Cloud Vs. Hosting?
- Thread starter Ice Rich
- Start date
Soldato
As far as I am aware, Cloud is basically "your local hard drive but stored in an online location so it's accessible from anywhere".
It's not just google, lots of companies are now offering the service, even with the 360 you can choose Cloud storage for some information so you can access it anywhere.
It's not just google, lots of companies are now offering the service, even with the 360 you can choose Cloud storage for some information so you can access it anywhere.
Associate
Rich, are you a member of the vidahost forum? I explained on there to you if you are 
Caporegime
Depends on context of conversation. Google Drive is competition for Dropbox. Cloud computing allows this service to happen, but it is not only that which it can achieve.
Cloud computing is (in a somewhat oversimplified statement) where a network of computers act as one device. I believe the metaphor is that the individual machines are the water droplets that form the overall cloud.
The aim of cloud computing is to provide seamless interaction between devices. Such as cloud printing - allowing you to print a given document that is on the cloud, from any device attached to the cloud, on any printer accessible to the cloud. E.g. I can print a document that I have on my workstation in the office, from my phone, on a printer in my client's office, providing we are all connected to the same cloud.
Other "cloud" services such as Amazon's EC2 offer a seamless hosted environment where the developer does not need to manage filesystems, databases etc. The cloud does all of that for him or her, through a common interface/framework which handles such issues and thus are abstracted away from the domain of the code. I.e the developer only need concern themselves with the real stuff and not infrastructure.
Cloud computing is (in a somewhat oversimplified statement) where a network of computers act as one device. I believe the metaphor is that the individual machines are the water droplets that form the overall cloud.
The aim of cloud computing is to provide seamless interaction between devices. Such as cloud printing - allowing you to print a given document that is on the cloud, from any device attached to the cloud, on any printer accessible to the cloud. E.g. I can print a document that I have on my workstation in the office, from my phone, on a printer in my client's office, providing we are all connected to the same cloud.
Other "cloud" services such as Amazon's EC2 offer a seamless hosted environment where the developer does not need to manage filesystems, databases etc. The cloud does all of that for him or her, through a common interface/framework which handles such issues and thus are abstracted away from the domain of the code. I.e the developer only need concern themselves with the real stuff and not infrastructure.
Associate
Whether or not it's described as such, Google mail is a basically a mail cloud. So when you think of cloud, you're thinking about external services which are offered which aren't really managed by yourself. I'd argue that these services should be highly reliable by design, but I don't really want to get into a debate.
This includes but is not limited to:
webhosting clouds (or cloud infrastructure such as Amazon EC2 which is very popular)
Storage clouds such as dropbox, etc
mail clouds
applications as a service
It can be fairly wide ranging, and is often misused, so the question probably too generic.
This includes but is not limited to:
webhosting clouds (or cloud infrastructure such as Amazon EC2 which is very popular)
Storage clouds such as dropbox, etc
mail clouds
applications as a service
It can be fairly wide ranging, and is often misused, so the question probably too generic.
Rich, are you a member of the vidahost forum? I explained on there to you if you are
You get around Sach
Yes, it is me. Thanks again for your help, will catch you on MSN too hopefully.Think I understand more now. 'Cloud' is more a system and 'DropBox' or 'Google Drive' adaptations of it.
I initially would have thought the majority of people would not need such large amounts of info stored online especially as it is a paid for service? Why not just make use of sending emails to yourself as the limits are quite large now.
But thinking about it, the ability to access your photos, music, documents (which could go into the GB's of size) anywhere, would be quite useful.
What is to say though this would not turn into the next rapidshare or megaupload? Are they marketing it with the main benefit being cross platform and ease of use support?
Caporegime
Why drive a car when you have a pair of legs?
Why drive a car when you have a pair of legs?
That has confused me slightly but I presume you mean the service 'dropbox' or googledrive' offers is much more flexible (and faster!) then the faff of self emailing etc?
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 226
"Cloud" is one of these sexy terms that some Marketing Monkey has came up with to try and make something geeky and sometimes complex sound sexy, fresh and attractive.
Simply put - Cloud is about putting your data in a location that is accessible, available and hopefully resilient.
Removing the need for location being an issue/concern -
Which is primarily dependant on the data type, intended use and connectivity at both sides of the fence.
Which for most people - Storing your info in a Data Centre is exactly that.
