|
| DevCentral > Weblogs > - Two Different Socks
|
INfrastructure 2.0
There are 66 entries for the tag INfrastructure 2.0
 |
We seem on the verge of repeating the mistakes associated with failed SOA implementations: ignoring the larger issue of architecture. Everyone – from pundit to public – is asking the same question: “Where are the network virtual appliances?” But fewer people seem to be asking a question that needs to go hand-in-hand with that one: “Where are the architectural guidelines to support deployment of network virtual appliances?” SOA has been deemed by many to be a failure in part because it lacked true architectural guidance. Architects were simply unable – whether by lack of skills or training or...
posted @ Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:43 AM |
|
|
Emerging architectures are conflating responsibilities up and down the application stack. Who is responsible for integration when services reside in the network? While preparing for an upcoming panel I’m moderating at Cloud Connect (in the “New Infrastructure” track), the panelists and I had a great discussion on the topics we wanted to discuss in the session. During that discussion it became increasingly clear that an interesting phenomenon has been occurring: the conflation of network and application responsibilities in the traditional “stack.” Much of this inversion is absolutely necessary for emerging models of networking and computing...
posted @ Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:36 AM |
|
|
Which of course are like Ogres. They’re big, chaotic, and have lots of layers of virtualization. In discussions involving cloud it is often the case that someone will remind you that “virtualization” is not required to build a cloud. But that’s only partially true, as some layers of virtualization are, in fact, required to build out a cloud computing environment. It’s only “operating system” virtualization that is not required. Problem is unlike the term “cloud”, “virtualization” has come to be associated with a single, specific kind of virtualization; specifically, it’s almost exclusively used to refer...
posted @ Monday, February 01, 2010 3:52 AM |
|
|
Nope. Wasn’t under the couch. In fact it turns out it wasn’t even missing, it’s just been overlooked and might already be in your data center. As more organizations continue to make virtualization a core part of their overall application deployment strategy they are finding challenges associated with managing and, apparently, optimizing their newly created heterogeneous infrastructure. Kevin Fogarty, in “10 Virtualization Vendors to Watch in 2010”, writes of some of the challenges with virtualization to come in the next year. One of those challenges is, apparently, optimization of resources across physical and virtual assets, at least...
posted @ Tuesday, January 26, 2010 4:02 AM |
|
|
One of the concerns with cloud bursting specifically for the use of addressing seasonal scaling needs is that cloud computing environments are not necessarily PCI-friendly. But there may be a solution that allows the application to maintain its PCI-compliance and still make use of cloud computing environments for seasonal scaling efficiency. Cloud bursting, a.k.a. overdraft protection, is a great concept but in some situations, such as those involving PCI-compliance, it can be difficult if not impossible to actually implement. The financial advantages to cloud bursting for organizations requiring additional capacity on only a seasonal basis are well understood,...
posted @ Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:54 AM |
|
|
The benefits of automation and orchestration do not come solely from virtualization. Virtualization has benefits, there is no arguing that. But let’s not get carried away and attribute all the benefits associated with cloud computing and automation to one member of the “game changing” team: virtualization. I recently read one of the all-too-common end-of-year prediction blogs on virtualization and 2010 that managed to say with what I think was a straight face that virtualization of the network is what makes it “fluid”. From: 2010 Virtualization Predictions - The Year the Network Becomes Fluid and Virtual ...
posted @ Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:08 AM |
|
|
There’s been increasing interest in Infrastructure 2.0 of late that’s encouraging to those of us who’ve been, well, pushing it uphill against the focus on cloud computing and virtualization for quite some time now. What’s been the most frustrating about bringing this concept to awareness has been that cloud computing is one of the most tangible examples of both what infrastructure 2.0 is and what it can do and virtualization is certainly one of the larger technological drivers of infrastructure 2.0 capable solutions today. So despite the frustration associated with cloud computing and virtualization stealing the stage,...
posted @ Monday, January 18, 2010 3:35 AM |
|
|
Infrastructure 2.0 enabled application delivery platforms have more than a few things in common with the Transformers. Like Autobots, there’s more to it than meets the eye. If you’re familiar with the mythology of the Transformers – and perhaps even if you aren’t – you know that they key attribute of Transformers is their ability to take on “alternate modes” such as cars, trucks, and winged vehicles simply by scanning the object and then adapting their own form to match. One of the key premises of Infrastructure 2.0 is also the ability of network and...
