[occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network / Storage

[Alexis Richardson]

Ha, indeed :-)

Standards don't need window dressing ...


On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
<ksankar at cisco.com> wrote:
> And say "Cloud has no clothes" ;o)
>
> Cheers
> <k/>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:alexis.richardson at gmail.com]
> |Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:39 AM
> |To: Sam Johnston
> |Cc: Krishna Sankar (ksankar); occi-wg at ogf.org
> |Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network / Storage
> |
> |Fabric is also used to refer to PaaS:
> |http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/11/14/cloud-types/
> |
> |I suggest we drop the word 'fabric'.
> |
> |
> |On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> |> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
> |> <ksankar at cisco.com> wrote:
> |>>
> |>> But then SaaS is Software over PaaS; PaaS is fabric over IaaS; IaaS
> |is
> |>> compute, storage and network. Isn't fabric the P is PaaS ? and in
> |IaaS, we
> |>> see raw compute/storage/network ?
> |>>
> |>> If we want to maintain the Software-Platform-Infrastructure
> |terminology
> |>> hierarchy I am fine with that. Then we should switch the fabric and
> |the
> |>> Compute-Storage-Network.
> |>
> |> [Ab]use of the term "fabric" to refer to software platforms like
> Azure
> |is so
> |> far as I can tell a fairly recent trend (and one I'm relatively
> |unconvinced
> |> by). Granted the contept (whereby many interconnected nodes, when
> |viewed
> |> from a distance, appear to be a single coherent "fabric") could be
> |applied
> |> to both hardware and software, but it is most often applied to low
> |level,
> |> interconnected hardware such as SANs and InfiniBand... and servers:
> |>
> |>> What is fabric computing and how does it improve upon current server
> |>> technology?
> |>> The simplest way to think about it is the next-generation
> |architecture for
> |>> enterprise servers. Fabric computing combines powerful server
> |capabilities
> |>> and advanced networking features into a single server structure.
> |>
> |> We do need something to refer to the underlying hardware/firmware but
> |I'm
> |> even less convinced by proposed alternatives ("unified computing"
> |being the
> |> most obvious example). Perhaps "Hardware Fabric" would clarify?
> |>
> |> Sam
> |>
> |>
>