Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Fri, Jan 18, 2008 14:20 EST
|
Posted by: Laurianne McLaughlin in News Topic: ApplicationsBlog: Inside Tech
Current Rating: |
Everyone wants to talk about "the cloud" right now. For technology industry watchers, cloud computing is a cocktail party conversation term du jour. For IT leaders, though, it's time to be careful: This whole discussion about cloud computing gets tricky, because cloud computing means different things to different people. And when your colleague or boss drops an article about "cloud computing" on your desk and says, "What's in it for us?," you'd better understand what to tell him.
When companies like Salesforce.com talk about cloud computing, they're talking about using applications via "the cloud," which means via the Internet instead of via the traditional enterprise software model. So when Salesforce.com talks about "the cloud" they're of course also talking about Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), also known as "on demand" software. Different names, same idea. But Salesforce is taking the idea a step further now, with its Force.com platform, essentially a platform that's accessible on-demand to help other software developers create and distribute applications. They call it "platform as a service." As ZDNet blogger Dan Farber and others have noted, Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff and Web whiz kid Marc Andreessen were waxing rhapsodic this week about the future of software development via the cloud.
When Google talks about the cloud, they're talking about banding huge numbers of computers together (something that Google knows a little about) to let researchers in those frighteningly computing-intensive fields like medical and security research do massive calculations. Sounds a lot like "grid computing" doesn’t it? The basic idea tackles the same problem, but Google's vision will band together much more raw computing power. At its simplest, you can think of the cloud like this: Many, many multicore PCs and servers working together over high-bandwidth networks.
IBM's got a similar idea, for an offering they call "Blue Cloud," and they want to help customers use huge amounts of combined computing power via the Internet to slice and dice their massive data sets better and faster. It's mostly talk right now, but look for IBM to dial up the volume on this idea later this year.
When Amazon talks about the cloud, they are talking about their Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) service. When I first heard Jeff Bezos talk about this, at an MIT Emerging Technology conference in late 2006, I thought the idea was simply brilliant. Need extra computing power? Just tap into Amazon's huge data centers, overflowing with compute power. Buy only what you need. Get server access on demand, for whatever project you like. Amazon makes extra money from infrastructure that they have to have on hand anyway to support their mind-boggling e-commerce operations.
Great idea. Made perfect sense. In an era when many of us were already comfortable using applications via the Web, the time seemed right. The tech industry types got the idea, too: For example, Red Hat used Amazon's EC2 to share the public beta of its Enterprise Linux platform in fall of 2007.
Funny thing though: It's early 2008 and many CIOs have not gotten their heads around this concept, never mind gotten comfortable with it. Industry analysts love to point to Amazon's offering and chat about what it will mean to IT's future. Think much smaller enterprise data centers. Think tons of data stored in the cloud, ready to be mashed up in many ways on demand by business users. That's the big picture, and it's an interesting one. But there are a lot of pixels that have to be filled in before most IT leaders can picture it in
I've devised a simple rule as a base guideline for when to contemplate moving capacity to something like EC2, versus converting your existing data center to a utility model:
Details on my blog, but essentially it all comes down to how much you trust someone else with a) your availability and b) your data security. Those that choose an unreliable vendor early will find themselves changing to another option at their own expense.
I love the cloud. No need to invest in hardware and/or staff to maintain hardware. Access from anywhere. Encryption. Security. What's not to love? I'm sure somebody will point that out rather quickly.
We tapped into the cloud for a web-based enterprise-wide e-mail solution five years ago when this was just starting. It was a less expensive and more accessible solution than traditional model. It was a risk at the time, but it has paid off. Each year we get more features and more storage and a lower price. We did go through two vendors within the first two years, but found a reliable and responsive one and have been with them for four years. If they start slipping, there are plenty out there now.
I moved my backup to the clouds two years ago because it was less expensive on an annual basis than renewing the hardware maintenance and software licensing for my TBUs.
Most of our database vendors are finally offering SaaS solutions. Yeah!
My file service will be in the clouds when the files server here finally dies, if not before then.
I am finally realizing the goal I set 10 years ago when I started my current job: a server room without servers. Virtualization and cheap bandwidth have made this a reality. I used to love the looks on the local hardware and software vendors when they came in for a pitch and I told them I wanted a server room without servers. They used to laugh, but I'm the one laughing now.