6.1 not out yet, Enable Unix for Windows allows for mounting NFS LUN (no service account) Must recommend XenServer but explained by comparison, humbly – don’t mix the ingredients. ESX has View, Hyper-V has itself, why not let Citrix have what it requires? XenServer? If anything, for provisioning virtual servers and a few blades for desktop write cache. High IOPS due to LUN for XenDesktop configured for RAID 5, 4 to 1 write ratio with a dynamic database 80% writes, recommended mirror, or RAID 50, or SDD if possible. Recommended dedicated SQL 2008 R2 2-node cluster for XenDesktop only. Remove SCCM backups, if SQL Database is lost recovering from brick was 4 hour process and database corruption and ability for XenDesktop to reconnect back to restored database poor practice. Best practices calls for mirroring or clustering, I utilize clustering but will implement both just to have the redundancy. Recommended single LUN for VDISKS. PVS servers already connected by fiber channel. All that is required is enabling Unix for Windows. Biggest problem is 20 images and one image is 60 GB, and they are streaming this as “read-only” images. The corruption was occurring during the copy process between the 4 LUNS post updating which seemed to occur daily so it was a unforgiving process that was only going to get worse. Next Visio showed one LUN, moving apps to XenApp, one VDISK, which is my base starting design. Recommended starting with just one LUN for all 4 PVS servers eliminating any chance of corruption by copy process. Next, without changing anything begin moving applications to XenApp and provided SLA’s of 15 IOPS per desktop and 50,000 IOPS per 2000 applications approximately. PVS was RAID 5, this was fine, changes to XenDesktop LUN eliminated IOPS by 4x. However, bottleneck was not XenDesktop being it was handing off to PVS. Recommended single LUN for write cache, remove write cache from desktop (hidden drive), create on LUN for VDISK store, enable HA on PVS, now you have redundancy on PVS and desktops. Shared LUN for VDISKS + Shared LUN for WRITE CACHE = HA for desktops by enabling HA on PVS also enables failover with least load presence similar to XenApp and load-balancing applications Next, recommended dual Netscaler VPX 200 series for central delivery zone, remove ISO from image, provided Visio with moving Boot.iso to dual TFTP servers behind VIP on Netscalers. Then, instead of IP in DHCP scope I recommended they utilize a FQDN for the VIP instead
Brian Murphy, 214-803-2853
and now they have HA on boot phase, HA on PVS, auto-failover on desktops if one PVS server goes down utilize a single VDISK store and significant improvement in tickets. Reiterated that SCCM backups were not required if leveraging XenApp read-only images, the infrastructure should be “agile”. Also, each component had 1 unit, no N plus 1, hence, recommended further to use VPX 200’s to create VIPs for XenDesktop XML, XenApp XML, TFTP, Web Interface, and minimum of 1 SQL cluster with CA primary and secondary for encryption of internal XML communication. This traffic, customer never sees. Significant savings to be achieved, along with full HA of all components and provided documentation and Visio for leveraging XenDesktop for management only, moving apps to XenApp, using XenDesktop and Active Directory to create template users, create a role based access control if 60K was achievable. Instead of SCCM I suggested read-only INF VDISKS on shared LUN, 2 blades allocated to INF, use timeouts on desktops at 2 hours return to resource pool, for boot storm use dynamic allocation by automating allocations using workflow or free PowerShell scripts for XenDesktop. Reiterated enabling Unix for Windows option on 2008 R2 which no longer requires dedicated service account to mount NFS LUN on FC. PVS 6.1 and later supports cache on NFS or CIFS NAS but this was not an option at the time. Used a “free” and “built -in” add-on for 2008R2 (Unix for Windows) allows for mounting NFS LUNs easily as using iSCSI. This reduced storage cost by 75%. This set the stage for future growth. This eliminated having to copy 20 independent images of which one image alone was 60GB to 4 LUNs. Provided 4 Visio’s, final paper 130 pages of suggestions with disclaimer.