Cloud also covers the aspects that non-techies either don't care about, understand or appreciate - Backups, security, accessibility, blah blah.
I view Cloud as something that has taken the data centre model and made it more appealing to the home/small business consumer - but it is also making its way into big enterprise areas - Under a healthy "cloud" of mistrust and Distain.
Take this coming from a Head of IT for a Global Organisation who has "Great ideas" from people every day in the business who thinks its very easy to solve issues that every other company in the world faces because they have read the technology section of the BBC website at lunch and picked up a sexy word.
Bit of an OTT reply to a simple question - But it has been one of those days....
Simply put - Cloud is about putting your data in a location that is accessible, available and hopefully resilient.
Removing the need for location being an issue/concern -
Which is primarily dependant on the data type, intended use and connectivity at both sides of the fence.
Which for most people - Storing your info in a Data Centre is exactly that.
Cloud also covers the aspects that non-techies either don't care about, understand or appreciate - Backups, security, accessibility, blah blah.
I view Cloud as something that has taken the data centre model and made it more appealing to the home/small business consumer - but it is also making its way into big enterprise areas - Under a healthy "cloud" of mistrust and Distain.
Take this coming from a Head of IT for a Global Organisation who has "Great ideas" from people every day in the business who thinks its very easy to solve issues that every other company in the world faces because they have read the technology section of the BBC website at lunch and picked up a sexy word.
Bit of an OTT reply to a simple question - But it has been one of those days....
Caporegime
You are so far of the mark, it is actually laughably typical of a "Head of IT in a Global Organisation". Except for the point of abstracting backups and the "techy" stuff away from users. Users being tech savvy and not savvy. But you appear to think that is a bad thing?!
By the way, a head of IT in a global org isn't worthy of any Kudos. In fact the opposite. "Global Organisations" persistently get it wrong.
Caporegime
Is also way more reliable, less prone to errors on your behalf such as emailing someone else by accident, file sizes too big for email exchanges etc etc. And less faff to just keep a given folder synced than to having to remember to email file to yourself etc.
Associate
Behind the scenes a cloud should be a solid distributed computing model that for the most part has been around for many years. Whilst there is a lot of hyperbole that it's the swiss army knife of hosting solutions, and I wouldn't trust the majority of "cloud" providers with hosting my blog, let alone enterprise data, it doesn't mean the entire concept of flawed.
There are concerns, and one should go into such things eyes wide open, but I find it hard to believe "Head of IT for a Global Organisation" doesn't see a use for high level availability on the cheap, or at the very least the use cloud technologies internally, ala a private cloud (though you can debate whether or not it should be called that).
If anything, the hype gives IT management something to get behind in order to promote invesment into their services. There are a vast array of solutions, I'm truely sorry that they all suck for you. Either way, you shouldn't let it bother you. It's nothing more than an awareness campaign when you get down to it.
There are concerns, and one should go into such things eyes wide open, but I find it hard to believe "Head of IT for a Global Organisation" doesn't see a use for high level availability on the cheap, or at the very least the use cloud technologies internally, ala a private cloud (though you can debate whether or not it should be called that).
If anything, the hype gives IT management something to get behind in order to promote invesment into their services. There are a vast array of solutions, I'm truely sorry that they all suck for you. Either way, you shouldn't let it bother you. It's nothing more than an awareness campaign when you get down to it.
Last edited:
"Cloud" is a current buzzword...
To me, the "cloud" is "anything outside of your own network" - given a typical network infrastructure diagram, the bits "outside of your own network" (such as on the internet) were designated using a picture of a cloud-shaped object. Hence the phrase was bourne.
To me, the "cloud" is "anything outside of your own network" - given a typical network infrastructure diagram, the bits "outside of your own network" (such as on the internet) were designated using a picture of a cloud-shaped object. Hence the phrase was bourne.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 226
Here we go... This is why I don’t like contributing or discussing things on forums as the Internet/forum trolls come along and prove the point that opinions are like A*se Holes – Everyone has one...
@ dj_jestar – If you actually took the time to read and more importantly understand what I said you would realise why your post is just taking up space on the internet.... or should I say – Cloud.
Because lets face it – The OC Forum is likely to be installed on a server that OC likely don’t “own”, which is likely to be stored in a data centre that OC don’t Own or maintain...with connectivity that they don’t own or maintain... – Which is the basis of The cloud.
