Monthly Archives: April 2013

Cloudifying Your Datacenter

Whether VMware, HP’s Cloud Service Automation, xCAT or any of the other myriad provisioning solutions, there are so many progressive stages of private cloud. Although that term remains somewhat nebulous, the pieces are familiar:

1. Standardization and consolidation of hardware and infrastructure
2. Virtualization and automation (most of us are around here)
3. Self-service infrastructure (next step)
4. Service lifecycle management
5. Service brokering and hybrid environments

The barriers are also ever present, among them manpower, optimization, guaranteed SLA enforcement and accounting – each increasing the difficulty of making progress or really even getting a good understanding of the end-game for your private cloud. The best place to start your push to cloud is a strong focus on return on investment. Gathering an accurate understanding of current costs and demand is a significant first step, and from there a hope can build around the potential for cost savings. It is no stretch to claim between 10 and 100 times faster deployments, depending on your current setup! Our research has shown that our customers are spending 2-3 times more in manpower and hardware before moving to a cloud.

Another strong selling point for cloud and a potential for savings is the concept of a self-service portal. We’ve all dreamed of facilitating users, in a safe way, so that then can request and manage their own workload without requiring much IT team. Another bonus is the addition of chargeback concepts to help manage resources in an accountable manner. Workload placement and migration is another level of management that is expensive and time-consuming to handle manually. Even setting up the rule sets and auditing policies can be overwhelming.

So if you are focusing on a consolidation of hardware into a single datacenter, consolidating deployment efforts and processes, looking to increase your ROI on your infrastructure, decreasing IT staffing and computing investments or just wanting to add additional machines and VMs without staffing up, Adaptive Computing’s line of cloud solutions can help your success.

Self-service Portal
Using Moab’s service templates, actual service consumers can ask for what they need, when they need it. With chargeback you can govern accountability for resource uses, which will limit overuse and waste. Remember that a free cloud is a recipe for failure. Self service is what makes a your datacenter a cloud, and can facilitate 10-100x increases in deployment speed.

Continuous Optimization
Move from automation to orchestration. VM sprawl, just like server sprawl, can fill up your datacenter quickly! Do you want your VMs to be scattered across your datacenter for better performance, or would you like to consolidate so that you can take advantage of licensing constraints or VLANs. Don’t overlook the value of accurate initial placement with granular service allocation policies that can target by processors, memory, chipset, software licenses or other arbitrary metadata. Also, you can always reserve pockets of your datacenter for certain kinds of work, or work from certain users. Once those services are running, they can be locked down on that hypervisor to secure high availability and security. Now all this can be done manually, but let’s be honest, it’s a lot of work, and your ability to keep in sync with upcoming needs will be limited by staffing and the other fires and stuff your IT staff it doing. You don’t want to just add capacity like we have in the past. Now is the time to efficiently allocate what we already have with a variety of policies around placement, overcommit and allocation.

Integrating Moab in Your Cloud
Dip your toe, try this out. We know that you may want to keep one foot in the traditional IT infrastructure model, or even outsourced IaaS . We know that this perpetuates inconsistent development environments, disparate architectures and different management and security, so pick a single small group to focus on. You want to provide all the capabilities (optimization, chargeback, service catalog, etc.) for a each grouping one at a time so that you can demonstrate the ROI as you work to cloudify (bring standardization, automation and self-service) your datacenter.

Response to FCC 12-581

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0401/DA-13-581A1.pdf

I do not support a loosening of restrictions on offensive content, including but not limited to language and nudity, based on concepts of deliberate placement, isolation or repetition. Offensive language is just that, regardless of its density throughout a program. Individual nudity is not accepted in public, sexual or otherwise, nor should it be allowed on public broadcast. Public broadcast is a common asset and should be appropriate for the general public and if it is allowed to become unsuitable for significant portions of society, particularly families and those who understand the negative outcomes of repeated exposure to vulgar content, it will become devalued as a medium for education, entertainment, marketing and news as viewership decreases. If any change is to be considered, let it be to tighten restrictions to include offensive material that has crept into acceptance over the past years!

The argument that the enforcement of established standards has become excessively expensive is surprisingly shallow and does not address the root cause: despite clear restrictions, media organizations continue to broadcast material that is offensive to the public. At least two other solutions should be considered as well: additional federal funding as granted from expressed public interest and higher fines to further discourage offenses and to subsidize enforcement.

All ranges of appropriate and inappropriate programming are already available via Internet, cable and satellite media providers. Those wishing to experience more offensive programming should continue to turn to these, leaving public broadcast wholly appropriate for all ages and sensitivities.

Lastly, I suggest that any changes to the FCC’s policies be submitted to a more formal public review. Furthermore, please evaluate establishing differing standards based on state or regional standards as well as different bands of public broadcast with varying levels of objectionable material.