CONTRACT - AVIVA
Deliverables/Statement of Work:
• • • • • • • • • • Citrix SME / AD SME Aviva – Paris, France 8000 user configuration in 6 weeks Citrix XenDesktop solution for 8000. Environment consist of 5 2003 AD Domains in a one-way trust initiated by each location to the primary 2008 domain that was clean install with only one child domain. AD, DNS, AD Trust, centralized GPO’s, firewall change. Each location utilizes a stand-alone forest with forest-to-forest trusts. Customer wished the infrastructure in the clean child domain Unknown at the time, customer had created a VMDK image of 40 GB Hypervisor ESX, Vcenter, single cabinet design for initial phase but full redundancy relat ive to power, dual PDU’s, separate circuits termination for the PDU’s with dual power supply split between PDU’s,
• • • • • • • European DC in each location to expedite logins AD Site in the European users domain with closest proximity DC’s Each subsequent users domain requires AD site with matching name as European domain with closest proximity DC’s Site variables: in this case, the customer supplied the rack but it was a much older rack but makes my job that more difficult Customer supplied older Cisco switches at the top for connection to the client network. I verified with the electrician that his 220's cables into the M1000 chassis went to separate grids (or minimum separate circuit/loop) Checked the watts on each power supply because the APC's (for example) plugged into what was basically a custom wired power strip with 4 connections and APC is rated for total of 16 AMPS so each APC is also plugged in to separate circuits. Luckily, the electrician they provided really knew his stuff and everything balanced out – eventually. However, at the start of this I/we were short 2 cables, we did not have enough watts so started pulling up floor tiles, found two unused in the corner M1000 Chassis Redundant Power, Required, M1000 Chassis and APC PDU's require dedicated "circuit" and cannot reside on the same power grid or very LEAST the same LOOP (dedicated circuit stated prior) APC PDU's, Required, APC PDU's require dedicated "circuit" and cannot reside on the same power grid or very LEAST the same LOOP (dedicated circuit stated prior) Juniper Switches, Required, require dedicated "circuit" and cannot reside on the same power grid or very LEAST the same LOOP (dedicated circuit stated prior)** This shipped with only one power module, the power module is 5 AMPS per. Why was this so important? At any point, one component lacks enough power to do the job. System may stay up but this became a major challenge. Next, there was what seemed to be a technical gap in that we have basic requirements for Active Directory and what appears to be a lack of understanding of Active Directory at a basic level such as the difference between a Forest Trust and Domain Trust, the ability to customize the two-way trust to disable anything that is a concern, inappropriate use of AD in thinking that a forest is required for every site as a security boundary when the same can be achieved with a single forest and dedicated domains. As matter of fact, it can be achieved with a single forest and domain and OU’s. Based on their requirement that they do not want users to “see all the domains in the pull-down” - this would not have been an issue if they created one Forest and a sub-domain for the company and utilized OU’s for the locations. Providing additional guidance on configuring the forest-to-forest bi-directional trusts and domain trust. The customer stated they have one forest and one domain; hence, the forest and domain are one in the same.
• • • • • •
Brian Murphy, 214-803-2853
• Customer did not leverage AD Integrated DNS; DNS is managed by a separate team. DNS is critical to the success of setting up the VDI environment from an infrastructure perspective and connection. End result, their DNS supported DDNS and reverse lookup – works for me. The customer listed one of their primary concerns for using separate forests and NOT creating two-way trusts was that they did not want users to see multiple domains when logging into web interface. This can be addressed several ways and is not a valid reason for using multiple forests and as stated can be addressed by using the advanced features of the forest to forest trust wizard or group policy or dedicated websites for each customer domain with custom configuration that lists only that domain or remove the field completely and force authentication against that domain only. After several hours of conversation, board drawing, and a Microsoft Best Practice document – problem resolved.
DELL, INC – LEGACY PEROT BUILDING (FTE)
Citrix SME – Systems Integration Architect
Dallas/Fort Worth December 2010 to April 2011 • • • • • Systems Integration Architect, hired to implement Citrix XenDesktop with ESX and VCenter Responsible for architecture design relative to virtualized desktop solution that provides streamlined and secure access to customer line of business applications. Leveraged a combination of complex technologies design a complete end-to-end solution utilizing; XenApp for application delivery, XenDesktop for the virtual desktop, Provisioned Services for virtual desktop delivery, Citrix Edgesight for troubleshooting and trending analysis, leveraged monitoring for core infrastructure and reporting, XenDesktop Director for Help Desk (real time data for VDI and shadowing support), custom server hardware design utilizing custom Dell hardware, advanced storage solution specific to virtual desktop design, multiple hypervisor support (XenServer or VMWare or Hyper-V), Citrix Web Interface (access), Citrix Netscaler (Load balanced + Citrix Access Gateway), Citrix Branch Repeater (WAN acceleration for ICA), custom user profile strategy, custom user data strategy, and custom Group Policy strategy. In summary, this solution was a paradigm shift in how customers leverage desktop technology and access their LOB applications. This solution simultaneously drove down cost from a CAPEX and OPEX perspective. The ultimate goal was to drive down costs of managing desktops and customer applications by centralizing both the desktop and application management while maximizing economies of scale of the hardware to maximize the customer return on their investment. Ultimately, it is the architecture/design of all the components working in tandem with the customer infrastructure that determines short-term and long-term supportability. This was primary focus for more than 10 years – design of virtualization technology solutions that reduce the cost of doing business by changing the way IT provides access to critical business applications.
