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

Sam Johnston <sj@google.com> Mon, 02 August 2010 06:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sjj@google.com>
X-Original-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clouds@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CBC3A659C for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.616
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.240, BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8K4ffyZ3lM9O for <clouds@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5373A6837 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:24:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.2]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o726Ookp017595 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:24:50 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1280730291; bh=Dq6ydl9+YOvWJ9CiEjjHvtUKSxw=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=V++yw3kpAkSjogJ/x72qJ76j20UyUWlEGsap8HifkagOmFAyKKlNu5qwtqiM4i4Dz aD6Cgxqa1exneZkRjc/7w==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=qGQ1Xx66jMSREeE3XCPk2ntEok70bli9QUYdmvwCGB02o7M6dUgqdDB4Sy0giVfZY nd1O6wgVbah1/LR+M4jsg==
Received: from bwz7 (bwz7.prod.google.com [10.188.26.7]) by hpaq2.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o726OQYn020514 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:24:49 -0700
Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so1831942bwz.3 for <clouds@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.143.19 with SMTP id s19mr3750522bku.181.1280730288986; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.25.77 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <17969D855F28964C88D177D45B6CDF1104D3B76237@IMCMBX2.MITRE.ORG>
References: <AANLkTinvqsPzwBDxrj74RXpys21x2BRmJFBcoc8vbRhW@mail.gmail.com> <294030129BF751408412C35312657D974E7991B241@qtdenexmbm21.AD.QINTRA.COM> <AANLkTinW9dXdbArLGp2oKRt3QbzHhLL+zm=TdaQK-cCE@mail.gmail.com> <25C3B27C-5DF8-4855-A272-BD10591F6B6F@unbehagen.net> <AANLkTi=ap4AbXYKq_3ZDqyKR7JOzcx8j9EoLpRqoNxnG@mail.gmail.com> <17969D855F28964C88D177D45B6CDF1104D3B76237@IMCMBX2.MITRE.ORG>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:24:48 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimoXzS-sXA6p4U5kOSQDFhEbmNf7h=TRvQNWESW@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sam Johnston <sj@google.com>
To: "Natale, Bob" <RNATALE@mitre.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747b97aed9bfd048cd14130
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: Paul Unbehagen <paul@unbehagen.net>, "clouds@ietf.org" <clouds@ietf.org>, "Fargano, Michael" <Michael.Fargano@qwest.com>
Subject: Re: [clouds] A cloud ref. framework for your review and comments
X-BeenThere: clouds@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <clouds.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clouds>
List-Post: <mailto:clouds@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clouds>, <mailto:clouds-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 06:24:25 -0000

On 2 August 2010 01:25, Natale, Bob <RNATALE@mitre.org> 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