To review what I said in simple English so you can understand this time –
I explained that the cloud is a fancy word for the repackaging and simplification of what at its core components is a very complex and “geeky” subject – Data availability and storage – Like NAS drives are to SAN’s.
Am I wrong?
I then go on to mention what factors have to be considered and are generally found under the cloud heading -
Data Location, storage, accessibility, security, availability etc
Am I wrong?
I then state that all these factors which are covered by hosting your applications in Data centres/central storage facilities are made more attractive to the home/SME market by making it simpler, more “off the shelf” and given a marketing name like “The Cloud” – but it is moving into the more enterprise markets more and more – but is being viewed with some level of scepticism by most IT professionals given its simplification of complex issues that face most businesses large and small all around the world...
Am I wrong?
My reference to my job role was to hopefully give anyone reading some comfort in what size or organisation I was coming from and thus what factors/background I base my views on – In no way was it Willy Waving – quite the opposite actually.
My data estate currently is over 1.5 Petabytes – Weekly I see proposals across my desk that Managers, directors employees have raised trying to say that the “cloud” solutions they have been sold/told about solves their issues – To give credit where its due – at that particular point in time, with that particular issue – it likely does solve their issue – but it does not take into account the impact/issues that occur across the business when you change the model for your systems or Does the cloud solution still fit in 12 months time when there is greater risk, cost, requirements.
Recently I had a supplier get into our organisation who had approached a Business unit directly and sell them the benefits and gave the usual – “We can partner with you to provide you with a solution to your problems cheaper, quicker than your internal IT function”
Said Business Unit signed them up and started to work with them to create this specific application. Said supplier had promised end to end it would be done = half way through the design stage they realised there was some very large issues with what they were proposing – This then died - £300K down the drains and 2 people fired.... but to give you some facts –
For the business unit to proceed with the supplier and make it functional and comply with the data laws in each country that the system would be used and also to hold all the data that was required to make it efficient/functional – it would cost us £2.7M/Month to keep the system hosted plus development costs to create and further develop.
We woud also then have to redesign most other models to use the data within the cloud – which had further costs, data protection issues etc.
We also had legal issues and regulatory issues given that outsourcing to the cloud does not remove the liability around data protection, security and privacy – it just means that the provider now has to take the same care and consideration as we do – if the $hit hits that fan it is still us in court no matter who or what company caused the issue.
We have very strict and complex Disaster recover and business continuity plans in place – how can I extend and impose these specialised requirements on an organisation that serves 1000 of different businesses with varying levels of needs?
This business critical system would be located in the “cloud” and as such if they suffered connectivity issues or we did – we would lose access to our data.
Where as with a hosted solution in our own Data centre – Which we have 14 of, wordwide – We have Private and resilient infrastructure connecting them all together that gives us as close to guaranteed connectivity as we can get – which is a requirement of our business critical applications.
If the said cloud company was to go bust – we would lose our whole “system” given it was “written” in a language that was bespoke to that provider – naming no names but I’m sure you can guess who it is.
So yes – I think I am well placed to discuss the issues of “Cloud” type solutions within an Enterprise environment.
At no point did I say I was against them – We use them for some aspects of our systems – Aspects that they are suitable for...in some cases actually I have had to twist peoples arms to adopt them as they feared losing the “Quick Win” aspect by putting onto different/non native platform.
But I think I was sharing my frustrations with the “dream machine” that is Cloud Computing and the approach that many “Cloud Consultants” and Sales people take in taking what is a simplification of a larger business requirement and assuming they can scale it to fit after the fact.
If my reply came across more negatively than that then I apologise – as I said I have had a few “debates” today around the subject with people nowhere near qualified to discuss it..so on my casual calming browse of the forum the topic allowed me to answer the gentleman’s question while putting some meat on the bone.
I read a business article once where the author was making a similar argument to you that Heads of IT etc fear and dismiss the cloud over concerns around their jobs, power struggle..but that is missing the actual reason – I/We are cynical of the cloud as we understand how it works, its limitations and more importantly we understand out own businesses and what they expect/demand of their systems. The majority of people who raise it as a solution to unsuitable problems will be the same people who would question why it runs so slowly over the link/internet, or why it has X limitations in growth, size, access speed etc – Which all falls under IT.