• • •
GMAC FS NOW ALLY FINANCIAL SERVICES (FTE)
Citrix SME – Senior Enterprise Architect
Dallas/Fort Worth February 2003 to December 2010
• • • • • Level 4 – Last resort for Citrix escalation. Involved in almost all troubleshooting requests other than Citrix. Lead architect/engineer/escalation for 8000 user Citrix / XenDesktop Farm with 325 critical applications. Unique opportunity to expand management responsibilities by adding a third team of highly dedicated senior engineers and a critical service offering– Global Systems Management. Managed three teams of 13 highly motivated individuals; Application Support, Citrix Services, and GSM Services. In addition, continued to wear the hat of “Senior Architect for Citrix Services”. Added GSM to our service offering allowed us to provide services not otherwise thought of until provided the opportunity to learn from the talented individuals within GSM and it truly broadened the team horizon. To date, built a geographically dispersed, crossdisciplined, and highly motivated and customer driven team – despite extreme changes to culture, severe economic difficulties, drastic budget cuts, 7 layoffs in 2 years – all the while the teams have remained focused on servicing the customer and our service levels have remained undiminished or in some cases improved. Historically, these teams have been critical to multiple data center consolidations, infrastructure streamlining, and implementation of critical revenue generating business projects. Team continued to expand our VDI, SBC, Application Support and Monitoring services - reducing TCO (CAPEX and OPEX) with each successful project. Our team(s) partnered with other critical teams to support an environment of 5,000+ servers and 20,000+ geographically dispersed customers, vendors, and consultants. Our teams were the key contributors to all major initiatives across the company including but not limited to; Bank Holding Company Initiative, Re-branding Initiative, and IBM Data Center Migration Initiative (D2D) - together we streamlined processes, created a top notch “team brand” critical to the organization. During a time of duress with 7 layoffs and limited leadership; was asked to lead several teams in addition to maintain the title of Lead Enterprise Architect.
Brian Murphy, 214-803-2853
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Technical Lead (L4) to 22 senior engineers Responsible for team that supports 10,000+ users. Responsible for team that supports 800+ Windows Servers. Hiring Manager for Dallas, TX and Horsham, PA. Expertise in Change Management, Sarbanes Oxley, and Facilitation techniques. Lead architect for Citrix application hosting solution. Authored corporate Citrix standards, best practice, and training materials. Member of Active Directory Migration Team. Member of 2003 Exchange Migration Team. Member of 2005 Technology Refresh Team. Member of Enterprise Backup and Disaster Recovery Team. Member of Data Center migration Team – Horsham, PA to Lewisville, TX. Member of Data Center migration Team – Cosa Mesa, CA to Lewisville, TX. Member of Data Center migration Team – Waterloo, IA to Lewisville, TX. Member of ‘Windows Architecture Review Committee”. Major contributor to “Windows Engineering Playbook”. Recipient of multiple IT Superstar awards and Customer Service awards. Lead architect for Citrix XenApp application hosting solution – growth by word of mouth and projects customer facing Successfully designed and implemented Citrix XPE application hosting solution. Designed and implemented Citrix web portal and access gateway solution. Authored Citrix implementation project plan. Authored Citrix Standards and Policies manual. Implemented test and proof of concept environment utilizing VMWARE Technology. Addressed interoperability issues between multiple legacy domains and Native Mode AD. Authored Citrix troubleshooting documentation and trained help desk employees. Successful implemented packaging methodology. Scripted unattended installs using Altiris Rapid Deploy. Assisted with Active Directory migration from Windows 2000 to Window 2000. Assisted with DNS restructure, 250 secondary to AD integrated. Assisted with Microsoft licensing issues and Citrix licensing issues.
Major Projects: (Spot Bonuses) October 2007, lead architect – “Enterprise Server Consolidation Project” & “TSC Network – India November 2007, lead architect – “Citrix Consolidation Project. January 2008, lead architect – “Shady Oak Data Center Consolidation. February 2008, lead architect – “OneQRM Project March 2008, lead architect – GMAC FS QRM Project” (First co-hosting project for ResCap). April 2008, lead architect – “Terminal Server Gateway Implementation. May 2008, lead architect – “Citrix x64 Migration. June 2008, lead architect – “Citrix XEN Desktop Implementation” & “Citrix Access Gateway Enterprise Implementation” & “GMAC FS BPO Project”.
GMAC FS NOW ALLY FINANCIAL SERVICES (FTE)
Citrix SME – Senior Engineer
Dallas/Fort Worth November 1998 to February 2003 Data Center migration, Citrix solution with thin client at all remote sites (Wyse 1200LE, 500kb OpenBSD kernel that boot up was 3 seconds with centralized INI file on FTP server, one modification I could change over 1000+ devices in a few seconds). NT 4 to AD, Mail to Exchange. Designed and implemented cost effective enterprise security solution. Designed and implemented cost effective Citrix and thin client solution for remote branch offices. Planned and coordinated data center consolidation from Dallas, TX to Bedford, TX. Designed and implemented Windows NT 4 with Exchange 5.5 infrastructure and migrated from Novell. Established policies and procedures to ensure the integrity and security of IT infrastructure relative to Citrix. Implemented and enforced change management processes for all production systems relative to Citrix Systems. Managed Citrix vendor relations for all vendors providing service or support to data center production systems, negotiated key contracts and reduced cost. First implementation, Winframe 1.0 on NT 3.51