Disqus - Latest Comments for jamesurquhart

Re: http://blog.jamesurquhart.com/2008/11/in-cloud-computing-good-network-gives.html

jamesurquhart — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:22:22 -0000

Two places to pick up the conversation:

My new blog on CNET: http://news.cnet.com/the-wisdom-of-clouds
The Greg Ness founded http://infra20.com

Re: The Wisdom of Clouds is moving!!!

jamesurquhart — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:02:26 -0000

There are tradeoffs, to be sure. (For instance, I can't track my own traffic anymore, so I must break my statistical crack addiction.) However, in the long term it will be an invaluable venue. I hope to entice you to read as many as possible, but I, too, will miss the long-form feeds.

Thanks to you and all of the other gracious readers out there for turning what was just a place to vent into a community that I treasure and aim to serve the best I can.

Re: What is the value of IT convenience?

jamesurquhart — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:30:24 -0000

Well said, Steve. And I completely agree that IT is now under pressure to compete, not just serve. Let's see how the industry reacts, shall we? :-)

Your company/product naming comment is noted, and I made the correction.

Re: Do Your Cloud Applications Need To Be Elastic?

jmason — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:18:58 -0000

Hey James -- sorry for the delay, disqus didn't let me know there was a reply ;)

We're an early-stage startup, so no, we had no existing infrastructure bar a few colo servers which could be entirely replaced by EC2 instances.

Being able to use small numbers of servers at a time and be billed for just the CPU time used is great for us. Of course, we also have inelastic parts of the infrastructure that could be hosted elsewhere at a colo for less cost, and personally, I would probably have done this given the choice; but mgmt were happier just to use EC2 as widely as possible, despite the additional costs, since it keeps things simpler.

For example, we also use S3 heavily, and EC2-to-S3 traffic is extremely fast and cheap compared to external-to-S3; so that's proving to be an effective point of lock-in. (We don't mind.)

Regarding locally-hosted servers on our own infrastructure -- that was simply out. There's a massive amount of investment that would be required to get a sufficiently-reliable infrastructure set up, and a good deal of coding and config to get an EC2ish elastic server provisioning system going on that. Further down the line, that might be appropriate, but not yet... it's a lot easier to let Amazon do it for us ;)

There's definitely a point where we *could* migrate to our own infrastructure in the future, and open source apps like Eucalyptus make that more viable -- but in my opinion it's very far off indeed...

Re: Do Your Cloud Applications Need To Be Elastic?

jamesurquhart — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:05:04 -0000

See, now that's an interesting use case.

Did you do a cost comparison compared to running virtual machines on your own infrastructure? Did you have your own infrastructure to start with?

Also, have you ever done a spreadsheet projection about your costs if you become wildly successful? Is there a tipping point where owning your own stuff starts to look more attractive? That's what Animoto was predicting a few months ago.

Thanks for the comment. I hadn't thought of this angle at all.

James

Re: Do Your Cloud Applications Need To Be Elastic?

jamesurquhart — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:03:28 -0000

No, but then the Amazon figures don't reflect administrative OPEX, security/patching OPEX, regulatory compliance OPEX, backup system OPEX (or possibly even CAPEX), et. al. Don't be fooled, Amazon just gives you some servers; you are still responsible for provisioning, monitoring, patching, securiting, assuring compliance, providing a backup plan should Amazon go down, etc., etc., etc. Developers think there is nothing to do once the server is provisioned. System administrators responsible for availability and compliance know much more is at stake.

Re: Do Your Cloud Applications Need To Be Elastic?

jamesurquhart — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 03:37:03 -0000

Again, if it doesn't need to be running all of the time (and you can remember to shut the dang thing off), it may be a candidate for EC2/S3. However, just note that there are 24X7 costs for every EC2 instance, whether it is on or not, in the form of S3/EBS.

I'm just warning people to do the math before committing to the cloud.

Re: Why the Choice of Cloud Computing Type May Depend On Who's Buying

jamesurquhart — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:44:00 -0000

I think both Geva and Stuart are correct, but the differences come out when you dig into near term versus long term. In the 3-5 year horizon, there is no doubt that IT organizations will use the models they know and love when leveraging the cloud, in all its various forms. So, IaaS is attractive for those wanting server capacity for software stacks they own and operate. Specific types of developers developing specific applications will be drawn to PaaS, however, as it eliminated gaining a skill they'd rather not waste time on.

However, my question stands for the 5-10 year time frame. If the ultimate goal from the businesses standpoint is specific functionality at specific service levels (including security, etc.), then why "build you own" if someone offers a perfectly good framework/platform on which to build it.

Now, folks like ELASTRA, Cassatt, 3TERA and others have an opportunity to drive upwards from infrastructure automation into "platforms", but I predict they will have to narrow down their target market to do so. Alternatively, they can remain general, but will become "plumbing" and relatively commoditized if they do.

