mechanisms - so why not turn this whole issue on its head?
Build three or four "applications" each focussing on one of the
traditional areas where performance matters and publish these on a web
site. So for example an application for testing CPU capacity might
calculate a large factorial, another testing server memory bandwidth
and yet another testing disk IO throughput, network throughput, etc.
Firms shopping around for Cloud resource can then run the test apps
they choose on a number of different service provider Clouds and
select the best price/performance for their particular requirements.
Roger
-- --
Roger Lewis
roger.w.lewis@mac.com
On 16 Dec 2008, at 19:26, Paul Moxon wrote:
> Do end users really need to see this level of complexity?
> Internally, the cloud provider might want to base the charge rates
> on various measurements, such as CPU, memory, bus speed, etc.
> However, the end user will probably want something much simpler e.g.
> I want to run on a (virtual) single host or on a cluster or, even, I
> want 24x7 availability. Elastica uses a fairly simple system like
> this when you build an application to be deployed in their cloud.
> Anything more complex can make it overwhelming for anyone but the
> most sophisticated user.
>
> To continue Ray Nugent's comparison of petroleum and West Texas
> sweet light, when I buy gasoline for my car, I get the choice of
> Regular or Premium at the pump. Now, I don't know what goes into the
> regular gasoline blend…how much is West Texas sweet light, or Brent
> light or Saudi heavy oil…and, guess what, I don't care. The regular
> gasoline is good enough for my 8-year old Jeep and that's all that I
> need to know. Similarly, end users don't want to be confused by a
> huge menu of CPU speeds, memory allocations, bus speeds, etc. – if
> you keep it simple, then they will get it (as long as they can
> upgrade to a different configuration if needed).
>
> Paul.
>
> From: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com [mailto:cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
> ] On Behalf Of William Louth (JINSPIRED.COM)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:59 PM
> To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [ Cloud Computing ] Re: Compute surface as a traded
> commodity?
>
> I am not sure why we are looking for one single resource to meter. I
> would expect that various resource meters will be used as cost
> drivers in determining appropriate charges that will be passed up to
> the next layer on the cloud computing stack with each layer in the
> stack introducing its own meters derived partially from lower level
> meters - partially because there must be value added somewhere.
>
> Once we get above the bare metal platform I expect to see more
> diversity in costing and billing approaches. Currently we seem to
> have carried over a large amount of baggage tied to current (legacy
> in this context) enterprise system/network management approaches
> that provide very coarse grain resource metering at the process
> level or data traffic pattern levels. I am confident this will
> change to more (user/software) activity based costing with the
> metering correlated to actual software execution performed on behalf
> of the user or cloud service. Unlike our opaque OS based process
> containers threads of execution in the cloud will operate as lawyers
> do today - billing the client context for every activity perform
> using various meters (wall clock time, number of photocopied sheets,
> number of letters dispatches with postage,........). Threads will
> not touch a resource unless they have a client billing code. This
> will never be possible with ESM/NSM because one cannot see the
> computing above it and the other below it.
>
> http://www.jinspired.com/products/jxinsight/meteringthecloud.html
>
> Kind regards,
>
> William
>
>
> Christopher Drumgoole wrote:
> Given the variances in CPU clock speeds, Gigahertz Hour is easier to
> compare.
>
> ---
> Chris Drumgoole
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:cloud-computing@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pittard, Rick
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 11:50 AM
> To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [ Cloud Computing ] Re: Compute surface as a traded
> commodity?
>
>
> Actually, the price of a barrel of oil is for a very specific grade
> at a
> specific location. The real prices vary depending on quality and
> location - maybe just like a CPU-hour should.
>
> Rick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:cloud-computing@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Houghton
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
> Subject: FW: [ Cloud Computing ] Compute surface as a traded
> commodity?
>
>
> Interesting thread ... I had discussions with executives at a large
> investment bank (one of the few still around today!) as far back as
> 2002
> when we were implementing large grids for risk & portfolio analysis
> that
> leveraged 'scavenged' resources for some of the compute footprint. I
> agree
> this will happen, but interoperability is not the only obstacle.