So I think “we” are well within our right to be cynical of a solution that we have yet to see tested on its worst day ie What happens if the “Cloud” does burst? – Just because something hasn’t broke yet – doesn’t mean it won’t or that the risk of it breaking is acceptable. Any % risk of something happening is important/relevant if the actual risk/event in question has major impact on the business.
Famous Example of a recently cloud provider going down but cant link to the article on here as it probably breaks the rules of competition..but those clued up will know what I am talking about.
99.9% uptime is only good if they are still around to be sued...but what does the business do while you are suing them? Fail. As stated before – responsibility cannot be passed to the provider - If data leaks we are the ones in court first and we have to provide reasons why we created that risk/situation that lead to this happening.
This post also comes across negatively – but its to demonstrate that there are a large number of considerations when looking into cloud solutions that are different for each organisation but still have to be considered
Your comment about my job title not getting any Kudos as most Global Organisations get it wrong - I think I have demonstrated that this is what I was getting at and that the "Cloud Believers" internally and externally fail to appreciate the issues, impacts etc as they tend to only focus what is right in front of them eg its cheaper on paper, they can access it without using the Cisco VPN which they think is overkill etc etc.
@ dj_jestar – If you actually took the time to read and more importantly understand what I said you would realise why your post is just taking up space on the internet.... or should I say – Cloud.
Because lets face it – The OC Forum is likely to be installed on a server that OC likely don’t “own”, which is likely to be stored in a data centre that OC don’t Own or maintain...with connectivity that they don’t own or maintain... – Which is the basis of The cloud.
To review what I said in simple English so you can understand this time –
I explained that the cloud is a fancy word for the repackaging and simplification of what at its core components is a very complex and “geeky” subject – Data availability and storage – Like NAS drives are to SAN’s.
Am I wrong?
I then go on to mention what factors have to be considered and are generally found under the cloud heading -
Data Location, storage, accessibility, security, availability etc
Am I wrong?
I then state that all these factors which are covered by hosting your applications in Data centres/central storage facilities are made more attractive to the home/SME market by making it simpler, more “off the shelf” and given a marketing name like “The Cloud” – but it is moving into the more enterprise markets more and more – but is being viewed with some level of scepticism by most IT professionals given its simplification of complex issues that face most businesses large and small all around the world...
Am I wrong?
My reference to my job role was to hopefully give anyone reading some comfort in what size or organisation I was coming from and thus what factors/background I base my views on – In no way was it Willy Waving – quite the opposite actually.
My data estate currently is over 1.5 Petabytes – Weekly I see proposals across my desk that Managers, directors employees have raised trying to say that the “cloud” solutions they have been sold/told about solves their issues – To give credit where its due – at that particular point in time, with that particular issue – it likely does solve their issue – but it does not take into account the impact/issues that occur across the business when you change the model for your systems or Does the cloud solution still fit in 12 months time when there is greater risk, cost, requirements.
Recently I had a supplier get into our organisation who had approached a Business unit directly and sell them the benefits and gave the usual – “We can partner with you to provide you with a solution to your problems cheaper, quicker than your internal IT function”
Said Business Unit signed them up and started to work with them to create this specific application. Said supplier had promised end to end it would be done = half way through the design stage they realised there was some very large issues with what they were proposing – This then died - £300K down the drains and 2 people fired.... but to give you some facts –
For the business unit to proceed with the supplier and make it functional and comply with the data laws in each country that the system would be used and also to hold all the data that was required to make it efficient/functional – it would cost us £2.7M/Month to keep the system hosted plus development costs to create and further develop.
We woud also then have to redesign most other models to use the data within the cloud – which had further costs, data protection issues etc.
We also had legal issues and regulatory issues given that outsourcing to the cloud does not remove the liability around data protection, security and privacy – it just means that the provider now has to take the same care and consideration as we do – if the $hit hits that fan it is still us in court no matter who or what company caused the issue.
We have very strict and complex Disaster recover and business continuity plans in place – how can I extend and impose these specialised requirements on an organisation that serves 1000 of different businesses with varying levels of needs?
This business critical system would be located in the “cloud” and as such if they suffered connectivity issues or we did – we would lose access to our data.
Where as with a hosted solution in our own Data centre – Which we have 14 of, wordwide – We have Private and resilient infrastructure connecting them all together that gives us as close to guaranteed connectivity as we can get – which is a requirement of our business critical applications.
If the said cloud company was to go bust – we would lose our whole “system” given it was “written” in a language that was bespoke to that provider – naming no names but I’m sure you can guess who it is.