posted @ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:02 AM |
|
|
Kicking of the new year (and a new decade) with a lively debate on a technological concept that is barely out of its infancy is always a good thing. Fred Cummins over at HP recently penned “Pursuit of the Intercloud is Premature” and caught the eye of several of us for whom Intercloud is near and dear and, I think, provided a great way to start off the year by declaring the concept of Intercloud “not yet worthy of concern”. If this elastic mesh is provided by a single cloud provider, then it is...
posted @ Friday, January 08, 2010 3:56 AM |
|
|
An interesting thing happens when you combine toolkits like XAJAX and SAJAX and the ability to perform content-based routing: you can actually achieve function-level load balancing in both cloud-based and traditional architectures. As you might have discovered from previous posts mentioning it, I still do web application development to support hobby interests in my (very little) spare time. I’m currently in love with the XAJAX library, which has made development of what is supposed to be a very interactive application nearly effortless. I’m also very much enamored of load balancing/application delivery and cloud computing, specifically...
posted @ Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:59 AM |
|
|
Should the next generation management of network and application network devices look and act more like Facebook and Twitter? Infrastructure 2.0 could take us there. Y ou may think I’m kidding and certainly I make this proposal with some amount of humorous intent, but there is some value, I think, in applying the concepts of Web 2.0 and social networking to network management systems (NMS). There’s a reason it’s called social networking, after all. It’s modeled closely on networking and NMS is primarily about managing not just individual network and application network devices, but on managing...
posted @ Friday, December 04, 2009 4:34 AM |
|
|
Sometimes the best answer to a problem is to hit the reset button, but it should probably be the last answer, not the first. My cohort Pete Silva attended the 2009 Cloud Computing and Virtualization Conference & Expo and offered up a summary of one of the sessions he enjoyed (‘Cloud Security - It's Nothing New; It Changes Everything!’ (pdf)) in a recent post, “Virtualization is Real” One of the sessions I enjoyed was ‘Cloud Security - It's Nothing New; It Changes Everything!’ (pdf) from Glenn Brunette, a Distinguished Engineer and Chief...
posted @ Friday, November 20, 2009 4:15 AM |
|
|
These three things have a lot more in common than you might think and all three tend to evoke similar levels of frustration. A very real problem women face when shopping is this: no two brands define a size the same. If you usually wear a size 8 in “Brand X” you might actually wear a size 10 or 6 in “Brand Y”, depending on how the brand decided to define its sizing. Customers, women in this case, cannot count on consistency in sizes across brands. This makes shopping annoying because every time you change brands you’re never...
posted @ Thursday, November 12, 2009 4:05 AM |
|
|
No, not the kind you do on Facebook when you’re really, really tired but the kind defined as a means to reduce power consumption without affecting application performance or availability by eliminating non-essential processing and networking whenever possible. An article on “Drowsy” computing as a means to reduce power consumption in data centers got me thinking about how such concepts might be applied to networking. To summarize the concept of “drowsy” computing its basic premise is that when applications aren’t being heavily used some mechanism is used to reduce the power consumption on...
posted @ Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:23 AM |
|
|
Infrastructure 2.0, from a purely developmental standpoint, is about APIs. It’s about offering up the functionality and capabilities of a wide variety of infrastructure – network, storage, and application network – to be externally controlled, integrated, and leveraged for whatever purpose a developer might dream up. It enables providers and enterprises alike to turn infrastructure functionality into services. Need compression? Caching? Routing? Load balancing? Via service-enabled management APIs these can become services, provisioned and released through the invocation of a service. When expanded to include the sharing of actionable data – performance statistics, status, availability of application...
posted @ Wednesday, November 04, 2009 3:18 AM |
|
|
Vertical scalability used to require optimizations inside the application, at the code level. Cloud computing changes the nature of vertical scalability and, one hopes, will lead to a new model of scalability based on the capabilities of Infrastructure 2.0 and increasingly granular resource management capabilities. RightScale recently offered up its own analysis of Amazon Usage Estimates and while the details they provide on Amazon usage from their vantage point is very interesting I found one of their related observations even more fascinating: In earlier days the predominant method of scaling was by...
posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:13 AM |
|
|
Amazon’s ELB is an exciting mix of well-executed infrastructure 2.0 and the proper application of SOA, but it takes a lot of work to make anything infrastructure look that easy. The notion of Elastic Load Balancing, as recently brought to public attention by Amazon’s offering of the capability, is nothing new. The basic concept is pure Infrastructure 2.0 and the functionality offered via the API has long been available on several application delivery controllers for many years. In fact, looking through the options for Amazon’s offering leaves me feeling a bit, oh, 1999. As if load balancing hasn’t...
posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:50 AM |
|
|
One of the benefits of Infrastructure 2.0 is connectedness: the ability to collect and share pertinent data regarding the health and performance of applications and infrastructure services. Based on that data a dynamic infrastructure can adapt on-demand and make decisions that respect real capacity limits, not artificial ones. Randy Hayes writes “The CapCal Blog”, and describes CapCal as being about “measuring the performance and scalability of web apps using real, production level workloads.” In A Very Delicate Load Balancing Act he discusses the impact of load balancing configurations on the capacity and performance of applications. ...
posted @ Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:20 AM |
|
|
The term “Infrastructure 2.0” seems to be as well understood as the term “cloud computing.” It means different things to different people, apparently, and depends heavily on the context and roles of those involved in the conversation. This shouldn’t be surprising; the term “Web 2.0” is also variable and often depends on the context of the conversation. The use of the versioning moniker is meant, in both cases however, to represent a fundamental shift in the way the technologies are leveraged by people. In the case of Web 2.0 it’s about the shift toward interactive, integrated web applications used to...
posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 4:36 AM |
|
|
Operational efficiency in the cloud comes in part from automation and orchestration as well as from the outsourcing of management and maintenance of the hardware. While you can’t achieve the latter without cloud or hosting externally, you can realize a lot of the same efficiencies in a traditional architecture just by leveraging existing collaborative capabilities of infrastructure 2.0. Glenn Gruber of Software Industry Insights in “Who’ll Be the First to Offer Cash for Infrastructure” (which is a great read in general) says: And for those who are thinking about evaluating a private cloud...
posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 4:12 AM |
|
|
Infrastructure 2.0 requires collaboration. Collaboration requires the ability to communicate. The ability to communicate requires integration. But how that integration will happen may shape the future of infrastructure and network architecture. There is a growing recognition of the basic problems associated with the rapid rate of change inherent in on-demand architectures (cloud) and the complexity that comes from virtualized data centers. Challenges such as IP address and application management, visibility, and last but not least, integration. Yes, that most dreaded of all technology concepts has finally come to the network. The...
posted @ Friday, September 25, 2009 3:43 AM |
|
|
There’s more than one way to address the rapid rate of change in infrastructure supporting a dynamic environment. We spend a lot of time talking about how software and systems and standards are the ultimate solution to addressing the rapid rate of change in the association between applications and IP addresses in a dynamic infrastructure. But sometimes you have look down the stack to find a simpler, more economical and honestly, elegant, answer to the challenge of managing the problem associated with virtualized and cloud computing architectures. We need to take another look at the link layer...
posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 3:19 AM |
|
|
How Infrastructure 2.0 might leverage publish-subscribe technology like PubSubHubub to enable portability of applications across clouds and data centers
Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. One of the topics surrounding cloud computing that continues to rear its ugly head is the problem of portability across clouds. Avoiding vendor lock-in has been problematic since the day the first line of proprietary code was written and cloud computing does nothing to address this. If anything, cloud makes this worse because one of its premises is that users (that’s you, IT staff) need not...
posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 3:45 AM |
|
|
Sharing is core to a successful cloud implementation but not something every organization does well. How do you encourage business stakeholders to play well with others? In most definitions of “cloud computing” there lies a central, key component: shared resources. It is the sharing of resources, in fact, through which many of the benefits of reduced operating expenses are supposed to be achieved. It is the sharing of resources – or perceived inability to share resources – that confounds some folks when discussing private cloud, although there are several ways in which sharing of resources can...
