• Home
  • About
  • Events
  • Downloads
  • Blog
  • Contact us

Follow via
Login  |  Sign up

A legal view on Big Data

In the past few years, we’ve worked with Nolan Goldberg, Proskauer’s Senior Counsel for IP & Technology at a variety of conferences. Nolan is a breath of fresh air in an all-too-often hyperbolic cloud industry, offering carefully reasoned arguments and opinions grounded in the rule of law.

He wasn’t able to make the Strata conference earlier this year due to storms in New York, so he spent his time writing an extensively researched piece on e-discovery, big data, and the law. It’s been published in the National Law Journal. We’re distributing it here with permission from the April 11, 2011 edition of the National Law Journal, but unlike other content available from Bitcurrent, further duplication without permission is prohibited. If you’d like information on using this article, contact 877-257-3382 or reprints@alm.com or visit www.almeprints.com.

Nolan will be joining David Snead at this year’s Interop conference in Las Vegas to tackle the thorny subject of cloud computing SLAs and terms of service on May 12.

admin
Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

The move to turnkey computing

At this year’s Cloud Connect, Werner Vogels predicted a future in which everything-as-a-service is the norm. While enterprise IT often equates virtual machines with the cloud, the reality is that virtual machines are only one of dozens of services Amazon offers. Its competitors aren’t far behind: companies like Google offer a horde of APIs, and even more traditional memory/compute/storage providers like Joyent are adding turnkey products for large storage.

In the end, nobody wants to see the sausage being made. Recent announcements by folks like VMWare, public provider acquisitions of PaaS products, competing private stacks like Openstack and Cloud.com, and private cloud tools that run higher up the stack remind us of one thing above all else: herding your boxen is a distraction from the business of building software and deploying applications.

I tried to argue this point at Cloud Connect, in a presentation entitled The Move to Turnkey Computing. Here it is on Slideshare, as a PDF with speakers’ notes.

The move to turnkey computing
View more documents from Alistair Croll

Comments (0)
Tags : clouds, Force.com, Heroku, IaaS, Joyent, PaaS, Riak, vmware

Cloud performance from the end user perspective

This report looks at roughly 300 million individual tests of nine cloud platforms, conducted over a seven-day period. Cedexis, a company that measures Internet health through browser instrumentation in order to optimize its customers’ use of clouds and CDNs, shared the data with us.

This is dense stuff; we’re distributing it under a Creative Commons license, and we ask that you attribute us when you re-use it. In addition to data about cloud performance from almost every country and service provider, the report also shows which clouds perform best from which regions.

Some quick takeaways:

  • Regional effects matter tremendously, and the difference between countries can be significant.
  • ƒDirecting a regional client to the correct regionalized zone for a cloud provider does improve performance.
  • The average time to complete an HTTP request and receive a response, worldwide, was 426.4 milliseconds. The average availability worldwide was 97.69%.
  • ƒWhile most cloud providers had roughly similar average availability, a closer analysis of percentiles shows that the worst-served visitors fared very differently. This underscores the importance of doing proper analysis on performance data.
  • End user information is an important complement to synthetic testing. While the results aren’t as consistent, they provide insight into the conditions of far-flung end users across a broad spectrum of networks and countries.
  • ƒGiven variance in cloud performance and availability by region and by day, it makes sense for serious cloud users to hedge their bets, and find ways to arbitrate cost and service quality across providers.

As with other studies we’ve published, this one was sponsored by Cedexis, who also gave us access to their raw data. They didn’t have any editorial input into the content; as with other firms with whom we’ve published research—Citrix, Coradiant, and Neustar Webmetrics—Cedexis is a proponent of sharing data that advances the understanding of emerging technologies. We’re big fans of this approach to marketing, and thank them for their support.

SIDENOTE: When we first published this study on March 3, 2011, we let Google know that we’d calculated a significantly lower percentage availability for Google App Engine than other cloud providers. We let the folks at Google know, and the App Engine team looked into the situation. They helped us investigate the problem, which initially seemed like a billing problem. The team worked closely with Bitcurrent and Cedexis, and we’ve updated our study with a detailed analysis of that discussion. The short version: there’s a big difference between what App Engine sees as availability, and what end users see; and that experience is significantly worse for certain countries.

