backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 21 comment(s) - last by roadrun777.. on Aug 2 at 9:24 PM

A strange team up looks to fuel cloud computing efforts, challenge Google

Cloud computing is a hot buzz word in the IT industry today.  The basic idea behind cloud computing is that dedicated hardware and software at home locations and workstations are not cost effective and that a "cloud" of servers with hardware and software resources, pumping content to your PC is a more economical solution. 

The idea, despite some snags -- like privacy issues or the need for high performance in applications such as gaming -- is a savvy one and is fast becoming the focus of some of the tech industry's biggest players.  According to research firm Gartner, cloud computing is the most influential IT tech since e-business.

Google has already vested heavily in cloud computing and hosting and has plans to greatly expand its offerings over the next few years.  Electronics giant Microsoft is following closely in Google's footsteps with its own efforts.  Now Google's struggling nemesis Yahoo has cloudy dreams of its own -- and it's not flying solo.  Yahoo has enlisted the services of two power players in their respective markets:  Intel and HP.

Initially the trio will offer six datacenters with useful applications available to pre-selected researchers.  The centers will serve as a proving ground to the new technology, which still is relatively undeveloped.  John Manley, director of HP's strategic research lab states, "Cloud computing represents a new era of computing. Working at that kind of scale means there will be many unanswered questions and raise new problems for computer science.  We want to create an environment that can begin to answer some of these challenges."

He adds, "The web democratized creativity and allowed anyone to create something new and innovative. Cloud computing is the next stage for that.  To my mind it is the natural evolution of the internet and if we look back in 15 years time we will be astounded by what cloud computing has allowed to happen."

Intel, Yahoo and HP each will host one of the six centers, while the remaining three will be hosted from the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, the University of Illinois, and the Steinbuch Centre for Computing in Germany.  Each center will feature 1,000 to 4,000 machines, and the centers are capable of being expanded when greater capacity is needed.

Researchers for the three companies will examine how to make cloud computing more secure and reliable.  They will also seek to develop more streamlined management methods, which will help cloud administrators manage their hardware and software resources, as well as user traffic.

The centers will be running by the end of this year.  Gartner analyst David Mitchell Smith lauds the move, saying that it is a turning point in the adoption of cloud computing.  Says Mr. Smith, "Anytime you get three companies of that stature looking to advance it, is significant.  We consider cloud computing to be the next really big thing and the sky's the limit to the services it will enable over the next ten years."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Internet Appliance
By Spivonious on 7/30/2008 9:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else think this all sounds vaguely familiar? It makes me think of the old idea of an Internet appliance.




RE: Internet Appliance
By Locutus465 on 7/30/2008 11:07:17 AM , Rating: 3
That's because there really isn't anything new about "cloud computing" in any way shape or form... It's basically just another form of distributing computing... Much like grid or even custom apps written for a beowulf cluster utilizing the MPI lib.... Another day, "another distributed computing solution".


RE: Internet Appliance
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/30/2008 12:41:11 PM , Rating: 4
Cloud Computing the way they talk about it is a pipe dream. We will see more centralization in the business sector as we move towards computing blades and thin clients, but this has more to do with the priorities of IT than a focus on "cloud computing". Due to recent laws, and changes in business IT is moving towards blade based systems and thin clients on the desks for these reasons. Cloud computing for home users is a fine idea if you want zero privacy. The reason why companies will never embrace internet based cloud computing is because we can't guarantee the data is secure. For home users, hey if you want Google, or another company full access to all your files, be my guest. At work security is a rather high priority and anything that isn't 100% internal is a non-starter.
-Cost. It saves money if we don't need to deploy a fully working x86 desktop/laptop to each user. Just a thin client with a network connection.
-Security, if you break in and steal a thin client, we don't care. If you break in and steal a desktop or laptop and any data that potentially was on that disk (encrypted or otherwise) we are at risk.
-Backups. We can backup servers much easier than all the clients.
-Maintenance. Short of the fan, there are no moving parts in a thin client, not much to break down, no worries about hard disk failures, support costs for the desktop guys in the field drop significantly.
-Scalability. We can allocate resources more effectively for more demanding users and scale back resources for admins or other paperwork pushers that don't do anything computationally heavy without having to screw around with hardware standards and what is being deployed in the field.
-Upgradeability. We can upgrade blades, add blades, replace blades, expand blades all while the users work. They never get impacted, if something happens we cut over to a failover set of blades and people continue without interruption. No need to deal with client machines in the field except if they don't work.


One thing
By Jacerie on 7/30/2008 10:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
With all the excitement over cloud computing lately, I can't help but wonder why everyone seems to be glossing over the most basic component of all this... the OS. Sure we've got Windows, MacOS, and a billion different *Nix flavors, but why should we be shackled by current standards in OSs when they're wanting to rewrite the books on software as a whole?

I know there are products out there like Stone-ware's WebOS that will allow cross-platform software sharing and unified environments, but it seems to me that there should be some type of simple embedded OS solution for the end user that would be designed exclusively for working with the cloud.

As they were happy to point out in the article, in 15 years we'll look back and be amazed at what we've accomplished. We could truly be on the cusp of the holy grail of internet connectivity, a fully 3D environment in which to work and play. Shouldn't there be a focus on providing a stable, unified methodology for cloud interaction or will we be forced to suffer the same software environment of today with only a greater degree of detachment from the actual product.




