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

"Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <> Mon, 20 February 2012 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBDF21F871A for <>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:21:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.258
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.258 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.341, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NF0oIXOZgz5r for <>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB6221F8710 for <>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:21:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3134; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1329733274; x=1330942874; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=BAtvFXJtUyYOsNkE/tH75iKCmg97EnwG9XvZWTIwPDs=; b=lJMJBxguD978vjJFk4ehHW6FJQ4wf34Tpp+1g/wILdZdYXEOjjxNGP63 ai/OgxkMUtHHMdW6tfCBKY6+2XqmEIlSt4TO7Tu84Pb99qNM5yefpZ2b2 gIiJ/vEnHZ8cnm77xz0hLJJXEMtCwmfZQHcCMm7+aEI3zMCeZTyVXvkG0 U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,450,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="31300661"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 Feb 2012 10:21:13 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1KAKd6I028128 for <>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:21:13 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:51:08 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:51:07 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [sop] two architectures - which one do you prefer?
Thread-Index: AczvtpvyZvkXZ/kRSbqYnEEmWjlmNwAAdx9Q
References: <> <>
From: "Ashish Dalela (adalela)" <>
To: "Adam Greenhalgh (agreenha)" <>, <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2012 10:21:08.0726 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C874960:01CCEFB9]
Subject: Re: [sop] two architectures - which one do you prefer?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Service Orchestration and Desciption for Cloud Services <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:21:18 -0000

Yes, and a related model is that a zone (POD) has one type of
application and that is controlled by a separate domain specific
controller. So, you could tier the controllers. I guess I'm still
wondering how "deep" the application wants to control the

Thanks, Ashish

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Greenhalgh (agreenha) 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 3:33 PM
Cc: Ashish Dalela (adalela)
Subject: Re: [sop] two architectures - which one do you prefer?

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". 


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:
> 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