Planning and provisioning consistent development, testing and production environments is not for the faint of heart. Tools for managing elements within traditional corporate IT environments are rather mature and well-established, but their value has yet to really be adapted for the rapid emergence of cloud computing. Cloud Computing solutions have long promised to eliminate the costs and headaches associated with deploying infrastructure elements for large IT projects, but the payoff has been elusive. Not to mention that there is still a great deal of confusion over what cloud computing actually is, and the value it offers.

Amazon Web Services launched it’s offering in an attempt to create an innovate service where the infrastructure could be virtual, commoditized and utilized incrementally both internally, and externally by customers who needed infrastructure resources. They not only brought an innovative set of services to market, they also spawned an entirely new opportunity and challenges for anyone who sought to use the service. Delivering processing, storage, application messaging and batch processing capabilities on an financially incremental basis was a huge move. However, the lack of tools for managing and integrating cloud environments with existing traditional enterprise environments have contributed to the difficulty with adoption firms must grapple with.

We listened in on a webinar yesterday where firms Rightscale and CohesiveFT demonstrated a combined solution which offers a level of manageability and scalability which makes Amazon Web Services (AWS) “Infrastructure as a service” a reality, allowing IT to more easily align their resources with the teams which develop and manage the application layer without the need to over-purchase equipment to create multiple uniform but distinct environments. When RightScale recently surveyed their users regarding why they were choosing a cloud management platform, the top three responses centered on managing complexity, automation of management task and the speed to deployment such a platform offers. They cited the case of one customer who was able to scale from 40 to 4,000 servers in a matter of 36 hours; a basically impossible and unfathomably costly endeavor if you’re using traditional rack or blade servers in a conventional data center.

RightScale and CohesiveFT demonstrated a case where they provisioned two servers with different configurations, in separate AWS zones in the US and Europe, all managed centrally through a single console. RightScale provides the capability to manage all aspects of instantiating virtual resources including their configurations, local security, monitoring, change management and auditing. CohesiveFT enables the ability to create VPN’s which can be used as a “overlay” management sub-net. This provides the security and connectivity which makes it a viable global solution since in enables management and connectivity of the instances across geographic zones via a virtual sub-net on which the instances communicate. The solution also allows the cloud to easily integrate with existing physical data center elements.

Cloud Computing is obviously here to stay, and as solutions for deploying and managing cloud environments mature, cloud computing become a more viable alternative for enterprises looking to squeeze the all the value out of their IT dollar. With the ability to adjust resources and spending on different environments at different stages of the application development and deployment process, organizations can eliminate headaches and waste which always accompany any large application deployment project.

If you’re interested in seeing exactly how RightScale and CloudFT work together, you can watch the recorded version of the webinar we attended at RightScale.com

In April, Reuven Cohen provided the Federal Government’s definitions for cloud computing. I find these definitions helpful, a quick reference when reading and learning about cloud computing trends. Further, I find that even the most seasoned tech professionals know little about cloud computing or how to define it. This anecdotal view is reflected across the IT market. A recent study from VersionOne found that 41 percent of senior level IT professionals “don’t know,” about cloud computing.

These definitions also provide a framework for events like CloudCamp where there are still a lot of people attending who are new to the concepts around cloud computing. FYI - Cloud Camp Columbus and CloudCamp Portland are both happening today. 

We’ve published these definitions once before, but these are the kinds of definitions to be reminded of in a market that is rapidly developing . So, here you go, a breakdown of cloud computing’s key characteristics and defintions for deployment and delivery models as defined by the Federal Government:

Key Characteristics:

On-demand self-service. A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed without requiring human interaction with each service’s provider.

Ubiquitous network access. Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, laptops, and PDAs).

Location independent resource pooling. The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve all consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. The customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources. Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, network bandwidth, and virtual machines.

Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned to quickly scale up and rapidly released to quickly scale down. To the consumer, the capabilities available for rent often appear to be infinite and can be purchased in any quantity at any time.

Pay per use. Capabilities are charged using a metered, fee-for-service, or advertising based billing model to promote optimization of resource use. Examples are measuring the storage, bandwidth, and computing resources consumed and charging for the number of active user accounts per month. Clouds within an organization accrue cost between business units and may or may not use actual currency.

Note: Cloud software takes full advantage of the cloud paradigm by being service oriented with a focus on statelessness, low coupling, modularity, and semantic interoperability.

Delivery Models:

Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure and accessible from various client devices through a thin client interface such as a Web browser (e.g., web-based email). The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure, network, servers, operating systems, storage, or even individual application capabilities, with the possible exception of limited user-specific application configuration settings.

Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created applications using programming languages and tools supported by the provider (e.g., java, python, .Net). The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure, network, servers, operating systems, or storage, but the consumer has control over the deployed applications and possibly application hosting environment configurations.

Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). The capability provided to the consumer is to rent processing, storage, networks, and other fundamental computing resources where the consumer is able to deploy and run arbitrary software, which can include operating systems and applications. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure but has control over operating systems, storage, deployed applications, and possibly select networking components (e.g., firewalls, load balancers).

Deployment Models:

Private cloud. The cloud infrastructure is owned or leased by a single organization and is operated solely for that organization.

Community cloud. The cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations).

Public cloud. The cloud infrastructure is owned by an organization selling cloud services to the general public or to a large industry group.

Hybrid cloud. The cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more clouds (internal, community, or public) that remain unique entities but are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting).

Each deployment model instance has one of two types: internal or external. Internal clouds reside within an organizations network security perimeter and external clouds reside outside the same perimeter.