posted @ Friday, September 11, 2009 4:01 AM |
|
|
Leveraging Java EE and dynamic infrastructure to enable a shared resource, on-demand scalable infrastructure – without server virtualization Many pundits and experts allude to architectures that are cloud-like in their ability to provide on-demand scalability but do not – I repeat do not – rely on virtualization, i.e. virtual machines. But rarely – if ever – is this possibility described. So everyone says it can be done, but no one wants to tell you how. Maybe that’s because it appears, on the surface, to not be cloud. And perhaps there’s truth to that appearance. It is more...
posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:03 AM |
|
|
F5 and VMware demonstrate live migration of a virtualized application across clouds without downtime or user disruption Cloud is reaching the peak of possibilities and that (often) means just more paper solutions. You know the ones; the ones that exist only on paper (or in blogs as the case may be). Those paper solutions need to exist because the ideas need to come first either out of necessity, i.e. to solve a specific problem, or out of a desire to find new ways to leverage emerging technology, like virtualization. But still, you’d like to see some of these...
posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 4:33 AM |
|
|
How to leverage a “private virtual cloud” such as Amazon VPC with your own dynamic infrastructure A couple of blog posts on Amazon’s recent announcement of its VPC (Virtual Private Cloud) have made much of the fact that the resources available within Amazon’s cloud via VPC aren’t public. These same commentaries seem to believe that this makes the resources not very valuable. One author called it a “terrible” implementation because “users can’t expose clients to the internet and can’t assign them IP addresses.” I understand how some might reach that conclusion if they...
posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 3:48 AM |
|
|
You’re going to need a dynamic infrastructure lest you effectively negate the gains achieved by higher VM densities In the continuing saga of “do more with less” comes a new phrase that’s being tossed around: VM density. For example, VMware puts forth the notion that the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of virtualization technology must consider VM density, saying, “Density matters in a many-to-one relationship.” VMware illustrates this concept in the context of TCO, but in general an increasing number of solutions are beginning to tout not only the benefits of higher VM density, but of their solutions ability...
posted @ Monday, August 24, 2009 4:07 AM |
|
|
The concept of a server needs to go the way of the dodo One of the reasons I enjoy Twitter is that quite frequently – if you’re following the right people – you’ll see a tweet that is absolutely profound despite its simplicity and the constraints placed upon the author. Recently we were having a mini-discussion on Twitter regarding the definition of availability that elicited just such a golden nugget from botchagalupe: “Apps designed for a cloud should remove the ‘server’ concept.” First, I really like the use of the article “a” in...
posted @ Friday, July 31, 2009 3:41 AM |
|
|
Context, it’s always about context (or the lack thereof) I received a call recently that most people have probably received: our banking institution just wanted to verify that yes, that was Don or I making purchases at midnight in Wisconsin and then later in Indiana and yet again that afternoon in Ohio. That’s a good thing, I’m sure, as they’re just trying to watch our back. But later in the day I tried to make a purchase and was, horror of horrors, denied. The bank, when called, seemed matter-of-fact about the situation. The security flag hadn’t been...
posted @ Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:34 AM |
|
|
Availability means more than the dread “d” word The focus on making servers unhackable to prevent service disruption (that’s such a politic way of saying the dread “d” word – downtime) is admirable but exposes the tendency of technical folks to go down rat holes when discussing application delivery challenges and specifically the challenge of assuring availability of applications and services. What generally seems to happen when we start talking about availability in the cloud is that we go down the rat hole of talking specifically about the cloud and not applications deployed...
posted @ Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:57 AM |
|
|
One of the interesting points that discussions around intercloud brings up is the need for infrastructure to, if you’ll pardon the use of marketing jargon, align with the business. What that really means is that applications and their supporting infrastructure need to be more business-aware. Thing is you don’t really need intercloud or even cloud or even virtualization for many of these business-aware capabilities. They are certainly a boon, but solutions that include application delivery functionality don’t need to wait for a fully-baked cloud or intercloud implementation. Consider, for example, the potential of business-layer load...
posted @ Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:55 AM |
|
|
So once we have the intercloud, what are we going to do with it? Some debate is heating up, at least on Twitter, about a variety of cloud-related topics. As James Urquhart pointed out in his “Three debates that will benefit cloud computing” debate is good, because it fuels innovation and drives markets forward. One of the things that’s frustrating about new technology and concepts is that terminology often confuses the discussion. We periodically still see discussions – and debates – around the definition of cloud computing, after all, so that shouldn’t be surprising at all....
