Month: March 2009
The rumors of this IT mega-merger have been swirling and were in full force this week. I’m not sure yet how the long-term balance of strategic benefits will work out for IBM, as well as the impact on the industry. Who knows, maybe Big Blue wants to take spotlight away from possible controversy involving CEO Sam Palmisano’s monstrous $21 million bonus in 2008, in light of the current AIG drama? Just sayin’…
- Sun’s new Open cloud API, very cool
- Sun’s virtualization
- MySQL, and more open-source credentials
- Bigger imprint into the Data center (and the cloud)
- Accumulating more overhead…HP took years to digest Compaq
- Sun’s cachet has been fading for many years
- Still not a major network player, despite recent partnership with Juniper
- Still not a major storage player – see EMC, NetApp, Dell and Hitachi
It’s hard not to interpret IBM wanting to swipe back at Cisco in the race to dominate the emerging cloud market, given that the rumors emerged barely a day after Cisco’s major Unified Computing initiative. But IBM is enhancing their strengths – servers, open source, applications – and not addressing weaknesses in networking and storage with this potential acquisition. HP appears to have a more compelling end to end Data Center offering, with an established EVA StorageWorks line in addition to ProCurve networking. I’m not sold on this one yet…
I agree with Sun Microsystems CTO Greg Papadopoulos’ assertion that Open Source has several advantages over proprietary systems relating to cloud computing. After all, current market leader Amazon built their EC2 offering on open source Xen virtualization, and startups especially tend to benefit from the increased freedom of open source licensing compared to Microsoft. MS has an uphill battle to get established with mindshare for cloud computing, and notwithstanding the recent Azure outage, their complex licensing schemes continue to befuddle developers and IT personnel alike. At last year’s Hosting Summit in Redmond, I remember attending a breakout session on licensing changes with Windows 2008 and IIS7 during which several Microsoft staff appeared to openly disagree about new system licensing requirements. Ummm-kay…
And circling back again to Amazon, it seems that load balancing continues to emerge as an important feature currently lacking in EC2. Users are experimenting with various workarounds for load balancing, but more importantly there are relative cost considerations between EC2 and competing solutions. It’s all about who’s in control, and businesses blindly marching down the marketing-induced path to a public cloud without a thorough evaluation of their applications relationship to infrastructure, such as disk-write intensity, or network upstream traffic vs. downstream, are headed for a rude surprise.
My first response to Cisco’s announcement today is measured skepticism. Cisco certainly plays a central role in most modern data centers, dominating arguably the most critical infrastructure component, the network. By consolidating network, compute, storage and virtualization systems, Cisco is essentially offering a “cloud in a box.” Aside from the obvious marketing angle of leverage the current excitement around the cloud, though, it seems that Cisco is realizing they need more to drive sales of the new Nexus enterprise switch platform. However, while VMware and Microsoft are natural partners for virtualization, I’m wary of Cisco’s initial venture into the compute space. After all, a handful of companies with names like IBM, Dell and HP already have substantial experience in delivering enterprise server solutions, and I noticed none of them were listed as partners in the Cisco announcement. This is certainly a stark illustration of the new balance of power in the infrastructure world, where hypervisors and VM’s are taking precedence over bare-metal servers. Very interesting…
Despite demonstrated examples of migrating entire applications within a cloud, the reality is that most organizations are still unprepared for the required infrastructure and network to support this level of dynamic architecture. More importantly, there are compelling reasons to consider before shifting an application to a cloud-based provider. I’ve met developers whose lack of understanding of infrastructure – and reluctance to spend – has led them towards seeing the cloud as a silver bullet, but as Greg Ness has stated, bluntly, this may be an “escapist fantasy.”
Size is a critical factor in determining an organization’s ability to utilize the cloud, but needs to be balanced with business objectives and depth of IT resources. While tech-based startups and enterprises may be ripe for cloud-based services, especially a hybrid approach for the enterprise, small businesses might not be appropriate candidates. Applications such as accounting and financial systems, HR, development servers. and Exchange/Sharepoint are likely better served locally for small and some medium-sized businesses, due to reasons of security, auditing and performance.
Don’t close up that Data Center yet.
With all the recent attention around the Cloud, it appears that the line of questioning for determining strategy should begin with “how” and not “if.” The Cloud is already emerging, and while the lining is still blurry, there’s no question that an understanding and response is in order. Many analysts seem to suggest that Cloud-based services, such as Amazon EC2, are a very compelling choice, especially for emerging SMB’s seeking to maximize the value of an elastic, cost-effective, easily scalable platform, in a recessionary climate. But there are certainly cases where it may not make sense to entrust core infrastructure to an external Cloud.
A key determinant in evaluating the appropriate investment into a Cloud-based service is the degree of relative criticality of IT infrastructure to the core business. Regarding IT infrastructure, I am referring here to the collection of hardware, operating systems, networking, data, and back-end applications which comprise modern Data Centers. If your core business is driven from your IT infrastructure, why would you rush to cede control of strategic technologies to an outside vendor? Several few years ago, I managed IT operations for an online gaming company based in Los Angeles, and made a conscious decision to de-couple the central office and Data Center, separated without a WAN or permanent VPN connection. One day a technician from our ISP was onsite in the office to upgrade the Internet connection. Unfortunately, he snipped the wrong fiber cable, and the office was completely disconnected from the Net. Yet the online games hosted from the co-located Data Center continued to operate normally throughout the day and generate revenue, albeit with limited support and monitoring. Here is a very concrete illustration of the heightened criticality of IT infrastructure in a particular business environment, to the degree that having the office offline for a full business day was of minimal impact. In this case, a move to external Cloud-based services would be ill-advised, given the central role of infrastructure in this online gaming business.