Cloud Computing Survey 2011

Earlier this month, we surveyed roughly 150 IT professionals, analysts, cloud proponents, and end users for their thoughts on cloud computing. The main purpose of the study was to look at the motivations for, and obstacles to, cloud adoption; and to see if there are correlations between these and specific industries, company types, or company sizes.

While the data is instructive, the sample size for some responses is not statistically significant, and warrants further research. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that for vendors, tailoring their benefits and concerns to their audiences may be helpful; and for IT buyers, understanding how their top issues compare to their peers in other industries may offer a more nuanced perspective on the move to cloud.

Alistair Croll
Alistair Croll
Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011

Cloud provider deep dives at ECS 2011

This year, we’re adding a new element to Interop’s Enterprise Cloud Summit. We’ve asked eight public cloud providers (Amazon, Joyent, Microsoft, Rackspace, Salesforce, Navisite, Terremark, and Gogrid) and four private cloud stacks (Openstack, Cloud.com, Red Hat Makara, and Eucalyptus) to answer a set of predefined questions about their offerings.

The questions are designed to let attendees compare offerings—while they’re not strictly apples-to-apples, at least they bound the discussion.

Public clouds (here’s the slide deck)

  • Main elements of your service: What are your main service offerings (i.e. the top 3 technologies, services, or APIs your subscribers use?)
  • Pricing: How are those services priced? (i.e. what is the unit of measure, what do you charge, do you have an elastic pricing model based on usage?)
  • Security and certifications: What security or similar certifications do you have? (i.e. FIPS, SAS-70, PCI)
  • Data centers and zones: Where are your data centers or availability zones (i.e. Europe, US, China)
  • Customers: What are three companies building things on your platform? (One slide per customer profile is OK here)
  • SLAs and compensation: What SLAs do you offer (i.e. data recoverability, uptime, latency?) and how do you compensate those (i.e. service refund)?
  • Architecture: How is the system architected (i.e. what underlying stacks do you rely on?) A couple of diagrams are OK here.
  • Portability: How can people move things onto and off of your platform (i.e. are there APIs? Portable machine image formats? Private stacks they can run?)

Private clouds (here’s the slide deck)

  • Service library: What cloud services does the stack offer? (i.e. virtual machines, code execution, large-object storage, message queueing.)
  • OS, language, and API support: What operating systems, languages, or APIs can the user employ? (i.e. Python, any OS, etc.)
  • On what stack is it based? (VMWare, Xen, KVM, etc.)
  • Requirements & limitations: What are the underlying hardware requirements or constraints? (i.e. pairs of machines; Intel quad-core processors; sub-10-ms latency between nodes)
  • Portability: Is the stack portable to other stacks, or to public cloud provider environments? (i.e. can you move an AMI to Amazon?)
  • What standards or de-facto standards does it support?
  • How is it priced? (i.e. by core, by user, open source with a support contract, etc.)
  • Included tools: What management tools do you offer? (a screenshot or two is fine here)
  • Capacity, performance, availability: What are the capacity, performance, and availability constraints? (i.e. scales to a maximum of 20 nodes)
  • Global distribution: Can it work in a distributed, multi-city mode with additional redundancy?

Putting vendors on stage to talk about their wares can be a disaster, and ECS is a paid event with a focus on content. To be sure this works, we’re doing two things: First, we’re limiting each presenter to ten minutes and the slides we’re providing them. And second, if we don’t get the slides from a provider at least 2 weeks in advance, we’re either going to replace them (as you can imagine, there are plenty of folks who didn’t make our list of 12 providers that would like the visibility) or present the content ourselves (based on our research).

Hopefully this will keep the signal-to-noise ratio high. Anyway, it’s the first time we’re trying something like this, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens. We’ll consolidate the responses and publish them as a research paper once we get everyone’s answers.

