Re: Virtualization

From: Mladen Gogala <>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:42:56 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>

On Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:27:03 +0200, Jack wrote:

> No. Have you ever heard term "privat cloud"
> Surely Amazon would like to be the only real cloud, and witch it
> actually insisted to be.
> Private cloud is cloud infrastructure operated solely for a single
> organization, whether managed internally or by a third-party and hosted
> internally or externally.

Basically, with the cumulonimbus, you have a bunch of virtual machines and a service provider, providing infrastructure and frequently also the maintenance of that infrastructure. If your server is in the sky with diamonds, that means that the cloud provider also has to take backups since it would be exceedingly expensive to backup a few TB over the internet. Bandwidth is cheap, as long as somebody else is paying for it. Also, it would probably cost you a pretty penny to get 300 GB/hr backup throughput to the local equipment. 300 GB/hr translates to 1GB connection with de-duplication.

Besides the backup, the provider may optionally handle upgrades, especially if you select provider specific Linux image or database version. Amazon, for instance, offers both a special Linux version and a special Postgres version (Drazen has mentioned Postgres) which are adjusted to their cloud and cheaper to utilize than your own vanilla version of Linux.

Cloud is primarily a marketing term which describes software and the infrastructure as a service. There are plenty of service providers: Amazon, IBM, Oracle, Cisco, Red Hat and a bunch of smaller ones, like the British Go Cloud. It's a revival of an ancient concept from the times of the mainframe computers. How successful will that be will eventually be decided based on the money. How much will it cost companies to host the infrastructure with Lucy in the sky with diamonds, compared with maintaining their own infrastructure. So far, the cost savings are less than spectacular, that's what I hear. There are very real concerns about intelligence gathering from the cloud and data protection in the cloud, while the financial savings are not all that great. In other words, I believe that the cloud will not fly very high this year, although the concept itself is logical: leave the cooking to the cooks. If the companies like Amazon and IBM make the "cloud" a bit cheaper, then it will start making sense. The indicator of severe problems with the cloud is the fact that companies in Manhattan, with the most expensive office space in the world, are still maintaining their own infrastructure, rather than moving it to the cloud. Square foot of the office space on the 5th Avenue, overlooking the Central Park is very, very expensive. Now, why would these companies elect to maintain their own staff and infrastructure, rather than to "move it to the cloud"? Oracle Corp. has an entire building on the 54th Street, between Broadway and Park Ave., in Midtown Manhattan, with the servers in the building. Their building is probably worth $100M. Why are they keeping the servers in the building, in the most expensive office space in the world? They might be attached to their red Swingline staplers, but I doubt it.

Mladen Gogala
The Oracle Whisperer
Received on Wed Jan 08 2014 - 22:42:56 CET

Original text of this message