> Placing
> security off to the side - let's assume for the discussion someone has
> already overcome their technology or compliance hang-ups - there is a
> major
> business challenge to overcome.
>
> We all know what an ounce of gold, or bushel of corn, or a barrel of
> oil
> is
> around the globe. So what is the equivalent unit of trade for
> computing
> cycles?
>
> Think before you answer ... 'CPU hour' just wants to jump off your
> tongue,
> but as we all know not all CPU's are created equal (even by the same
> manufacturer). Then of course there's memory, bus speed, network
> bandwidth,
> network throughput, operating system, latency to/from your origination
> point, disk read/write speed ... I could go on and so can you. I've
> been
> living this for 6+ years working with clients who want to build
> internal
> utilities (clouds), and even there it's difficult to get agreement as
> this
> forms the basis for what they are going to get charged for the
> resources
> they consume. It's not much of a 'utility' if users got a flat annual
> allocation charge, is it? Yet that's by far the most common situation
> in
> large enterprises today.
>
> There's the closet economist in me who feels (hopes) someone will just
> start
> such a market and soon thereafter the laws of supply and demand will
> set
> the
> appropriate prices. Those with high quality service will be sold out
> and
> can increase their prices, with the reverse also true. However,
> especially
> with the current state of global economic affairs, I am doubtful it
> will
> happen anytime soon. Nor do I think we can count on any standards
> forum
> to
> tackle such an issue, and the major vendors will undoubtedly look at
> normalization (translate: commoditization) of their technologies as a
> bad
> thing.
>
> Anyway, hopefully this provokes some thoughts - look forward to your
> responses.
>
> Jim
> _________________
> Jim Houghton
> CTO and Founder
> Adaptivity, Inc.
> (845) 494-9419
>
> www.adaptivity.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com [mailto:] On Behalf Of Simon
> Plant
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:03 AM
> To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [ Cloud Computing ] Compute surface as a traded commodity?
>
> Bruce wrote:
>
>> Will the "Cloud" ever become a pool of hosting providers who pitch
>>
> their
> prices, SLA's and storage cost so customers will come to their "cloud"
> for
> services?
>
> I foresee a time into the future where the compute surface is
> virtualized
> and standardized enough that hosting contracts can be traded as a
> commodity
> on a market, rather than the RFP type process we have today.
>
> Such agreement would allow business to place a deal on an exchange
> much
> like
> FX today and get bids to run based on some parameters. IT hosters
> would
> price the deal with a spread in the same way as a currency trade
> today,
> the
> deal done in a matter of seconds and hosted for the duration of a
> contract
> window.
>
> If virtualization vendors deliver on their hybrid end-vision, this
> could
> be
> a reality of packaging workloads with SLA manifests and using internet
> vMotion-type tools to migrate. It would fundamentally change the way
> we
> write software frameworks and applications themselves to be more self
> contained and highly standardized to achieve the best 'tradability'.
>
> Interoperability via standards between VM platforms, portability of
> data,
> code business logic and processes are all key to how we build out the
> Cloud.
>
>
> Such openness may be a far extreme view, but would you want the
> opposite
> view of the world where switching costs and lock-in are extremely
> constraining and we are forever stuck in a platform cycle of
> distribute-and-consolidate?
>
>
> Simon Plant
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
To post job listing, send email to jobs@cloudjobs.net (position title, employer and location in subject, description in message body) or visit http://www.cloudjobs.net
To submit your resume for cloud computing job bank, send it to resume@cloudjobs.net.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.ca/group/cloud-computing?hl=en?hl=en
Posting guidelines:
http://groups.google.ca/group/cloud-computing/web/frequently-asked-questions
This group posts are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/
Group Members Meet up Calendar - http://groups.google.ca/group/cloud-computing/web/meet-up-calendar
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment