The following post,
Enomaly owns CloudCamp™ – has it jumped the shark?, by Sam Johnston, working group secretary at Open Grid Forum, is definitely ‘inside baseball’ but an interesting look at how proprietary interests are battling open standards in the cloud.
The conversation reminds me of The People’s Front of Judea sketch in Monty Python’s The Life of Brian. Check it out.
Dated May 22, NIST’s definition isn’t substantially different from what most accept as “cloud” — scalable, on-demand and pay-as-you-go computing — but it is notable, as NIST develops standards for everything from weights and measures to data encryption, and its definitions tend to be the end of the argument. This definition, however, appears to be of the ‘big-tent’ variety, and may not please all comers. Broadly speaking, NIST’s definition cleaves to the now-familiar, SaaS, PaaS and IaaS model, and admits it is trying to be all things to all people. “The cloud computing industry represents a large ecosystem of many models, vendors, and market niches,” it says. “This definition attempts to encompass all of the various cloud approaches.”
It’s great fun watching a big trade show wind down. Day one is all vigor and pizazz and manic tweets. By the third day, attendees are sprawled in the halls, their listless fingers struggling to update mere blogs. At any rate, Wednesday (day three) brought a telling scene. An event photographer crept out of a room and said, “Finally! A full room.”
What topic, after three days of talks and speeches by the brightest stars in the IT firmament, drew the masses? Cloud computing, naturally.
Anyway, Lew Moorman recently gave me an excellent interview, which made it into a story about Rackspace’s position in the infrastructure cloud market.
But Moorman might have had more ready numbers on hand. Rackspace is spending “millions” of new dollars of data center investment, he told me, and is positioning his $500 million company as a scrappy, little-guy going up against the $20 billion dollar behemoth Amazon.
Looking at Amazon’s and Rackspace’s latest quarterly reports gives the real numbers. From 2008 to Q1 2009, Rackspace spent $11 million out of $37 million in total capital expenditure investments on “data center build outs.” Amazon, which only lists “Purchases of fixed assets, including internal-use software and website development,” spent $55 million total capex for IT in Q109. Assuming similar ratios, Amazon might have only spent $16 million on new data center development.
Rackspace. What an underdog, hunh?
The long and short of it is that Rackspace is a hosting company, and Amazon is an e-commerce company. Both are, in terms of capacity and potential compute power, massive. Rackspace does lack the “perfect cloud” offerings of Amazon, but it is no mean competitor, and the money and the market is there. Before cloud, Rackspace wasn’t hurting for customers; they probably still aren’t.
We’re exploring new frontiers at the Enterprise Cloud Summit, as cloud deckhands try to haul up the sails and ship owners look for value. Overall the mood is good; people are receptive, especially since the order of the day for cloud evangelists is “saving money” and they have examples to prove it.
Probably the biggest news of the day was from Amazon, which announced a new set of AWS services that address performance and monitoring. It’s worth noting that that’s something many cloud management services (e.g., RightScale) are also offering.
Amazon CTO Werner Vogels also point-blank ducked a question on how Amazon makes decisions on how to bring new AWS products to market. This is obviously of interest to cottage industries springing up around AWS.
Other highlights have included a snappy “Dark Side” talk by Forrester Analyst James Staten, providing welcome relief after other sugar-coated morning sessions.
Then, a panel featuring an honest-to-goodness risk analyst and an insurance wonk outlined the meaning of their pet neologism, “intellectual malpractice,” that is, losing/misusing the citizenry’s personal identity materials. Their opinion is that adding cloud providers into the insurance mix may add hitherto unknown risks, since victims may be able to sue anybody involved in the chain.
Technology has outpaced the law, and it’s a breakout world for litigators, argued Bob Parisi, from the risk advisory firm The Marsh Group. That may prove to be a roadbloack for enterprise adopters, he said. Drew Bartkiewicz from The Hartford was unequivocal, however. “Cloud insurance exists,” he said. It’s just going to cost you an unspecified amount of money.
Exciting news, the site I’ve been brought on to write and report for launched today! There’s plenty of content there already, including straight news, advice, and expert commentary. Many of the articles already there are backfill — old news — but definitely worth a look at, since it comes close to gathering all of TechTarget’s cloud stories in one place. That’s not an inconsequential resource, and I am fully pimping it out to anyone who reads this blog.
Please do be aware that it is soft launch, we know there are dead links and some funky items- it is in process and we are not making a big noise about it. Comments welcome on general look and fell.
As a bonus, I think it looks nice. It’s clean and easy to get around. It’s going to be a blast. A cloudy, cloudy blast.
So that’s nice.
In other news, I finished the Eucalyptus Systems piece. I’ll link to it when it’s officially out in the world.
Another piece about the so-called “Legal Cloud” is up. I think it’s newsworthy because it’s a very clear-cut example of what I’m going to call the “Cloud VAR” (you could even say “Cee-VAR.” That’s a cool sounding acronym, right?). What they’ve done is basically fence off their own little patch of Rackspace (I don’t know to what level or many technical details) as a virtual private cloud and are selling cloud resources to law firms, exclusively. These guys have industry expertise — CEO Mark Hadfield hails from Workshare Deltaview, which makes software for handling legal documents, and the CTO comes from Joyent. At this point, they are long on concept and short on track record (one customer told me he thought the Legal Cloud was basically non-existent and in early testing), but these guys say they want to be out of beta and open for business in 3 months (!).
Of course, they can do this because, wait for it, they are using the cloud. If the model works, they just ramp up their Rackspace headroom; if it doesn’t, they simply turn off the tap. No waiting, no planning, nothing but cash over the barrel.
So that’s a heady recipe when venture capital seems mighty eager for cloud companies: take one cloud/IT manager type, one industry wonk and one credit card and Presto! Cloud VAR open for business. “Nimble” seems to be taking on a whole new meaning out here in cloud-land.
Anyone hoping to sell infrastructure as a service to the Government will need to explain how they meet the following criteria for interoperability in the a cloud setting:
5.1 Describe your recommendations regarding “cloud-to-cloud” communication and ensuring interoperability of cloud solutions.
5.2 Describe your experience in weaving together multiple different cloud computing services offered by you, if any, or by other vendors.
5.3 As part of your service offering, describe the tools you support for integrating with other vendors in terms of monitoring and managing multiple cloud computing services.
5.4 Please explain application portability; i.e. exit strategy for applications running in your cloud, should it be necessary to vacate.
5.5 Describe how you prevent vendor lock in.
It’s a helpful list for anyone looking to tap into these services.
Cloud computing is the fresh word on everyone’s lips; the push started in earnest a year or more ago, when Amazon’s Web Services portal came into its own and the reality of instant-on, pay-as-you-go infinitely scalable servers sank in. Now companies that cover the middle ground between your minute-by-minute rental server and the software that actually makes you money are hot topics.
Needless to say, venture capitalists are hungry for cloud companies. Diego Marino of Spanish startup Abiquo says that VC firms have been beating the door down for attention since Under the Radar 2009, April’s startup showboat conference in Redmond, CA. “They are knocking”, he said.
The slump in the US economy has probably done more to stimulate cloud interest than any amount of hype: companies from large to small that were mulling the choice between buying iron or renting cloud space have had to face up to severe bottom-line pressures. The practically zero time and investment costs involved in using cloud and the growing awareness of reliability have tipped the balance for cloud, and big enterprise is slowly but surely hoving over to using cloud technologies in their own data centers to increase utilization and flexibility.
And thus companies who can help manage, deploy and use all these new technologies are all the rage. Here are five shiny new shops to know about, in alphabetical order:
Open source cloud development and management software: Abiquo released AbiCloud in April, has $400k in funding and prospects for more very soon. The company expects to make money giving away the software to developers and charging for support and development. AbiCloud currently supports VirtualBox, VMware ESX & ESXi, Xen and KVM.
Stripped down, intuitive management tools for EC2 instances in a browser format; Cloudkick is angling for admins who want a clever way to keep on top of their cloud. Co-founder Alex Polvi says that they started with $20K in seed money from Y Combinator and coded the project in Python in 5 months. He says the user base is growing fast and “It’s a logical progression” for users to want to buy premium services once they are hooked on the free service. It will be sold just like server instances- by the minute.
Indicative of the current heady state of the marketplace, enStratus started as product development and new features for Valtira, a marketing platform. Valtira honchos David Bagley and George Reese spun enStratus off when it became clear they could use their tools for distributed systems in general and are aimed squarely at companies moving into the cloud. They too, are optimistic about funding.
The bunch who developed EUCALYPTUS, an open source cloud platform out of UC-Santa Barbara are cashing in by offering to help IT shops start build their own data cloud, fully compatible with EC2 and Amazon’s APIs. They have $5.5 million from Benchmark Capital and the support of well established players in cloud, like RightScale. They are head-to-head with Abiquo, but the world is big enough for two free cloud –building software projects, right?
Tap In Systems:
Running from and sold from and used from inside Amazon’s cloud, Tap In is an early example of what will eventually be a crowded ecosystem of businesses inside EC2 space. Built around open source Nagios, Tap In promises support for an increasing number of vendor APIs in the cloud and recently announced partnerships with public cloud providers GoGrid and 3Tera. CEO Peter Loh says they have angel money right now, and they are targeting enterprise users.
I’m working up an article about EUCALYPTUS and Eucalyptus Systems, cf. my earlier post on’t.
Leaving aside the giggles over nomenclature, I had quite a nice talk with Dr. Rich Wolski, the lead scientist on the original open source project (also with CEO Woody Rollins and the VP of marketing).
Anyway, Wolski had an interesting and quite succinct definition of the differences between a data center employing virtualization in its currently accepted form and a cloud infrastructure, because, on paper, the two share enough common elements that lots of people (and marketers) are happy to fuzz the two together.
I didn’t think that was quite right, and neither does the Good Doctor, (ha! like I’m the expert over here). Otherwise, why get excited over cloud? If that were true, then it’s just re-packaged old news, and nobody needs to do anything but change the badges and maybe dice up the trim package, if I may borrow from the big book of automobile industry metaphors. But cloud is fundamentally something different, and new, and it’s worth knowing why.
He says it’s down to access and the control structure. The major difference between a data center and a cloud is access- a cloud is set up so anyone can drop a penny in the slot and start up a server or six- in a data center, you ask, and someone does it for you, then hands over the steering wheel.
He said something like, pardon the paraphrasing, “in a data center, virtualization is the grease that lubricates resource management” for the admins; it allows the guy in charge to move his resources around- “it’s a reconfiguration mechanism,” but “in a cloud, [virtualization] is a fence.” it separates and protects resources and lets everyone have their own private playground without knocking over the other kids’ toys.
A subtle difference? Wolski says it’s down to a bedrock set of premises and assumptions that drove the development of the cloud model.
“We tried to look at the cloud paradigm from an analytical perspective,” he explains, and “cloud is an ecommerce model-it’s a transactional model [in a] distributed system”.
Did that sink in? At its most basic, cloud is not about computers. It’s about sales. Start with the premise that you have a product (server instances/CPU time/bit buckets), you want to sell them to any and all comers over the internet (ecommerce) and you want to do a lot of it. What you get is “cloud computing”, and logically, it’s no surprise that Amazon pioneered it commercially. They didn’t assume they needed a resource farm and a way to sell access to it- they assumed they had servers and needed to sell those instead.
So that’s interesting to me. Cloud is not a utopian access opium dream- it’s a logical outgrowth of commodity commerce.
UPDATE:Story’s done, look for it soon. One more little nugget from Wolski on defining cloud computing: When he and his crew started thinking about the project in 2007, they found it was “utterly impossible to get a consensus” on what cloud was, so they “decided to sidestep the debate by picking the thing that was demonstrably was a cloud — the one thing no one could say was NOT a cloud.” Their answer? Amazon Web Services.
So there you have it – not sure what an elephant is? Look around; you can’t miss one if it’s in the room with you.
We’re sensing someone had an office pool going on “alliteration they could get away with” for this slug line: “Citrix Announces Citrix C3 Lab Built on Amazon Web Services to Connect Cloud Computing to the Corporate Datacenter”.
Anyways, what the mess of ess’ and clatter of consonants means is that Citrix, as part of its big show this week is announcing their Citrix’ XenApp software is now available for rent, from AWS, to run Citrix servers on Amazon’s cloud.