So yes – I think I am well placed to discuss the issues of “Cloud” type solutions within an Enterprise environment.
At no point did I say I was against them – We use them for some aspects of our systems – Aspects that they are suitable for...in some cases actually I have had to twist peoples arms to adopt them as they feared losing the “Quick Win” aspect by putting onto different/non native platform.
But I think I was sharing my frustrations with the “dream machine” that is Cloud Computing and the approach that many “Cloud Consultants” and Sales people take in taking what is a simplification of a larger business requirement and assuming they can scale it to fit after the fact.
If my reply came across more negatively than that then I apologise – as I said I have had a few “debates” today around the subject with people nowhere near qualified to discuss it..so on my casual calming browse of the forum the topic allowed me to answer the gentleman’s question while putting some meat on the bone.
I read a business article once where the author was making a similar argument to you that Heads of IT etc fear and dismiss the cloud over concerns around their jobs, power struggle..but that is missing the actual reason – I/We are cynical of the cloud as we understand how it works, its limitations and more importantly we understand out own businesses and what they expect/demand of their systems. The majority of people who raise it as a solution to unsuitable problems will be the same people who would question why it runs so slowly over the link/internet, or why it has X limitations in growth, size, access speed etc – Which all falls under IT.
So I think “we” are well within our right to be cynical of a solution that we have yet to see tested on its worst day ie What happens if the “Cloud” does burst? – Just because something hasn’t broke yet – doesn’t mean it won’t or that the risk of it breaking is acceptable. Any % risk of something happening is important/relevant if the actual risk/event in question has major impact on the business.
Famous Example of a recently cloud provider going down but cant link to the article on here as it probably breaks the rules of competition..but those clued up will know what I am talking about.
99.9% uptime is only good if they are still around to be sued...but what does the business do while you are suing them? Fail. As stated before – responsibility cannot be passed to the provider - If data leaks we are the ones in court first and we have to provide reasons why we created that risk/situation that lead to this happening.
This post also comes across negatively – but its to demonstrate that there are a large number of considerations when looking into cloud solutions that are different for each organisation but still have to be considered
Your comment about my job title not getting any Kudos as most Global Organisations get it wrong - I think I have demonstrated that this is what I was getting at and that the "Cloud Believers" internally and externally fail to appreciate the issues, impacts etc as they tend to only focus what is right in front of them eg its cheaper on paper, they can access it without using the Cisco VPN which they think is overkill etc etc.
You are so far of the mark, it is actually laughably typical of a "Head of IT in a Global Organisation". Except for the point of abstracting backups and the "techy" stuff away from users. Users being tech savvy and not savvy. But you appear to think that is a bad thing?!
By the way, a head of IT in a global org isn't worthy of any Kudos. In fact the opposite. "Global Organisations" persistently get it wrong.
Last edited:
Probably the most recognised definition available.
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf
Man of Honour
That document reads exactly like my final year exam on cloud computing!
Somewhat strangely I almost failed the exam, probably because it was such a wolly crock of **** that the university couldn't figure out how to mark it....
Gartner have a range of excellent material about 'cloud' but I think the key point is that it's the new name for computing services, or to be more precise, services a person can sign up to and use without having to worry about the "how" and the "where".
Your gas provider is as much cloud as your e-mail is as the gas company provide a service which you can access at home, and provide you a bill. You have as much knowledge as where the gas comes from as to where Google store your data, for example.
Obviously storing your gas and taking it with you is somewhat more dangerous than downloading mail to an iPhone so don't try that at home
fartingspartan - interesting post, I think you're the answer to why Gartner said a year or so ago that cloud wasn't yet ready for the Enterprise (their definition being >$2bn organisations).
Caporegime
fartingspartan - your initial reply/post reads like the typical dismissive attitude that the stereotype "Enterprise" IT bods have when they see change. So I took you to be just that. I thank you for your second, much more elaborate post.
However - all of those concerns you have described apply (at least without the specifics of data integrity etc) to literally any service offered by absolutely anyone. Even the electricity supplier to power that data centre you seem to be so proud of
Yet I doubt you have your own power station.
We can also safely assume you have DR measures in place, no? Do you (read: your organisation) employ a 3rd party to facilitate and operate these off-site locations (i.e. temp offices and the equipment necessary)? What would you do if they go bust?
