Re: [clouds] A cloud ref. framework for your review and comments

Paul Unbehagen <> Mon, 02 August 2010 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE853A6C18 for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.739
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pt9sqfEN6iSF for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9527F3A6C13 for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyg8 with SMTP id 8so1624493gyg.31 for <>; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u5mr7373339yba.197.1280773285103; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id q36sm4286680yba.12.2010. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <294030129BF751408412C35312657D974E7991B241@qtdenexmbm21.AD.QINTRA.COM> <> <> <> <17969D855F28964C88D177D45B6CDF1104D3B76237@IMCMBX2.MITRE.ORG> <>
Message-Id: <>
From: Paul Unbehagen <>
To: Sam Johnston <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4--329121940
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (7B405)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 7B405)
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:21:11 -0600
Cc: "Natale, Bob" <>, "Fargano, Michael" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [clouds] A cloud ref. framework for your review and comments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:20:59 -0000

Hey Sam,

I agree that the market will work it out and is already moving in this direction or else we wouldn't be having these discussions. I also agree with Bob that there are different semantics for private. 

I think most who attend a cloud bof also get the analogy to the public electric grid as a similar model for cost savings for IT, but in that analogy not every source of electric power is always from the public grid and for that matter where it is from a utility it's not the same public utility provider in different places or applications.  Which means as time goes on there will be several public and private cloud models.  So, it's not so much the tail wagging the dog as it's two different dogs that share a lot in common.   

Let's also be sure not to become too myopic and forget that not everyone will connect to a giant public cloud. There are and will be more private clouds in the market. As there is more to the decision of using the cloud than just economic such as legal, security, and proximity.


On Aug 2, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Sam Johnston <> wrote:

> On 2 August 2010 01:25, Natale, Bob <> wrote:
> In the general case, I don't think it is accurate to say that [all] private clouds lack multi-tenancy – it's just that their tenant base is restricted relative to that of public clouds.  The tenant base for a private cloud might be multiple departments, divisions, or even multiple distinct corporations (all members of the same conglomerate, for example).  In some cases, those tenant bases will have legal, cultural, or logistical grounds that equate effective independence in this context.
> However you look at it you are significantly limiting the benefit of cloud by limiting the size of the pool as you still have to engineer for peak loads and carry 100% of the costs yourself, wasting valuable resources on maintaining IT rather than applying it to business problems (the latter being a differentiator, the former a handicap). This may be an improvement over today's wasteful approach to IT but it's incremental and only applies to the largest of enterprises and even then only those who implement top down - many cloud pilots are departmental and therefore little more than the evolution of virtualisation.
> The question often comes up as to whether Amazon EC2 is a "private cloud" from Amazon's point of view, but this is bogus as they do share the capex, ops, etc. with many untrusted third parties. As such "community cloud" (where a number of different organisations form a community to share infrastructure) is a better emulation of "true" cloud computing than "private cloud", but the benefits are still limited compared to a massive multi-tenant infrastructure like that of Amazon, Google and Microsoft.
> Anyway this argument is ongoing, unlikely to be resolved here (though the market will work it out quickly enough) and tangential to the issue of standards.
> Sam