Comments (0)
Tags : cloud providers, comparison, ECS, Interop

Cloud evening at RPM

We’re hosting a cloud computing evening at our offices in RPM, with leaders from five major cloud providers, who are all here for the annual CRIM Boule de Crystal conference. Representatives from Amazon, Google, IBM, Savvis and Salesforce.com will be discussing the arrival of on-demand computing, with a candid look at each of their platforms and one-on-one “genius bar” discussions to help startups with their specific issues.

CloudOps will be providing pizza and snacks. Attendance is free, but limited.

You can sign up using Eventbrite.

A.

Ian Rae
Ian Rae
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

Cloud Connect live: Neal Sample of eBay – cloud bursting for fun and profit

Cloud bursting for fun and profit…own the base, rent the spike.

eBay 2B page views/day 6000 application servers 9PB of data.

Cloud bursting: control costs and increase efficiency.

2000 servers provisioned at a fixed cost but only 300-1600 used at any given point of the day. A lot of “whitespace” or excess capacity.

How can we remove the peaks? Time shifting the workload helps a little bit, bringing us down to about 800 servers required.

Financial model structure: take the hourly demand in average TPS and max TPS per CU to get the hourly computing units required (CUs). Take the number of CUs in the internal cloud and the hourly cost, plus the hourly CUs in the extermal cloud, you get total hourly cost.

Cost benefit analysis shows that an external cloud at 4x the cost of the internal cloud still yields economic benefits in dealing with the spikes.

If the cost of the cloud is half of the internal cloud then it makes no sense to run anything internally.

In between is the interesting area where we need to make hard choices.

Cloud bursting is very interesting to eBay, allowing us to cut costs by at least 25%.

Lower the investment in infrastructure to focus on the business intelligence.

Comments (1)
Ian Rae
Ian Rae
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

Cloud Connect live: Willem van Biljon of Nimbula

Cloud architecture is made up of many complex pieces. Compute, storage and network hardware, with a Cloud OS (IaaS control plane), and finally PaaS and SaaS layered on top.

Scale, automation, resource management, permission and policy management are the key challenges.

The hypervisor is NOT the Cloud OS, rather an essential component.

Large enterprises have shown that commodity hardware can lower costs. Design the application for commodity hardware and you can dramatically lower costs.

Network: topology no longer defines security, which now needs to be automatically and dynamically managed.

Federation: challenges are API, identity, data and application environment. Identity is the key.

Billing: metering, rating, and bill generation. The business is where the rating is.

Storage: Lots of data on enterprise platforms, opportunity to re-architect with low-cost storage. No one-size-fits all. The key is balance.

The cloud ecosystem has many components, many issues PER component. Focus on the key issues per component.

Comments (0)
Ian Rae
Ian Rae
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

Cloud Connect live: Andy Schroepfer of Rackspace

The cloud is coming and all that matters is cost. Rackspace cloud is for smaller clients, medium clients use hybrid strategies, and they are hoping large companies will use OpenStack.

Market will divide into 2 sectors: the self-service cloud, and the managed cloud. Just like in hosting versus managed hosting.

Service is what matters.

Pick the right platform for the right application. Rackspace’s strategy is that a hybrid approach of dedicated infrastructure and cloud is best served by a single provider.

SaaS – the “other” cloud. Rackspace hosts a huge number of SaaS platforms. SaaS is a huge agent of change in IT, and reduces IT staff.

OpenStack is a Nasa collaboration to provide an open-source platform that is hypervisor agnostic and provides storage portability.

Comments (0)
Ian Rae
Ian Rae
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

Cloud Connect live: Marty Kagan of Cedexis keynote

Cedexis took a different approach to monitoring performance: inserted objects in all CDNs and convinced top sites to insert objects into their pages to gather real user performance experience.

15 Billion measurements in January, analyzed by Bitcurrent.

EC2 East outperforms Rackspace, Joyent, Google AppEngine and Azure.

If you deploy on multiple availability zones…do you use static geo-load balancing or base your decision on real-time performance information?

Turns out you get much better international coverage, a 20-30% improvement by using performance based load balancing.

Comments (0)
Next Page »
Creative Commons License
Proudly powered by WordPress