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

[Alexis Richardson]

You could put 'clients' at the top and 'servers' at the bottom.


On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
> <ksankar at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Going back, I think, first the Compute, Storage, Network should be under
>> infrastructure. The Platform comes next. There is something that the
>> PaaS provides more than IaaS and that need to go there.
>
> OK so there are 5 layers here (there were 6 but "storage" has been consumed
> by "infrastructure" and "services" by "software" - "fabric" was spawned
> primarily in response to Cisco's "unified computing" foray into the server
> space):
>
> Client
> Software
> Platform
> Infrastructure
> Fabric
>
> The idea is that fabric delivers raw computing power to the infrastructure
> layer, which in turn delivers neatly packaged compute / network / storage to
> the platform layer, which delivers components (e.g. queues, persistence,
> etc.) and services (e.g. search, data feeds) to the software which in turn
> delivers machine and user interfaces to the clients (e.g. twitter web vs
> api).
>
> In any case the thing I care about for OCCI is that Infrastructure ~=
> Compute / Network / Storage and I don't think we've got any contention
> there.
>
> Sam
>
>>
>> |-----Original Message-----
>> |From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:alexis.richardson at gmail.com]
>> |Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:43 AM
>> |To: Krishna Sankar (ksankar)
>> |Cc: Sam Johnston; occi-wg at ogf.org
>> |Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network / Storage
>> |
>> |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
>> |> |>
>> |> |>
>> |>
>
>