posted @ Thursday, July 09, 2009 3:15 AM |
|
|
Can intercloud intelligence eliminate the impact of intercontinental latency? Ken has always posited that it would be not only kewl but highly efficient if your data center could “follow the sun.” We all know that application performance is affected – positively and negatively – by distance. So if you’re a global organization with one primary data center that means some folks are going to have to settle for poorer application performance. That pesky speed of light law absolutely must be obeyed, for now at least, and intercontinental traffic has high latency, period. So let’s introduce the...
posted @ Monday, July 06, 2009 3:10 AM |
|
|
The concept of an “intercloud” is floating around the tubes and starting to gather some attention. According to Greg Ness you can “Think of the intercloud as an elastic mesh of on demand processing power deployed across multiple data centers. The payoff is massive scale, efficiency and flexibility.” Basically, the intercloud is the natural evolution of global application delivery. The intercloud is about delivering applications (services) from one of many locations based on a variety of parameters that will be, one assumes, user/organization defined. Some of those parameters could be traditional ones: application availability, performance, or user-location. Others...
posted @ Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:25 AM |
|
|
You can’t differentiate until you do something different Gartner analyst and cloud pundit Lydia Leong reminds us that without differentiation, all clouds look pretty much the same. “These are traits that it doesn’t take a genius to think of. Most are known requirements established through a decade and a half of hosting industry experience. If you want to differentiate, you need to get beyond them.” [emphasis added] She lists traits common to most cloud providers: premium equipment, VMWare-based, private VLANs, private connectivity, and co-located dedicated gear but doesn’t really get into...
posted @ Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:40 AM |
|
|
I’m heading out today for a little time off and so you’ll have to make due the rest of the week without any (new) words of wisdom from me. I know, try to pull yourself together. You’ll live, really, and I’ll be back Monday with something interesting, promise. While I’m out, you might consider checking out some of the blogs I follow myself on a regular basis. They’re always full of interesting tidbits and stories and wisdom on a variety of subjects, and if you don’t follow them yourself you might find something interesting in them. ...
posted @ Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:25 AM |
|
|
Balancing Cost, Performance, and Capacity in the Cloud There is a huge difference between provisioning applications to support capacity and provisioning them to support performance requirements. That as capacity increases performance decreases is one of the truisms of scalability that is likely to be one of the first axioms of cloud computing that will bite us in the proverbial rear-end while simultaneously reaching for our wallets. Alistair Croll of BitCurrent has a couple of great charts that illustrate this point perfectly. He then goes on to discuss how that affects cloud computing in “The cloud’s...
posted @ Tuesday, June 09, 2009 3:20 AM |
|
|
Automating components is easy. It’s automating processes that’s hard. The premise that if you don’t have an infrastructure comprised solely of Infrastructure 2.0 components then you cannot realize an automated, on-demand data center is, in fact, wrong. While the capabilities of modern hardware that come with Infrastructure 2.0 such as a standards-based API able to be leveraged by automation systems certainly makes the task all the more simple, it is not the only way that components can be automated. In fact, “legacy” infrastructure has been automated for years using other mechanisms that can certainly be incorporated into the...
posted @ Monday, June 08, 2009 3:14 AM |
|
|
When SOA was declared dead there was a spate of articles and blogs on why the architecture “died.” Most pundits came to the conclusion that like many innovations it wasn’t the technology to blame but rather people. Architects lacked the skills to properly leverage SOA; business stakeholders failed to look at SOA as a strategic architecture, choosing instead to use it as a tactical integration-solving solution; network and systems’ administrators did not understand the unique characteristics and issues a well-designed SOA raised within the network and on systems; and developers were loathe to “reuse” and “share” services despite alternate...
posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:07 AM |
|
|
Attackers say, we can go where we want to; we can leave our code behind… There’s probably a raid going on right now in Naxxramas and the attackers are almost certainly doing the Safety Dance. They probably learned the Safety Dance the same way I learned about it; from someone well-versed in its intricate steps. See, if you don’t know the Safety Dance and you come up against Heigan the Unclean, well… he’s not called Heigan the Unclean for nothing. You will not survive. Not even if you happen to have a Holocaust Cloak at...
posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:58 AM |
|
|
There’s apparently been a bit of confusion over what, exactly, F5 thinks of cloud computing as an organization based on a recent blog post. I thought I’ve been fairly clear on where F5 stands in terms of cloud computing but I may be suffering what’s known as the “curse of knowledge”, which means I am so deeply entrenched in F5’s view of cloud that I forget that other people don’t have the luxury of that knowledge. So I’d like to take this opportunity to clear up any misconceptions that may be floating around and just set the record...
posted @ Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:09 AM |
|
|
As a telecommuter – and one that lives in that technological mecca of the midwest, Green Bay – I don’t often get the chance to talk face to face with, well, anyone. Being conscripted into booth duty at Interop this week means I get to talk to people with real problems and with ones that can quickly bring anyone with their head in the clouds back down to earth. Imagine if you will an application. A real, honest to goodness client-server application. Not web-based, but client-server; like the kind we wrote in Delphi and Visual Basic back in...
posted @ Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:30 AM |
|
|
The consensus seems to be, at least from the myriad surveys, studies, and research, that cloud as a model is the right answer, it’s just the location that’s problematic for most organizations. Organizations aren’t ignoring reality; they know there are real benefits associated with cloud computing. But they aren’t yet – and may never be – willing to give up control. And there are good reasons to maintain that control, from security to accountability to agility. But the “people” still want the benefits of cloud, so the question is: how do we put...
posted @ Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:27 AM |
|
|
If they aren’t now then Infrastructure 2.0 may force them in that direction - and vice versa. My brother (yes, it does run in the family) has a degree in computer science which, by most definitions, makes him a developer. That’s the focus of most computer science focused degree programs, much to the chagrin of the myriad other IT-focused specialties like networking, security, and operations. Interestingly enough, he worked his way through college as a sysadmin and his first job out of college was as a sysadmin. And now he’s doing a little of...
posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 3:51 AM |
|
|
Don’t confuse computing services with infrastructure services. We aren’t there yet. The subtext to the cloud computing discussion is subtle, as is the wont of subtext. But it is clear that underlying all the concerns about cloud computing is a common theme: control. Whether we’re talking about reliability or security, it should be obvious if you’re reading between and beneath the lines that the biggest stumbling block to massive cloud adoption is the issue of control. There is a very real difference between on-demand computing and on-demand infrastructure. What the cloud provides now, and is described...
posted @ Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:11 AM |
|
|
You can’t afford not to invest in technologies that leverage virtualization to improve data center efficiency There’s an old adage that says you have to spend money to make money. In the data center these days this is more true than ever. You have to invest in technology capable of making your data center more efficient in order to make (save) money. A recent Robert Half Technology survey of 1400 CIOs indicates that data center efficiency and virtualization are top priorities. *CIOs were asked, "Which areas, if any, will your IT department be investing...
posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:00 AM |
|
|
OVF (Open Virtualization Format) apparently just isn’t getting enough mindshare out there in the discussions of cloud computing that focus on portability and interoperability. The goal of OVF is to provide a portable, interoperable non-vendor specific meta-data that describes an application, its virtual container, and the attributes necessary to deploy it in a new environment with minimal human intervention. This will, allegedly, allow it to move seamlessly from cloud to cloud, drifting ever-so-gently and making the entire process appear effortless. Given that lofty goal, it’s no surprise that Jon Oltsik, senior analyst at the Enterprise Strategy Group, wonders...
posted @ Tuesday, April 21, 2009 2:58 AM |
|
|
Remember when…it was sprawl or nothing? Remember when…you had to choose between security and speed? Remember when…you had to choose between agility and performance? It’s time for a change; a change that brings freedom and choice to the data center and puts IT back in control of its own architectural destiny. Technorati Tags: F5,revolution,data center,choice,change,freedom,agility,infrastructure,infrastructure 2.0,dynamic infrastructure,web,internet,video,blog Related articles by Zemanta Unified Ontology of Cloud Computing (johnmwillis.com) ...