Honestly, your concerns are the same concerns with any new "invention". The Internet had the very same complaints. Companies didn't want to connect to the internet, because they had security concerns. They also had vested interests in the mail/courier companies and leased telecommunication services they currently employed.
You your self have a vested interest in the existing data warehouse you (apparently) maintain in house. So naturally you don't want it shipped out to a service provider.
I've worked on some big contracts too. I have first hand knowledge and experience of data centres used by the MoD and other "national security" organisations and I can whole heartedly tell you they all use 3rd party providers for various services that are critical to the operations. Including the mega super secret important stuff being kept on outsourced hosting.
Believe me when I say it is not impressive to drop facts like that. It really isn't. I appreciate what you are trying to say by using those facts, but it doesn't come across like you intend.
Anyhow, after no doubt coming across as a nob about it, I'll stop it
Cloud computing is just a natural progression from traditional hosting. Instead of "here's a machine for you to use. You have to sort out your own ftp/http/other services though" it's now "Connect to us, and we'll take care of it all for you." Nothing more, nothing less.
However - all of those concerns you have described apply (at least without the specifics of data integrity etc) to literally any service offered by absolutely anyone. Even the electricity supplier to power that data centre you seem to be so proud of
Yet I doubt you have your own power station. We can also safely assume you have DR measures in place, no? Do you (read: your organisation) employ a 3rd party to facilitate and operate these off-site locations (i.e. temp offices and the equipment necessary)? What would you do if they go bust?
Honestly, your concerns are the same concerns with any new "invention". The Internet had the very same complaints. Companies didn't want to connect to the internet, because they had security concerns. They also had vested interests in the mail/courier companies and leased telecommunication services they currently employed.
You your self have a vested interest in the existing data warehouse you (apparently) maintain in house. So naturally you don't want it shipped out to a service provider.
I've worked on some big contracts too. I have first hand knowledge and experience of data centres used by the MoD and other "national security" organisations and I can whole heartedly tell you they all use 3rd party providers for various services that are critical to the operations. Including the mega super secret important stuff being kept on outsourced hosting.
Believe me when I say it is not impressive to drop facts like that. It really isn't. I appreciate what you are trying to say by using those facts, but it doesn't come across like you intend.
Anyhow, after no doubt coming across as a nob about it, I'll stop it
Cloud computing is just a natural progression from traditional hosting. Instead of "here's a machine for you to use. You have to sort out your own ftp/http/other services though" it's now "Connect to us, and we'll take care of it all for you." Nothing more, nothing less.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 226
Been out of the country hence the delayed response...
Think you are missing the point completely and still on the typical "its my way or the high way" forum reply train that many people have.
Comparing the government with Global Billion pound businesses (or any size of business for that matter) is a little bit pointless.
My point away back at the start..was simply that the term "cloud" and all the hype surrounding it is simply making what has been around for a very long time simpler and sexier - it does not remove any of the concerns/decision points that a business has to go through when deciding if outsourced facilities makes sense.
The government is not driven by anything other than cost...you can boil it anyway you want..but it still comes down to that.
But again, I did make this point that it is always a balance between known/unknown risks and impacts/likelihood of them occurring.
In our business - The Cloud does not offer us anything other than a cheap platform to host some of our web services on - no data is stored on it, it is simply a filtering tool making sure we are not getting garbage into the system.
Also allows us to outsource some of the risk and make savings in terms of keeping FTR on-board that 60% of the time don't do much.
This is because the industry we are in (Energy) is not suited to this type of "innovation" as you call it.
I still standby my point that the Cloud is nothing knew, it is making more complex, inaccessible technology/facilities/system provision accessible to companies that need the flexibility and the "benefits" it offers but either cant afford to, have no interest in or understanding of the traditionally route of doing it. eg - Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail etc - All came about as not every man and his dog wanted to host SMPT/POP servers in their house etc - Would I want to use them to house our enterprise email? Not at the moment...but possibly in the future eg hosted exchange.
I still laugh that you call me out on using my company (Global etc) as a reference point but you refer to the government as a template for how things should be done?! Hello? This is the Government? - Data going missing? Systems that are known to be faulty/inefficient being renewed with the same suppliers without any recourse or change in provisions?
I think the Government/Civil service have the largest challenge in terms of implementing change but that is no excuse for making things worse.
I agree that you can apply my point to all "outsourced services" - But this is actually my whole point.