 

Part of the Enterasys IT staff’s annual plan in 2008 was to consolidate our data centers into several strategic locations. The reasons for this consolidation included a need to reduce costs associated with multiple locations, as well as a company-wide campaign to reduce energy consumption. The Enterasys data center site in Boston cost more than $600,000 to maintain, and with another location just 30 miles away in Andover, it no longer made sense. Our original plan was to move the data center to our Andover headquarters by the end of the year. However, anyone in IT knows that all plans have changes, and we received a request to ‘accelerate’ the move. The new plan was to move the entire center in less than 45 days!

We started by engaging our IT operations team. After much discussion, we realized that the space we had available in Andover was much smaller than what we currently had in Boston. The only way to make the move work was to virtualize as many systems as possible to reduce the footprint. But space wasn’t our only roadblock: we also needed to ensure that we would have enough power in the building to support this data center move.

At our weekly staff meeting, we discussed the project with our entire IT staff. That discussion generated the following initial list of questions.

   1. Power

      a. Can we get a 200amp temporary home service from National Grid?

      b. Can we get a power audit to see what we really use for power in Boston?

      c. How much power would we save by switching 21″ CRTs to LCD monitors?

   2. Racks

      a. Do we need new racks, or can we move the existing ones?

      b. Can we fit the Boston servers in existing racks in Andover?

   3. Network

      a. Do we need additional network gear – and can we order and receive it in time to pre-stage in Andover?

      b. How can we split subnets across the WAN?

   4. Backups

      a. Can we import our existing catalog?

      b. Should we keep the existing gear, or replace?

      c. Do we need to have our backup vendor schedule pickups in Andover instead of Boston?

   5. Storage

      a. Do we have time to finish migrating from fiber channel to iSCSI?

      b. Can we get our storage vendor to help us move?

      c. Are we still under maintenance with the storage gear?

   6. Space

      a. Can we free up enough space in the MDF?

      b. Can we retire or consolidate any engineering servers or network gear?

   7. AC

      a. Can we get the new AC units installed and running in time?

      b. Can we get temporary units in place and powered?

      c. How much can we save on cooling costs by opting for virtualization of some of our servers?

   8. Move

      a. Are people available to move in March?

      b. Will Enterasys be willing to move the last month of the quarter?

      c. What trucking company should we use?

      d. Do we need to insure the equipment?

   9. Alternate data center facilities

      a. Get quotes from three other data centers for short term space leases, just in case.

We started by requesting that everyone update their availability in Outlook for the rest of the month. This allowed us to plan the move appropriately. With some juggling of tasks, we were able to assemble a master calendar that didn’t affect key IT projects for the month.

We discussed our power options with our electrical contractors. After consulting with them, we learned that we would, in fact, have sufficient power — until the summer heat kicked in. We also determined that we had another requirement to meet: we would need to run our current AC systems at 100% until the additional AC systems could be added. We sure had our challenges– and not a lot of wiggle room!

The storage team decided on leaving three iSCSI storage nodes with some VMWare servers at the Boston facility, and to replicate the iSCSI nodes from Boston to Andover to make it easier to move the virtual images.

Our applications team reviewed the move plans and made recommendations to start work on the test, mitigation and backup plans. Each application was assigned a priority (A,B,C) which defined how much documentation and support we needed for the move weekend. We also developed a schedule for applications that would be moved each weekend.

 In our next blog entry, we’ll talk about planning for the move, some of the details of laying out the new data center, inventorying the systems and planning the virtualization of our core systems.

With all this work and investment, we also developed a case study with our server and storage partner, Dell.

NetHawk Interactive provides white papers and webcasts about virtualization. Learn more...

Lifestream applications are making a mark in the enterprise. Socialtext announced “Signals,” this week, which uses lifestream elements to enhance enterprise communications.

One of the most valuable ways to follow a community is by developing groups around your particular interests. Socialtext Signals is designed to give context about people within an organization who are working on similar projects or have related goals.

Here’s a demo of the new Socialtext service. It’s an example of Enterprise 2.0 at its best.

Editor’s Note: We’d like to welcome Chris Schwartzbauer, our latest guest blogger. For more about Chris, please see the accompanying post with his bio information.

By Chris Schwartzbauer

Microsoft’s offering of free anti-virus software is like everything that Microsoft has ever done in the security market.   Each time Microsoft has dipped its toe into the security market, it’s been a great indicator of a pent up need and a market opportunity.  More than 10 years ago when Microsoft announced its “firewall,” it was an indication that there was a mainstream need for firewalls.  No longer was network security a problem only for NSA and PhD computer scientists.  The market needed an easy-to-manage security product.  But in the years following, companies like Check Point Software and Secure Computing (now McAfee) continued to thrive.

The announcement of free, “lightweight AV” is another case of foreshadowing. The need to keep malicious code off of computers is a mainstream problem and the market is saying that the current, heavy solutions from the market leaders aren’t getting the job done.  The products once known as anti-virus solutions are now very large applications with lots of extras that are sucking up computer processing power and memory, but still not getting the basics done.

The recent Conficker virus is demonstrable proof of this.  Conficker was a big scare, and many think that it didn’t do any real damage.  But in my estimation, based on incidents in the news and other real world feedback from customers and partners,  the amount of money spent to rebuild systems, detect the malware, and take corrective actions has added up to many millions of dollars. This week, I was at one of the largest outsourcing companies in the world where a client manager said that he spent more than 40 hours in the last two weeks chasing Conficker - for the second time. When I asked what he was doing to try and fix it, he was using AV products from both of the top two market leaders.   The products, he said, were not getting it done because they were too clumsy and difficult to deploy to all of their remote systems.

To Microsoft’s credit, they recognize that the market needs lightweight, easy to manage solutions to address malware, configuration, and patch management to combat the threats.  In all likelihood, Microsoft will not adequately address the needs of enterprise organizations, but many other companies like ESET, SunBelt Software and Shavlik Technologies are responding with lightweight AV solutions offered for little or no charge.