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

[Simon Wardley]

Absolutely, but I'd never say anyone was stupid.

On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 19:52 +0100, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> +1
> 
> KISS aaS ;-)
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Simon Wardley
> <simon.wardley at canonical.com> wrote:
> > My $0.0001 cents work
> >
> > Back in 2006 we used to describe the computing stack (when it came to
> > utility computing) in terms of three layers :-
> >
> > Software : the provision of complete user applications [no-one wanted to
> > call it applications because the acronym would have been "Application as
> > a Server or "AaaS"]
> >
> > Framework: includes development platform, messaging queue, databases and
> > all the common elements used in the creation of an application.
> >
> > Hardware : the provision of raw compute resources, storage and networks.
> >
> > These ideas were based upon the concepts of componentisation. Obviously
> > since that time we've had all the renaming games and as Lefkowtiz
> > described back in July 2007 the "aaS" wars caused by the appearance of
> > Jedi thought masters.
> >
> > By the beginning of 2009 we had settled once again on a three layer
> > structure of application / platform / infrastructure.  Obviously above
> > these are additional layers such as data, process, organisation and ....
> > but let's not get into it.
> >
> > Can we please stick to the three layers of application, platform and
> > infrastructure and not introduce any NEW concepts.
> >
> > As for fabric or instance based - all three layers can be provided
> > either on a fabric or instance basis. SOLO is an example of an instance
> > based PaaS whereas Azure is a fabric based PaaS etc. EC2 might be
> > instance based IaaS but there is no reason why we can't (with SSI) more
> > of a fabric based IaaS.
> >
> > Of course this is from an user perspective. From an operator perspective
> > you might end up with bare bones -> SSI (providing a large fabric) ->
> > virtual instances (for end users).
> >
> > All sorts of combinations are possible. This is why we always tried to
> > keep it simple. I'd suggest you focus on instance based infrastructure
> > and keep it simple.
> >
> > Just my thoughts ...
> >
> > Kindest
> >
> > Simon W
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 19:19 +0100, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> >> 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
> >> >> |> |>
> >> >> |> |>
> >> >> |>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> occi-wg mailing list
> >> occi-wg at ogf.org
> >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> > --
> > Simon Wardley
> > Software Services Manager,
> > Canonical Ltd.
> > TEL: +44 (0)207 630 2451
> > MOB : +44 (0)7972 911 449
> > TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/swardley/
> >
> >
-- 
Simon Wardley
Software Services Manager,
Canonical Ltd.
TEL: +44 (0)207 630 2451
MOB : +44 (0)7972 911 449
TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/swardley/