How much private cloud do you really need? A private cloud is all about the IT department getting out of the way of its internal customers, enabling business units and individual developers to provision their own VMs and get on with doing their jobs. But building and operating a private cloud is a complex, and therefore expensive, task. There needs to be a large payoff before there is a real business benefit. Some businesses don’t really need a private cloud platform. Often, their business processes will prevent real self-service on their private cloud. For these organizations, there may be simpler ways to achieve their desired business outcomes.
IT as a Service
IT as a Service (ITaaS) covers private clouds, hybrid clouds, and on-premises clouds, as well as cloud management, including performance management offerings used to create and manage these entities. Consider this IT consumption as a utility. (Read More)
This topic explores Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) private and hybrid cloud offerings, Platform as a Service (PaaS) private and hybrid cloud offerings, and Software as a Service (SaaS). It also investigates emerging areas such as Desktop as a Service (DaaS), Storage as a Service, and Applications as a Service.
The key areas covered include enterprise applications and use cases that are appropriate for private and hybrid clouds, and how consumers and vendors should select cloud management offerings they will use to manage the various types of cloud services and the journey to the cloud: from A to Z and all points between.
Recently, a number of marketing campaigns have seemed to be inventing complexity to try to give products the appearance of having some sort of competitive advantage. The invented complexity involves real-world items that many folks just do not use, or even care about, in order to make products look like something different. We have spoken about in-kernel vs. VSA in the past, but now we are seeing invented complexity within the mainstream storage world.
Every day, IT professionals live and breathe applications, yet our focus for operational tools is a single container, virtual machine, database, etc. How do these items map to the application in use? Even the monolithic-looking applications of yesterday were actually made up of services. Those services will be reborn as microservices within the applications of tomorrow. How do we make this transition? Is it possible with a container as a service model? Or should we scratch the past and start over?
Microsoft’s turnaround over the two years since Satya Nadella became CEO has been nothing short of phenomenal. During the Ballmer years, Microsoft had become increasingly sidelined and irrelevant, focused on aggressive and negative marketing techniques. Anybody remember the painful Microsoft Mythbusters video featuring then–Microsoft executive David Greschler and Hyper-V product manager Edwin Yuen? Not that you can find it anymore; all references I have located now link to the Microsoft store (even Microsoft is too embarrassed).
Recently, we upgraded our cloud environment. This raises the question, “What is wrong with the environment after an upgrade?” As tools improve, we get new warnings, messages, and analytics. This often leads to a decision to ensure that after the upgrade, all monitoring, alerts, and other diagnostics show green across the board. Is this required, desirable, and even warranted? Wouldn’t it make sense to understand a change between releases first, before blanket acceptance?
The use of the cloud is not governed by technology so much as it is governed by cost: the cost of on-premises management, support, expertise, and environment vs. the cost of cloud services and outsourced expertise, management, etc. The cost differential must be high enough in the short term to allow it to become valid in the long term. There are lots of cloud calculators out there. Since Apple, Dropbox, and others have changed clouds or moved to their own data centers, what does this tell us about the future of cloud?