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

Sun Apr 19 14:31:03 CDT 2009

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Alexis Richardson <
alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Sam.  That is great.
>
> To borrow a phrase: "No junk, no confusion".
>

Thanks. On further investigation it turns out that the "application
layer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_layer>"
is a well accepted concept independent of the OSI stack:

*Application Layer* is a term used in categorizing protocols and methods in
> architectural models of computer networking<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network>.
> Both the OSI model <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model> and the Internet
> Protocol Suite <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Suite>(TCP/IP) contain an application layer.
>

"Software" on the other hand, *is* confusing.

So I've attached b/w and colour versions of the stack (calling it a reference
model <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_model> is ambitious) as well
as the OmniGraffle sources. I've also removed the CC-BY-SA requirement so
it's now under the new CC
Zero<http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>license (e.g.
public domain). That basically means you can use it how you
like without even having to give attribution (which is not to say you
can't/shouldn't, and claiming it as your own invention would be
disingenous).

Sam

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> >>> You could put 'clients' at the top and 'servers' at the bottom.
> >
> > Ooh, that's almost too clean... the reason for these layers incidentally
> is
> > that an effective taxonomy should cater for all subjects and both clients
> > (like netbooks, next gen browsers, etc.) and servers (unified computing
> et
> > al) were left high and dry.
> >
> > Other comments inline.
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Simon Wardley <
> simon.wardley at canonical.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Absolutely, but I'd never say anyone was stupid.
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 19:52 +0100, Alexis Richardson wrote:
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > KISS aaS ;-)
> >
> > :) KISS aaS goodbye perhaps.
> >
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> > AaaS, FaaS and HaaS were never going to fly :) But now we're talking
> about
> > de-aaSing it matters less. I prefer Infrastructure and Platform... I'm
> just
> > stuck on Application (my first choice) vs Software (more a concession for
> > the "software services"/SaaS bandwagon).
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on having an application vs a
> software
> > layer. Application fits with the OSI stack and earlier concepts like
> > "Application Service Provider"... "Software Services" is easily confused
> > with "Software + Services" but is less of a stretch from "SaaS".
> >
> > If we can find something which is generally acceptable (and get people to
> > accept it) then our users are going to be less confused/scared about
> > adopting cloud computing.
> >
> >>
> >> > > 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.
> >
> > That mostly works for me, and that's why those three layers are
> highlighted
> > in my diagrams, but see comments above about effective taxonomies.
> >
> >>
> >> > > 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.
> >
> > The fabric vs instance argument is bogus - there's a whole spectrum
> > (consider for example an app running in a single virtual instance which,
> > thanks to fancy hardware, has an obscene amount of memory and processor
> > cores). That's ok becuase differentiating is not particularly helpful
> > anyway.
> >
> >>
> >> > > 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.
> >
> > All this stuff looks the same anyway - you can start, stop and restart a
> > fabric based platform workload just as much as you can an instance based
> > infrastructure workload.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >> > > 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/
> >>
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090419/d870beba/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cloud-computing-stack-colour.svg
Type: image/svg+xml
Size: 7567 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090419/d870beba/attachment.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cloud-computing-stack-colour.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44874 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090419/d870beba/attachment.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cloud-computing-stack.png
Type: image/png
Size: 42653 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090419/d870beba/attachment-0001.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cloud-computing-stack.svg
Type: image/svg+xml
Size: 7572 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090419/d870beba/attachment-0001.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cloud-computing-stack.graffle
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 126108 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090419/d870beba/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cloud-computing-stack-colour.graffle
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 127734 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090419/d870beba/attachment-0001.obj 