Its all about risk.
eg - Our DC's came with Tier 1 power backup facilities - this was deemed unsuitable and so we put in our own power backup diesel generators which are maintained by a company specialising in this area.
Yes - They could go bust - but as I have always said - its all about reducing risk to a level "we" eg the business are comfortable with.
I do think your view is a traditional "contractors"/"consultants" view of the world - which is not a bad or a good thing - We just come from different sides of the fence...which keeps life interesting.
Think you are missing the point completely and still on the typical "its my way or the high way" forum reply train that many people have.
Comparing the government with Global Billion pound businesses (or any size of business for that matter) is a little bit pointless.
My point away back at the start..was simply that the term "cloud" and all the hype surrounding it is simply making what has been around for a very long time simpler and sexier - it does not remove any of the concerns/decision points that a business has to go through when deciding if outsourced facilities makes sense.
The government is not driven by anything other than cost...you can boil it anyway you want..but it still comes down to that.
But again, I did make this point that it is always a balance between known/unknown risks and impacts/likelihood of them occurring.
In our business - The Cloud does not offer us anything other than a cheap platform to host some of our web services on - no data is stored on it, it is simply a filtering tool making sure we are not getting garbage into the system.
Also allows us to outsource some of the risk and make savings in terms of keeping FTR on-board that 60% of the time don't do much.
This is because the industry we are in (Energy) is not suited to this type of "innovation" as you call it.
I still standby my point that the Cloud is nothing knew, it is making more complex, inaccessible technology/facilities/system provision accessible to companies that need the flexibility and the "benefits" it offers but either cant afford to, have no interest in or understanding of the traditionally route of doing it. eg - Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail etc - All came about as not every man and his dog wanted to host SMPT/POP servers in their house etc - Would I want to use them to house our enterprise email? Not at the moment...but possibly in the future eg hosted exchange.
I still laugh that you call me out on using my company (Global etc) as a reference point but you refer to the government as a template for how things should be done?! Hello? This is the Government? - Data going missing? Systems that are known to be faulty/inefficient being renewed with the same suppliers without any recourse or change in provisions?
I think the Government/Civil service have the largest challenge in terms of implementing change but that is no excuse for making things worse.
I agree that you can apply my point to all "outsourced services" - But this is actually my whole point.
Its all about risk.
eg - Our DC's came with Tier 1 power backup facilities - this was deemed unsuitable and so we put in our own power backup diesel generators which are maintained by a company specialising in this area.
Yes - They could go bust - but as I have always said - its all about reducing risk to a level "we" eg the business are comfortable with.
I do think your view is a traditional "contractors"/"consultants" view of the world - which is not a bad or a good thing - We just come from different sides of the fence...which keeps life interesting.
fartingspartan - your initial reply/post reads like the typical dismissive attitude that the stereotype "Enterprise" IT bods have when they see change. So I took you to be just that. I thank you for your second, much more elaborate post.
However - all of those concerns you have described apply (at least without the specifics of data integrity etc) to literally any service offered by absolutely anyone. Even the electricity supplier to power that data centre you seem to be so proud of
We can also safely assume you have DR measures in place, no? Do you (read: your organisation) employ a 3rd party to facilitate and operate these off-site locations (i.e. temp offices and the equipment necessary)? What would you do if they go bust?
Honestly, your concerns are the same concerns with any new "invention". The Internet had the very same complaints. Companies didn't want to connect to the internet, because they had security concerns. They also had vested interests in the mail/courier companies and leased telecommunication services they currently employed.
You your self have a vested interest in the existing data warehouse you (apparently) maintain in house. So naturally you don't want it shipped out to a service provider.
I've worked on some big contracts too. I have first hand knowledge and experience of data centres used by the MoD and other "national security" organisations and I can whole heartedly tell you they all use 3rd party providers for various services that are critical to the operations. Including the mega super secret important stuff being kept on outsourced hosting.
Believe me when I say it is not impressive to drop facts like that. It really isn't. I appreciate what you are trying to say by using those facts, but it doesn't come across like you intend.
Anyhow, after no doubt coming across as a nob about it, I'll stop it
Cloud computing is just a natural progression from traditional hosting. Instead of "here's a machine for you to use. You have to sort out your own ftp/http/other services though" it's now "Connect to us, and we'll take care of it all for you." Nothing more, nothing less.