C3 stands for Citrix Cloud Center, their management suite for IaaS providers.
That’s the Citrix Citrix Cloud Center Lab, for those who collect poorly thought out product names.
The brain-pain part comes from the fact that Amazon itself runs its cloud on Xen, so a customer of Citrix Citrix would, technically, be using XenApps to use Xen virtual machines to manage and deploy public cloud resources to their customers as a customer using public cloud resources running on Xen virtual machines.
Hey, that may be great and just what C3 users want and it may work just fine, but it’s a hell of a rabbit hole to send your data down, ontologically speaking. We’re not prejudiced, we’re just trying to keep up.
Also, according to the article published today by SearchEnterpriseDesktop.com News Director Alex Barrett, you’ll be able to do it all from your iPhone. I think they should call the app, “DRINK ME”, but no-one reads anymore, they’ll never get it.
This is doubtless targeted at developers who want to play with Citrix distributed computing offerings, and the odd IT shop that wants to offer Citrix AND call itself “cloud” and can’t afford its own data center.
Really, though, it’s just another way of proving that Amazon’s cloud model is still the top of heap. Oracle, IBM, now Citrix, and others are essentially opening Amazon storefronts, only it’s buzzword-friendly grid computing instead of baby clothes and lawn sprinklers. Amazon doesn’t care- they have a two and a half year leap on everyone else wanting to offer public cloud instances, the best distribution channel extant and plenty of headroom. All they have to do is make space, keep the lights on, let their little playfriends from the middleware/manageware classroom play in their pool, and rake in the dough.
I’ll scrape together some time soon and poke around, see how good a job Citrix has done making this work and post some screenshots and an update in a day or so. Just a head’s up, ladies and gentlemen: I may never been seen again.
Very interesting conversation with Nils Puhlmann, a co-founder of the Cloud Security Alliance originally about the DTMF initiative for open standards, but went out and about a bit; here are three nuggets which I was interested to hear about:
Security: Puhlmann is of the opinion that a) as much transparency as possible would have direct benefits to cloud providers, since “If you do everything well, why would you not want to show your customer?”.
He feels that customers would actually be more likely to buy into vendors that could show best practice security under some kind of standards model, since it would free customers from glacially slow and costly audits and testing- enterprise could buy into a public cloud without a hitch under the right conditions(read: bomb-proof security standards) and b) “within 12 months we will see many things in cloud security that will have completely failed,” either through backing the wrong horse in terms of security model or through market forces that ebb away from a chosen track.
He thinks that consensus on cloud security will emerge in baby steps as the marketplace learns what works and what doesn’t and what pays off and what doesn’t.
Compliance: Puhlmann says, “What we see for some companies,” that have regulatory oversight, “are compliance rules that rely on the notion that you have complete control over your data,”which, if you are using public clouds, is patently untrue.
But enterprise wants to use public clouds, small and midsize companies that interact with regulated agencies will want to use it; Puhlmann points out that the $19B Electronic Health Records initiative, for instance is “simply not going to happen without cloud” technologies.
FIM: Puhlmann raises hopes of a universal federated identity model, since as data gets more and more distributed, “a good federated identity standard would provide the means to track and control who has access to your data across private enterprise and the public cloud.” and believes it’s a problem that remains unsatisfactorily addressed, cloud or no cloud, but this drive toward IaaS might provoke a more catholic solution.
And the long and short of addressing a lot of these concerns lies in the hands of the agencies that regulate so much of the data about us personally.
Puhlmann thinks that dollars and sense are going to come to a head much quicker than many anticipate, since the poor economic climate is driving an awful lot of fence sitters off the palings and into the clouds, and then,”economic pressure will become so immense that regulators will have a big lobby standing behind them to force them to act,” to catch up to cloud technologies and enact regulations that allow controlled data to exist in public cloud infrastructures.
And who am I to doubt him? A reporter, so of course I doubt him, and this is well-considered analysis, not factual reporting, but from a common-sense perspective, everything he says holds water, and it’s going to be terrifically interesting to see what happens with the cloud rubber meets that federally regulated road.