I just have trouble seeing a CIO agree that hiring an entire data center staff beats just hiring a developer to write functionality on an infrastructure that someone else worries about--with the caveat that ALL of the CIOs biggest concerns would have to be met before PaaS would be selected. No PaaS platform is there today, but I'm pretty sure that if the money is there, there will be several that target specific business uses in the mid to long term.

Re: Two Announcements to Pay Attention To This Week

jamesurquhart — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:49:15 -0000

Let me clarify what I meant. When you capture an image into Cassatt, it gets tweaked a little bit. Not much, just stripped of the source host's specific IP and host information, which is replaced with a placeholder so that it can be filled in with instance-specific information later. No one else uses this format for "stripping" server images. So, it is proprietary.

That being said, I completely agree that it is a "generalized" image protocol that allows users to store *any* software image (built on a supported OS) in the repository. Furthermore, Cassatt entirely uses standards, such as PXE and NFS, to deliver a completely "normal" file system to the target server, one which when delivered is impossible to distinguish from an image installed manually. So, in the end, for someone using only Cassatt, the image format is immaterial.

Finally, these images can be deployed equally well to both physical and virtual servers. This, it may turn out, could be the thing that softens my complaint...if a Cassatt image delivered to a VDC-OS infrastructure results in a VM that can be deployed equally well to a private or public cloud, then my point is moot. However, today there really isn't much portability outside of Cassatt private clouds--which is consistent with the state of the market.

I just know you guys, so I push you harder... :-)

Re: http://blog.jamesurquhart.com/2008/11/change-take-two.html

jamesurquhart — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:45:49 -0000

Thanks to all for the kind words. I couldn't have done it without those that read this blog and push me to do better. I greatly appreciate the support I've gotten from you all.

Re: A Quick Guide To The "Big Four" Cloud Offerings

jamesurquhart — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:17:13 -0000

Alain,

In terms of market share, you are correct. In terms of mindshare, I disagree whole heartedly. At this point, everything IaaS or PaaS is being compared to one of those four offerings. I hear excellent things about Morph Labs, but they don't get the press that these four get.

I'm not sure I understand the portability comment. Let's just say I think most enterprises are realistic about what to expect here, but still secretly hold out hope. It is a worthy consideration from the end user's point of view.

Re: A Quick Guide To The "Big Four" Cloud Offerings

jamesurquhart — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:06:11 -0000

I can't find the reference, but I've heard that cloud marketing is the leading cause of death of keyboards in North America and Europe today. (Asian character set keyboards are somehow immune, perhaps because there is no character for "buaahahahaha!" in any eastern language.) This is why I type all of my blog posts on a five year old Panasonic Toughbook.

Seriously, though, feel free to extend the table. I have little doubt that you'll do so in the spirit of work...

James

Re: Overcast: Conversations on Cloud Computing

jamesurquhart — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:09:19 -0000

Thanks, Sam. Your input is greatly appreciated.

James

Re: Is Amazon in Danger of Becoming the WallMart of the Cloud?

jamesurquhart — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:37:14 -0000

Trevor,

An excellent post yourself...I like the application of the economies of scale argument to the concept of "big box clouds". In fact, I like your blog in general. I am now a subscriber.

James

Re: Is Amazon in Danger of Becoming the WallMart of the Cloud?

Mark — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 03:31:31 -0000

Your post raises a valid concern - one that several people have raised elsewhere. RS have, to their credit, indicated in several posts that they don't share the fear (for the moment at least).

My reference to globalization debate was probably poorly expressed - I pointed out your post shared an element with the globalization lobby. Specifically, raising fears on others behalf.
Anyway, I wanted to illustrate the example of third parties 'campaigning' or raising issues/fears without really doing their homework -
of course opinions should always be freely given.

Some observations in the context of your shopping market:
- Observe a shopping center/mall. Aren't there typically anchor tenants (Kmart/Walmart/Target etc.) and specialty stores in the one mall? Don't the speciality stores often carry products similar to, but more specialized than those in Target/Kmart/Walmart etc? Isn't one cited role of anchor tenants to draws crowds, and for the specialty stores to access the passing traffic volume - traffic volume they wouldn't necessarily attract on their own. Isn't it reasonable to compare AWS to the anchor tenant and Ylastic/RS to the specialty stores? In RS case they appear to see themselves as a specialty vendor that will happily co-exist along side a Walmart anchor tenant (AWS) or a Target anchor tenant (Eucalyptus?, Globus/Nimbus?)
- Next note what has happened with JungleDisk - acquired by RackSpace. If I follow your logic, you'd seem to want that: (A) AWS shouldn't compete with its ecosystem. Rather they must develop that ecosystem so that an AWS competitor can come and cannibalize it? Interesting logic. Or (B) do you propose that AWS should only compete with their 'community ecosystem' after one of their competitors acquires one of their community?
What if AWS look at the community efforts and think 'Nope. We don't think they have got it right. We need to have much better'. Are their hands to be tied? Should AWS have give away all of their ideas for someone else to profit from?