posted @ Monday, March 23, 2009 3:27 AM |
|
|
One of the oft cited reasons in surveys that enterprises aren’t flocking to the cloud like lemmings off a cliff is “lack of control”. Problem is that articles and pundits quoting this reason never really define what that means. After all, cloud providers appear to be cognizant of the need for users (IT) to be able to define thresholds, reserve instances, deploy a variety of “infrastructure”, and manage their cloud deployment themselves. The lack of control, however, is at least partially about control over the infrastructure itself and, perhaps, complicated by the shallow definition of “infrastructure” by cloud...
posted @ Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:49 AM |
|
|
When folks are asked to define the cloud they invariably, somewhere in the definition, bring up the point that “users shouldn’t care” about the actual implementation. When asked to diagram a cloud environment we end up with two clouds: one representing the “big cloud” and one inside the cloud, representing the infrastructure we aren’t supposed to care about, usually with some pretty graphics representing applications being delivered out of the cloud over the Internet. But yet some of us need to care what’s obscured; the folks tasked with building out a cloud environment need to know what’s...
posted @ Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:14 AM |
|
|
The webification of applications over the years has led to the belief that client-server as an architecture is dying. But very few beliefs about architecture have been further from the truth. The belief that client-server was dying - or at least falling out of favor - was primarily due to fact that early browser technology was used only as a presentation mechanism. The browser did not execute application logic, did not participate in application logic, and acted more or less like a television: smart enough to know how to display data but not smart enough to do anything...
posted @ Monday, February 02, 2009 4:38 AM |
|
|
We've been talking a lot about the benefits of Infrastructure 2.0, or Dynamic Infrastructure, a lot about why it's necessary, and what's required to make it all work. But we've never really laid out what it is, and that's beginning to lead to some misconceptions. As Daryl Plummer of Gartner pointed out recently, the definition of cloud computing is still, well, cloudy. Multiple experts can't agree on the definition, and the same is quickly becoming true of dynamic infrastructure. That's no surprise; we're at the beginning of what Gartner would call the hype cycle for both concepts, so...
posted @ Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:19 AM |
|
|
Infrastructure 2.0 is, at its core, about evolving to a new level of interconnectedness, one in which the underlying infrastructure becomes as flexible and adaptable as the applications and virtualization infrastructure it is responsible for managing and delivering. In order to be connected, however, you need a way in which disparate infrastructure components can communicate, either directly or via a third party (coordination | management | orchestration) server. That communication is almost certainly going to take (and in many cases has already taken) the form of service-enabled control planes. These "services" are necessary in order to provide the...
posted @ Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:42 AM |
|
|
One of the reasons behind some folks pushing for infrastructure as virtual appliances is the on-demand nature of a virtualized environment. When network and application delivery infrastructure hits capacity in terms of throughput - regardless of the layer of the application stack at which it happens - it's frustrating to think you might need to upgrade the hardware rather than just add more compute power via a virtual image. The truth is that this makes sense. The infrastructure supporting a virtualized environment should be elastic. It should be able to dynamically expand without requiring a new network architecture,...
posted @ Tuesday, January 13, 2009 4:15 AM |
|
|
It has been suggested more than once, by folks normally considered rational, that in a cloud computing implementation everything - and I mean everything - should be virtualized. Even the infrastructure. The hype surrounding virtualization has spread not just to applications and their virtual image deployment as a means to achieve dynamic horizontal scale but also to infrastructure, to routers and switches and security devices. Indeed, there are a good number of infrastructure vendors currently offering and others feverishly working on virtual appliance versions of hardware devices for deployment in cloud and virtual computing environments. Part...
posted @ Monday, January 12, 2009 4:29 AM |
|
|
VM sprawl is predicted to be one of the outcomes of early adoption and excitement over virtualization. Just as IT struggled to manage the explosion of PCs and servers across the enterprise, it is predicted that now it will need to find a way to manage the explosion of virtual machines as they pop up all over the enterprise with surprising alacrity. Part of the difficulty in managing new technology is the rogue deployment of X. Whether that's physical or virtual servers is irrelevant, the challenges associated with managing what are essentially unmanaged applications and servers deployed outside...
