Re: [sop] two architectures - which one do you prefer?

Adam Greenhalgh <agreenha@cisco.com> Mon, 20 February 2012 10:01 UTC

Return-Path: <agreenha@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9631221F8701 for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:01:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rmtY1sASWIID for <sop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A8121F86FA for <sop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:01:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=agreenha@cisco.com; l=2786; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329732085; x=1330941685; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=gwp5vG0aAogp/HuIKUPH/atyktYApU4d05PcGb2ntWI=; b=CCqDvC+Sw9HH4BEj5j4s6A6AP6RBEOhKwXfNYafgWc2jFw0iaT0cCV9b agQSDwuRCQpdIiHJoz0GUjWWXG+7c81MrxL+vYaur/gd2RlS5r8Hogkx6 6OFoq8i7jIAAKmBtkD4dUNmjBvkwwd+JEQFLWHvtXnLztWIsaIpv910dP s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,450,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="129911270"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2012 10:01:23 +0000
Received: from [64.103.94.23] ([64.103.94.23]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1KA1N8r015549; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:01:23 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Adam Greenhalgh <agreenha@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C510300242D@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:02:56 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF7E69B2-DBDF-4494-86BD-1B8840D99F49@cisco.com>
References: <618BE8B40039924EB9AED233D4A09C510300242D@XMB-BGL-416.cisco.com>
To: sop@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "Ashish Dalela \(adalela\)" <adalela@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [sop] two architectures - which one do you prefer?
X-BeenThere: sop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Service Orchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services <sop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sop>, <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sop>
List-Post: <mailto:sop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop>, <mailto:sop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:01:29 -0000

I suspect that in fact the model that might come to the fore is a hybrid of these two, where the application is the "God" of a zone of the data centre and a "Greater God" oversees the bigger picture for the whole datacenter. The complexity is going to come from the interaction between these "Gods". 

Adam

On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:32, Ashish Dalela (adalela) wrote:

>  
> BTW, these may not be the only architectures out there. So, if anyone believes there are more architectures, it would be great to have that in the discussion. I’m just familiar with two of them, so hope to hear if there are more. I realize that “God” may be a strong word for some people (J), but we could replace this with the word “controller” without loss of meaning.
>  
> Thanks, Ashish
>  
> From: Ashish Dalela (adalela) 
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 11:28 AM
> To: sop@ietf.org
> Subject: two architectures - which one do you prefer?
>  
> Folks,
>  
> There are two dominant architectures being pushed for cloud in the industry today.
>                                                                                             
> 1.  Application is the God of the datacenter. All infrastructure is food supplied to the application to continue its operation, and additional infrastructure is provisioned if an application asks for it. The “management” of the infrastructure is in the application, because the infrastructure really exists for the purposes of the application. You obviously have to often re-write or re-design or at the least enhance your applications to be able to orchestrate the infrastructure.
>  
> 2.  A new God is created for both infrastructure and application. In this model, some new controller monitors both application and infrastructure, holds the policies for which application / user can have which resources, how much a user has to be billed for a type of service, etc. You don’t have to re-write your applications but you have to create an additional control layer on top of infrastructure and application. You want this additional layer to be as flat as possible, but allow sufficient abstractions for easy control.
>  
> These obviously entail different architectures, from an application control standpoint. In the first model, the application controls itself and the infrastructure. In the second model, the application is also a resource along with infrastructure, managed by some external controller.
>  
> Any discussion or comments on these two models?
>  
> Thanks, Ashish
> _______________________________________________
> sop mailing list
> sop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sop