I think lurking in your logic is the sentiment that there can only be one successful offering, all else are doomed to failure. That seems to me to be a little like claiming no specialty store can expect to succeed in a mall that has a Walmart/Kmart/Target present. Or, no more than one specialty store can survive/thrive.

Finally, it is disturbing that you assign 0 (zero) weight to the consumer in all this. Your very emotive description:
"Amidst this traumatic upheaval appeared a great beast, threatening to suck what little life was left out of small town retail businesses."

Could equally have this counterpart:
"After decades of having the life sucked out of the family budget, residents could afford life's essentials without having to work overtime on weekends just to pay the local vampires running their cozy monopolies. Time spent slaving to buy something warm for winter was replaced by time spent with family on holidays.
The local blood suckers had long used their excess profits to ensure they controlled the local retail space - ensuring their inefficient monopoly. They also paid enough money to local sport and community bodies to ensure that their threats to withdraw support, if their representatives weren't elected to council, would leave a community crippled."

Of course that would never happen in smaller communities.
Never :)

Re: Is Amazon in Danger of Becoming the WallMart of the Cloud?

jamesurquhart — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:22:12 -0000

I'm sorry you see it that way. There is no element of globalization policy intended or, in my opinion, communicated in this post. It was a statement of a time in rural Iowa, and its *possible* analogy in the cloud. What happened, happened. In point of fact, most small towns survived Walmart, but many businesses didn't.

So its impossible that I tied Ylastic or any of these other companies with an opinion on anything but the disruptive nature of a "superstore" on competing small businesses. I've spoke with Ylastic's CTO, Prabhakar Chaganti, and I know how they are pitching their product. I stand by *my opinion* that Ylastic will find any Amazon-promoted GUI a challenge to their current model.

At worst, you can accuse me of being resistant to a valid disruptive business model. Which is probably fair. I may also be completely wrong.

Don't try to cast this as a political message that it is not. It distracts from the real question: is Amazon in danger of cannibalizing the entrepreneurial ecosystem of small businesses and startups that organically sprung up around it in the cloud?

Re: Amazon Enhances "The Proto-Cloud"

pretherford — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:06:29 -0000

James, you're right, the management console bullet mentions "a
point-and-click web interface". I missed that. On one level, I am a little
concerned that Amazon is crossing a line that might shrink the opportunity
for other providers in the AWS ecosystem.
Looking forward to your "Wall Mart" post! -Paul

Re: Amazon Enhances "The Proto-Cloud"

jamesurquhart — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:44:26 -0000

Paul,

Thanks for the kind words and great insight. I'll correct the root access reference.

Re: the "packaging" of services, I tend to thing "interactive AWS management console" (from Jeff's post) is a GUI. Would you agree? Does that not hint at the types of APIs you suggest?

James

Re: The PaaS Spectrum: Choosing Your Coding Cloud

jamesurquhart — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:06:50 -0000

Absolutely! And here's to PaaS vendors working together to allow that investment in programming and innovation to be portable to more than one vendor! ;-)

Re: The PaaS Spectrum: Choosing Your Coding Cloud

jamesurquhart — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:21:53 -0000

Which is great, and certainly a big effort saver for those looking to scale applications across tens or hundreds of systems. Not portable, though.

Tim Bray's site has an interesting discussion about this right now: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/10/...

Re: The PaaS Spectrum: Choosing Your Coding Cloud

jamesurquhart — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:18:57 -0000

Heroku is actually very cool. It falls squarely in the category of "Productivity/Ease of Operation", but there are a few Ruby PaaS providers out there, so perhaps not as "far right" as some.

Re: Cracks in the Clouds, but the Sky Ain't Fallin'

jamesurquhart — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 03:50:04 -0000

Point well taken, and thank you. Fixed now.

Re: What the hell is going on with the Cloud Computing group on Google?

jamesurquhart — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:19:12 -0000

Jeremy,

You caught me on Sam's stats. I didn't do my homework there, and I'll update to reflect that. However, that just means he is in the top 2% of members, not the top 1%.

Everyone promotes their stuff on that list. I'm not with a product company, so I'm not pushing product, but I certainly used my blog as post fodder (and more rarely did the reverse). So did Reuven, botchagalupe, etc., etc., etc.

Finally, I have no desire to take over anything. I thought I was a part of a community, with a certain level of community self policing. I was wrong. I can't speak for Sam.

However, you and Reuven are right about one thing. I can take my discussions elsewhere.

James

Re: Cisco's Nexus 1000v and the Cloud: Is it really a big deal?

jamesurquhart — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:20:01 -0000

See! I knew there were some very cloud-smart people working on that project!

Re: Cisco's Nexus 1000v and the Cloud: Is it really a big deal?

jamesurquhart — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:18:02 -0000

I will update the post to reflect this. I am unfortunately unable to make VMWorld this year, but I'd love to get a demo sometime. Send me an email at jurquhart at yahoo dot com.