posted @ Friday, December 19, 2008 7:10 AM |
|
|
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I'm going to start this one by quoting Hoff who was quoting Andreas Antonopoulos of Nemertes Research Group who was paraphrasing a concept put forth by Doug Gourlay. From Rational Survivability "How about using netflow information to re-balance servers in a data center" Routing: Controlling the flow of network traffic to an optimal path between two nodes Virtual-Routing or Anti-Routing: VMotioning nodes (servers) to optimize the flow of traffic on the network. Using netflow information, identify those...
posted @ Wednesday, December 17, 2008 4:03 AM |
|
|
A while back Joe blogged about some Twitter integration he'd done around monitoring of BIG-IP. He's got a PERL proxy that monitors the BIG-IP and sends out notifications and alerts to a specified Twitter account. But I wanted something more interactive, something more social. I wanted to be able to send a tweet to my BIG-IP and have it respond; a BIG-IP Twitter bot, if you will. So Friday I finally decided it was time to do it. I set up a Twitter account for my BIG-IP and started coding. Luckily, the Twitter API is pretty straight-forward and...
posted @ Monday, December 15, 2008 6:03 AM |
|
|
The diseconomy of scale so adversely affecting the IP address management space isn't limited to network infrastructure; it's crawling up the stack steadily and infecting all layers of the data center like some kind of unstoppable infrastructure management virus. That is why, even with the simple act of managing an enterprise network’s IP addresses, which is critical to the availability and proper functioning of the network, actually goes up as IP addresses are added. As TCP/IP continues to spread and take productivity to new heights, management costs are already escalating. -- Greg Ness, "What Are the Barriers to...
posted @ Monday, November 24, 2008 3:47 AM |
|
|
The saying goes that to forget (or in some cases blatantly ignore) the mistakes of the past is to be doomed to repeat them. ODBC. BPEL. JDBC. All three are extensible standards in the software industry that cause no end of headaches and increased management overhead for folks attempting to deal with them. None of them are interoperable; you can't use the ODBC driver for Oracle to hook up to a SQL Server database, nor you can use the same BPEL produced by one BPM solution as within another. Because they're "extensible" and that extensibility leads,...
posted @ Monday, November 17, 2008 4:45 AM |
|
|
When SOA was the hot topic of the day (not that long ago) everyone was pumped up about the ability finally align IT with the business. Reusability, agility, and risk mitigation were benefits that would enable the business itself to be more agile and react dynamically to the constant maelstrom that is "the market". But only half of IT saw those benefits; the application half. Even though pundits tried to remind folks that the "A" in SOA stood for "architecture", and that it necessarily included more than just applications, still the primary beneficiary of SOA has been applications...
posted @ Monday, November 10, 2008 8:23 AM |
|
|
How the cloud acts and is used is more important than where it physically resides Cloud computing and SOA suffer from the same lack of prescriptive architectures. They are defined by how they act rather than what they are, or from what they are composed. They are, in a way, existential technology that cannot be confined to a simple architectural diagram but require instead a set of properties or ways of acting in order to be recognized. To over simplify and paraphrase Jean-Paul Sartre's concepts of existentialism, we define ourselves (mankind) through our actions. To apply this to...
posted @ Monday, November 03, 2008 3:29 AM |
|
|
Greg Ness calls it "connectivity intelligence" but it seems that we're really talking about is the ability of network infrastructure to both be agile itself and enable IT agility at the same time. Brittle, inflexible infrastructures - whether they are implemented in hardware or software or both - are not agile enough to deal with an evolving, dynamic application architecture. Greg says in a previous post The static infrastructure was not architected to keep up with these new levels of change and complexity without a new layer...
posted @ Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:08 AM |
|
|
You have just been promoted to CTO of Widgets, Inc. (Congratulations, by the way!) In your new role, on which of the following will you focus the most attention (and budget): (a) the network (b) the applications (c) the data Trick...
posted @ Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:40 AM |
|
|
Managing a heterogeneous infrastructure is difficult enough, but managing a dynamic, ever changing heterogeneous infrastructure that must be stable enough to deliver dynamic applications makes the former look like a walk in the park. Part of the problem is certainly the inability to manage heterogeneous network infrastructure devices from a single management system. SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol), the only truly interoperable network management standard used by infrastructure vendors for over a decade, is not robust enough to deal with the management nightmare rapidly emerging for cloud computing vendors. It's called "Simple" for a reason, after all. And...
posted @ Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:58 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