RE: One thing
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/30/2008 12:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We could truly be on the cusp of the holy grail of internet connectivity, a fully 3D environment in which to work and play.

Not a chance. But I'm sure that is what they want you to believe.

quote:
Shouldn't there be a focus on providing a stable, unified methodology for cloud interaction

Yes and No. Yes its a nice and dandy idea, No it isn't going to happen.

quote:
will we be forced to suffer the same software environment of today with only a greater degree of detachment from the actual product.

You betcha.


RE: One thing
By drebo on 7/30/2008 12:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not a chance. But I'm sure that is what they want you to believe.


Snowcrash, man. It's coming!


RE: One thing
By Jacerie on 7/30/2008 12:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Snowcrash, man. It's coming!


Sweet... Then I can work for the Mafia delivering pizza.


Major ISPs
By stephenfs on 7/30/2008 10:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like the US ISPs need to get on board also. Bandwidth caps per month would seem to be a problem, I would think.




RE: Major ISPs
By StevoLincolnite on 7/30/2008 11:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
Bandwidth Caps... Don't use Australian Internet if that's the case.


RE: Major ISPs
By JediJeb on 7/31/2008 9:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
Without a huge change in the infrastructure this would leave a huge portion of the US with very sketchy ability to use their computers when they need them. Let's face it, if you don't live in a fairly good sized city, you are either on dialup still or satalite. I would hate to be almost finished writing a long report only to have my connection killed by rain and lose my work because my word processor crashed.

This can and probably will work internally in a business, I know our IT guy is looking into the thin clients for some of us. But at home, until the FCC requires that all homes have fiber running to them it doesn't even stand a chance, and then I still wouldn't trust my personal data to it.

Also what happens when the company running the cloud servers decides everyone is hooked up now lets increase our subscription price 4x or 10x, can't pay, sorry guess you can't get to your family photos and emails you saved with us. Or even worse if same happened to a business, talk about someone like MS having total control of your business, they just say pay up or you don't get to run any of your billing or inventory software. Not that it would happen but the possibility for abuse would exist.


scary concept to me
By crleap on 7/30/2008 1:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why everyone always seems so excited about this idea. It scares me today and it scared me when i first heard about the practice when MS introduced the .NET, saying office would soon be streamed via the platform.

I see this as a threat because it's going to turn everything into a subscription. Instead of buying the software once (there are still people who are satisfied with Office 2000, or even 97 for that matter, and they have long since recouped the losses from the purchase. However with the cloud computing, they will have to be paying per use or per month to access this software. It really devalues programs because it's a constant cost rather than an initial purchase. It seems to me like these ideas are simply designed to better part us with our money. Though I guess there's very little facets to society these days that are designed to keep our money with us.

I for one give a resounding thumbs down.




RE: scary concept to me
By Sulphademus on 7/30/2008 3:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
Companies have been wanting to push Software-as-a-Service for a while now. Im betting that it will come sooner than later.


RE: scary concept to me
By JosefTor on 7/31/2008 3:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. If I ever have to pay for a subscription for things like Office and stuff like that I will stay with XP or Vista and just use my old versions of the software.

I heard there ridiculous price of $70 a year for that crappy software. I can see at first charging a lot for Office because it took a lot of development time. Now I don't see why it isn't $50 because each version offers almost no improvements.


Invest
By bpwilldo on 7/30/2008 12:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
If you are still in your 20s or 30s, invest in Google, Cisco and IBM. You can thank me later.




RE: Invest
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/30/2008 12:43:36 PM , Rating: 1
Cisco, sure. Google, no. IBM, hell no. Your best bet would be Cisco, Microsoft, HP.


RE: Invest
By bpwilldo on 7/30/2008 1:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
Google because the leadership understands where computing is headed
Cisco because they make the underlying infrastructure.
IBM because they make the systems that can tie the two above together.
Besides, now that stock prices are down, it's a good time to invest.


Can't wait.....
By adrift02 on 7/30/2008 10:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
We want desktop neutrality!




RE: Can't wait.....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/30/2008 12:43:58 PM , Rating: 1
It'll never happen, keep dreaming.


Back to dumb terminals?
By DXRick on 7/30/2008 1:55:12 PM , Rating: 3
In the early nineties my company switched out the dumb terminals for PCs, and gradually replaced all mainframe applications with PC and server applications. The big change then was to applications with a GUI (like from IBM's Xedit to MS Word).

Now they want GUI applications to be hosted on a server and/or website? If the only change is where the .exe and .dll files are located, so that they can be centralized on a server, instead of everyone needing to have them on their own HDs, then the only real "problem" is the bandwidth of the connection. Will it be fast and reliable enough? What about situations where the user has no ability to connect to the server?

With so many people buying laptops for mobility (even my company replaced desktops with laptops), I have a hard time seeing this "cloud" thing from working for anything other than applications you only need to use when connected to a server or the net.

But then, who wants to have to wait to start up Word or any other app? MS added ReadyBoost to Vista to make apps load faster, as if the PCI bus connection to the HD is not fast enough.

Good luck with that!