back. (http://www.michaelnygard.com/blog/2008/02/a_cloud_for_everyone_1.html
)
I'll copy some of it here to save clicks:
<<
On the positive side, an IT manager running a cloud can finally do
real chargebacks to the business units that drive demand. Some do
today, but on a larger-grained level... whole servers. With a private
cloud, the IT manager could charge by the compute-hour, or by the
megabit of bandwidth. He could charge for storage by the gigabyte, and
with tiered rates for different avaialbility/continuity guarantees.
Even better, he could allow the business units to do the kind of self-
service that I can do today with a credit card and The Planet. (OK,
The Planet isn't a cloud provider, but I bet they're thinking about
it. Plus, I like them.)
I actually think this kind of self-service and fine-grained chargeback
could help curb the out-of-control growth in IT spending, but that's a
different post.
This would seriously raise the level of discourse. Instead of fighting
about server classes, rack space, power consumption, and rampant
storage sprawl, IT could talk to the business about levels of service.
Does this app need 24x7 performance management with automatic resource
allocation to maintain a 2 second response time? Great, we can do
that! This other one doesn't need to be fast, but it had better work
every single time a transaction goes through? We can do that, too!
This application needs user experience monitoring, that database only
needs non-redundant storage, because it can be recreated from other
sources... it's a better conversation to have than, "No, our corporate
standard is WebSphere running on RedHat Enterprise Linux 4, with Dell
PowerEdge servers. You can have any server you want, as long as it's
a Dell PowerEdge."
I also think that the gloss will come off of the cloud computing
providers. (I know, most people still haven't heard of them yet, but
the gloss will inevitably come off.)
Accidents happen. Networks still break, today, and they will in the
future too. Power failures happen. How would you defend yourself in a
shareholders' lawsuit after millions in losses thanks to a service
provider failure? (Actually, that suggests there may be an insurance
market developing here. Any time you've got quantifiable risk and
someone willing to pay to defray that risk, sure as hell, you'll find
insurance companies.)
Service providers get oversubscribed. What happens when your
application is slow, and remains slow for months? Having an SLA only
means you get some money back, it doesn't mean your problem will get
fixed. It's a dirty secret that some service providers are quite happy
paying out credits, if they can avoid bigger costs. What's your
recourse? Transition costs. It costs a lot.
Latency matters. It might matter more today than ever before, since
most internal applications have gone to web interfaces. Keeping your
endpoints on your own network at least lets you control your own
latency.
Then there's security. Many of my clients are dealing with PCI audits
and compliance. I have no idea what they'd say if I suggested moving
their data into the cloud. I'm pretty certain I wouldn't still be in
the room to hear what they said. I'd probably be standing outside in
the rain, trying to catch a cab back to the airport.
Like I said, I'm not trying to FUD cloud computing. I think that it's
so good that every company should have one.
>>
Since writing that, I've become even more convinced of the value of
private clouds. See, for example, the recent statements from
Ontario's privacy commissioner (http://www.michaelnygard.com/blog/2008/05/canadian_privacy_commissioner.html
).
Cheers,
-Mike Nygard
On May 28, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Greg Pfister wrote:
>
> Clouds inside a firewall may be conceptually anathema to some, there
> is data that corporations will never allow to reside outside their own
> firewall. This is not a new observation; it occurred early in this
> mailing list, and is now being embellished in a new, active thread on
> security.
>
> And clouds within the firewall are there now, anyway. Many large
> company's email systems are effectively application-specific clouds
> that all in the company just use, designed to expand as needed.
>
> Rather than a negative, I think this notion can be taken as an
> opportunity to provide cloud infrastructure, and probably services,
> within the bounds of the IT shop itself -- infrastructure that allows
> IT to continue to implement the constraints and controls they need (or
> think they do), but do so in a more cost effective, efficient, and
> more generic manner.
>
> How far *down* can this technology scale, anyway? Is it only
> efficiency in very large scale? IT shop clouds certainly are feasible.
> Department clouds, totally owned by the department? Are the tools
> mature enough for that?
>
> Greg Pfister
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Ray Nugent <rnugent@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> The problem with any "cloud" behind a corporate firewall is that the
>> motivations are different. Clouds exist to be cost effective,
>> efficient and
>> somewhat generic computing resources that appear to be infinitely
>> expandable
>> to the user.
>> Corporate IT shops exist to serve a specialized constituency (often
>> by
>> controlling it and restricting access to a certain set of
>> resources.) The
>> reason clouds are replacing traditional walled garden IT shops in
>> the first
>> place is because the clouds are more efficient and thus more cost
>> effective
>> than IT shops.
>>
>> You can move the cloud physical paradigm behind a corporate
>> firewall but you
>> can't move the motivations and thus a VPC will quickly resemble a
>> traditional corporate IT shop.
>>
>> I don't disagree that there will be enterprises that want VPCs but
>> I think
>> they will find that what they really want is a better, more
>> flexible IT
>> shop. (a liffting of the fog...)
>>
>> Ray
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Reuven Cohen <ruv@enomaly.com>
>> To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:13:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: What term for resource-pooled computing (e.g. the "on-
>> premises
>> cloud")?
>>
>>
>> Virtual Private Cloud encapsulates both local and remote computing
>> resources. The idea is to easily and securely tie into additional
>> computing resources wherever and whenever they are needed.
>>
>> Reuven
>>
>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Sam Charrington <sam@charrington.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>> To address "Virtual Private Cloud," this still refers to a cloud
>>> hosted
>>> via
>>> an external provider (e.g. a "public computing utility"), accessed
>>> via the
>>> Internet or a VPN.
>>> This is not a true Fog!!! A true Fog is hosted behind the enterprise
>>> firewall, but has deployment and operating characteristics in
>>> common with
>>> cloud computing.
>>>
>>> Maybe Fog = Fabric or Grid ;-)
>>>
>>> Sam
>>> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Khazret Sapenov
>>> <sapenov@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ray,
>>>> Perhaps it depends on viewpoint (as Mike already noted in this
>>>> topic).
>>>> It reminds me a popular example from string theory, when you look
>>>> at the
>>>> rope from 100 feet distance seeing a line (one dimension), while
>>>> moving
>>>> closer opens more dimensions.
>>>> Same applies to cloud computing, if you are inside private cloud,
>>>> it is
>>>> your own private computing fog :)
>>>>
>>>> KS
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ray Nugent <rnugent@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's a cloud, but instead of being far away it's near? Isn't
>>>>> that
>>>>> Fog?
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>> From: Sam Charrington <sam@charrington.com>
>>>>> To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:31:51 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: What term for resource-pooled computing (e.g. the
>>>>> "on-premises cloud")?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's my belief that the future model for providing IT
>>>>> infrastructure and
>>>>> services in large organizations will very much resemble what you
>>>>> describe
>>>>> and what many call cloud computing, but will occur behind the
>>>>> firewall.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Reuven Cohen
>> Founder & Chief Technologist, Enomaly Inc.
>> www.enomaly.com :: 416 848 6036 x 1
>> skype: ruv.net // aol: ruv6
>>
>> blog > www.elasticvapor.com
>> -
>> Get Linked in> http://linkedin.com/pub/0/b72/7b4
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Greg Pfister
> Sic Crustulum Frangitur
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cloud Computing" group.
To post to this group, send email to cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cloud-computing-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ca/group/cloud-computing?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment