Are you concerned about the state of the UK economy in the future, because I know I am, so I’ll be exploring some of the issues being faced by the UK economy, especially when it comes to science, technology, engineering and industry contributions to the UK’s GDP in my next few articles. …..
Récemment, Eric Bezille compris le modèle de mon “Cloud Relationship Model” article dans son blog “Sur les pas du premier Camp Cloud à Paris …».Recently Eric Bezille included the model from my ” Cloud Relationship Model ” article in his blog post ” Sur les pas du premier Cloud Camp à Paris… “. And I thought I’d translate the article into French for Philippe’s readers. Et j’ai pensé traduire l’article en français pour les lecteurs de Philippe. I’ve had to use electronic translation (Google, actually) as I’m afraid my written and spoken French isn’t quite good enough to be able to do it manually in a reasonable amount of time. J’ai eu à utiliser la traduction électronique (Google, en fait) que je crains que mon français écrit et parlé est pas tout à fait assez bon pour être en mesure de le faire manuellement dans un délai raisonnable. I haven’t had time to translate the model itself, but you are more than welcome to recreate, reuse and distribute it, although I’d hope you would attribute the original version to me at this site. Je n’ai pas eu le temps de traduire le modèle lui-même, mais vous êtes plus que bienvenu pour recréer, de réutilisation et de la distribuer, mais je l’espère vous attribuer la version originale pour moi à ce site. Please let me know if there are any outstanding translation issues and I’ll amend them when I can. S’il vous plaît laissez-moi savoir s’il ya des questions de traduction en suspens et je vais les modifier quand je peux.
This article was originally a guest post I did recently for Stewart Townsend over at Sun Startup Essentials describing the cloud relationship model I had developed as an artefact when discussing cloud computing. Cet article a été invité récemment post, je n’ai plus de Stewart Townsend à Sun Startup Essentials décrivant le modèle de relation de nuages j’avais développé comme un artefact de calcul lors de l’examen de nuages.
I wanted a simply model which I could share with people and use as a discussion point, whilst still capturing the major areas of cloud computing which I considered most pertinent. I developed this model about six months ago and have since found it useful when talking with people about cloud computing. Je voulais tout simplement un modèle qui je pourrais partager avec les gens et utiliser comme point de discussion, tout en capturant les grands domaines de l’informatique de nuages que j’ai jugé plus pertinent. J’ai développé ce modèle il ya environ six mois et ont depuis trouvé utile lorsque l’on parle avec les gens sur les nuages de calcul.
Here’s the model and I’ll go though it’s major elements below. Voici le modèle et je vais bien que les principaux éléments ci-dessous.
¨C11C¨C12C¨C13C¨C14C¨C15C¨C16C
¨C17C¨C18C
Major Cloud Communities Major Cloud Communautés
¨C19C¨C20C¨C21C
In the cloud there are three major participants: Dans les nuages, il ya trois principaux participants: ¨C22C
the Cloud Providers; building out Clouds, for instance Google, Amazon, etc. Effectively technology providers. les fournisseurs de Cloud, la construction des nuages, par exemple Google, Amazon, etc efficacement les fournisseurs de technologie. ¨C24C¨C25C
the Cloud Adopters / Developers; those developing services over the Cloud and some becoming the first generation of Cloud ISVs. I have included Cloud “Service” developers and Cloud ISV developers together. les adoptants Cloud / développeurs, ceux de développer des services sur le Cloud et de certains de devenir la première génération de Cloud ISVs. J’ai inclus Cloud “Service” développeurs et éditeurs de logiciels de développeurs Cloud ensemble. This group are effectively service enablers. Ce groupe de services sont effectivement des facilitateurs. ¨C27C¨C28C
Cloud “End” Users; those using Cloud provisioned services, often without knowing that they are cloud provisioned, the most obvious example of which are the multitude of Facebook users who have no idea there favorite FB app. Cloud “fin” des utilisateurs; ceux qui utilisent les services Cloud provisionné, souvent sans savoir qu’ils sont des nuages provisionnés, l’exemple le plus évident dont la multitude d’utilisateurs de Facebook, qui n’ont aucune idée de là favorite FB app. is running on AWS. est en cours d’exécution sur AWS. These are the service consumers. Ce sont les services aux consommateurs. ¨C30C¨C31C
¨C33C
I think it’s important to talk about these communities because I keep hearing lots about the Cloud Providers, and even more about the issues and ‘needs’ of the Cloud adopters / developers, but very little in terms of Cloud “End” Users. In a computing eco-system such as this where “services” are supported by and transverse technology providers, service enablers and service consumers an end to end understanding of how this affects these reliant communities is required. Je pense qu’il est important de parler de ces communautés parce que je continue à l’audience sur les lots Cloud fournisseurs, et plus encore sur les questions et les «besoins» des adoptants Cloud / développeurs, mais très peu en termes de Cloud “fin” des utilisateurs. Dans un le calcul de l’éco-système de ce genre où les “services” sont pris en charge par les fournisseurs de technologie et transversal, le service des facilitateurs et les consommateurs un service de bout en bout la compréhension de la façon dont cela affecte les communautés dépendantes est nécessaire. Obvious issues such as SLAs for end users and businesses which rely upon high availability and high uptime from there cloud providers come to mind; however other “ilities” and systemic qualities come to mind such as security, and that’s before looking at any detailed breakdown of functional services. Évidente des questions telles que la SLA pour les utilisateurs finaux et les entreprises qui s’appuient sur la haute disponibilité et haute disponibilité à partir de là, les fournisseurs de nuages viennent à l’esprit, mais d’autres “ilities” et systémique qualités me viennent à l’esprit, comme la sécurité, et que l’avant de chercher à tout ventilation détaillée des services fonctionnels. ¨C34C
The point here is that the cloud adopters / developers and interestingly the cloud “watchers” (ie the press, media, bloggers and experts) would be mindful to remember the needs and requirements of genuine end users; for myself it’d certainly be invigorating to hear more on this topic area. Le point important ici est que le nuage adoptants / développeurs et intéressant le nuage “observateurs” (c’est-à-dire la presse, les médias, les blogueurs et experts) sont conscients de se rappeler les besoins et les exigences de véritables utilisateurs finaux, pour moi ça sera certainement vivifiant pour en savoir plus sur ce sujet. ¨C35C¨C36C
Simon Wardley , a much more eloquent public speaker than myself, does a wonderful pitch which includes a look at the different “as a Service types” which he boils down to being a load of “*aaS” (very amusing, and informative, try and catch Simon presenting if you can). Simon Wardley, un public beaucoup plus éloquent orateur que moi, fait un merveilleux terrain qui comprend un regard sur les différents types de service »dont il se résume à être une charge de” * AAS “(très amusant et instructif, essayez Simon et les prises de présenter, si vous le pouvez).
I wholeheartedly agree that there is a large amount of befuddlement when it comes to the differing “aaS” types and sub-types, and new ones are springing up relatively frequently, however I also think it’s important to not ignore the differences between them. Je suis entièrement d’accord qu’il ya une grande quantité de befuddlement quand il s’agit de la différence “ AAS” types et sous-types, et de nouveaux voient le jour assez fréquemment, mais je crois aussi qu’il est important de ne pas ignorer les différences entre eux. ¨C40C
For me, and many others, I think first popularised by the ” Partly Cloudy – Blue-Sky Thinking About Cloud Computing ” white paper from the 451 Group, the differing “aaS” variants are identified as billing and engagement models. That white paper also postulates the five major Cloud Computing provider models, into which the majority of minor “aaS” variants fall. They are: Pour moi, et bien d’autres, je pense que le premier popularisé par “Nuages épars – Blue-Sky Thinking About Cloud Computing” livre blanc de la 451 groupe, les différents “* AAS” variantes sont identifiées comme étant des modèles de facturation et d’engagement. Ce livre blanc aussi les cinq principaux postulats Cloud Computing fournisseur de modèles, dans lequel la majorité des mineurs “* AAS« variantes automne. Ce sont: ¨C41C
Managed Service Provision (MSP); not only are you hiring your service from the cloud, you’ve someone to run and maintain it too. Fourniture de services gérés (MSP), non seulement vous votre service de recrutement des nuages, vous avez quelqu’un d’exécuter et de maintenir aussi. ¨C43C¨C44C
Software as a Service (SaaS); pretty much ubiquitous as a term and usually typified by Salesforce.com , who are the SaaS poster child. Software as a Service (SaaS), un peu comme un terme omniprésent et souvent caractérisée par Salesforce.com, qui sont les affiches SaaS enfant. ¨C46C¨C47C
Platform as a Service (PaaS); the application platform most commonly associated with Amazon Web Services. Platform as a Service (FQA), la plate-forme d’application les plus couramment associés à Amazon Web Services. ¨C49C¨C50C
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS); Infrastructure as a Service (IAAS); ¨C52C¨C53C
Major Architectural Layers Major couches architecturales
¨C61C¨C62C¨C63C
Also included in the diagram are the major architectural layers that are included in each of the above billing / engagement models offered by the Cloud providers. Également inclus dans le diagramme sont les principales couches architecturales qui sont inclus dans chacune de ces facturation / l’engagement des modèles offerts par les fournisseurs de Cloud. They are: Ils sont: ¨C64C¨C65C
Operations; and this really is operations supporting functional business processes, rather than supporting the technology itself. Opérations, et cela est vraiment fonctionnel des opérations de soutien des processus d’affaires, plutôt que de soutenir la technologie elle-même. ¨C67C¨C68C
Service layer; made up of application code, bespoke code, high-level ISV offerings. Service couche composée de code, code sur mesure, haut niveau de l’offre des éditeurs de logiciels. ¨C70C¨C71C
Platform layer; made up of standard platform software ie app. Plate-forme couche composé de plate-forme standard des logiciels c’est-à-dire environ. servers, DB servers, web servers, etc., and an example implementation would be a LAMP stack. les serveurs, les DB serveurs, serveurs Web, etc, et un exemple de mise en œuvre serait une LAMP pile. ¨C73C¨C74C
Infrastructure layer; made up of (i) infrastructure software (ievirtualisation and OS software), (ii) the hardware platform and server infrastructure, and (iii) the storage platform. Infrastructure couche composée de (i) des logiciels d’infrastructure (ievirtualisation OS et logiciels), (ii) la plate-forme matérielle et infrastructure de serveur, et (iii) de la plate-forme de stockage. ¨C76C¨C77C
Network layer; made up of routers, firewalls, gateways, and other network technology. La couche réseau, composé de routeurs, firewalls, passerelles, et d’autres technologies de réseau. ¨C79C¨C80C
¨C82C
This rather oversimplifies the architecture, as it’s important to note that each of the cloud billing / engagement models use capabilities from each of the above architectural layers; for instance their can be a lot of service simply in managing a network, however these describe the major architectural components (which support the service being procured), not simply ancillary functions, effectively what are the cloud providers customers principally paying for. Cet excès de l’architecture, plutôt, comme il est important de noter que chacun des nuages de facturation / d’engagement de l’utilisation des modèles de capacités de chacune de ces couches architecturales, par exemple, peut leur être très simplement dans la gestion de service d’un réseau, mais elles décrivent les principales éléments d’architecture (qui soutiennent le service d’approvisionnement), et non pas simplement des fonctions auxiliaires, de manière efficace ce que les nuages sont principalement les fournisseurs de clients pour le paiement. ¨C83C¨C84C
Delta of Effort / Delta of Opportunity Effort de Delta / Delta de chances
¨C85C¨C86C¨C87C
This is much more than the ‘gap’ between the cloud providers and the cloud users, wherein the cloud adopters / developers sit, the gap between the cloud providers and the end cloud users can be called the delta of effort, but also the delta of opportunity. C’est beaucoup plus que le «fossé» entre les nuages et les nuages des utilisateurs, que le nuage adopteurs développeurs s’asseoir, l’écart entre le nuage et les utilisateurs de la fin des nuages peut être appelé le delta de l’effort, mais aussi le delta du occasion. ¨C88C
It is the delta of effort in terms of skills, abilities, experience and technology that the cloud adopter needs to deliver a functional service to their own “End Users”. This will be potentially a major area of cost to the cloud adopters. Il est le delta de l’effort en termes de compétences, les capacités, l’expérience et de la technologie que le nuage adoptant doit fournir un service fonctionnel à leur propre “End Users”. Ce sera peut être un domaine majeur de coût pour le nuage adoptants. But it’s also the delta of opportunity;in terms of ‘room’ to innovate. Mais c’est aussi le delta de l’occasion, en termes de «chambre» à l’innovation. ¨C89C
The more capability procured from the cloud provider (ie higher up the stack as a whole), the less you have to do (and procure) yourself. However the less procured from the cloud provider the more opportunity you have engineer a differentiating technology stack yourself. This itself has it’s disadvantages because the cloud adopters / developers could potentially not realise the true and best value of their cloud providers infrastructure. La capacité d’approvisionnement plus le nuage de fournisseur (c’est-à-dire en haut de la pile dans son ensemble), moins vous avez à faire (et acheter) vous-même. Toutefois, le moins obtenus à partir de la nuée fournisseur le plus vous avez la possibilité de différenciation ingénieur technologie pile-vous . Ce qu’il est lui-même a des inconvénients car les nuages adopteurs développeurs pourraient ne pas réaliser la véritable et la meilleure valeur de leur nuage les fournisseurs d’infrastructures. ¨C90C¨C91C
I suspect that there is an optimum level, around the Platform Layer, which abstracts enough complexity away (ie you don’t have to procure servers, networks, implementation or technology operations staff), but also leaves enough room to innovate and produce software engineered value. Arguably the only current successful cloud provider, based upon market share, perception, revenue and customer take up, is Amazon Web Services (AWS) who provide a PaaS offering. Je pense qu’il ya un niveau optimal, autour de la plate-forme de couche, qui résumés complexité assez loin (c’est-à-dire vous n’avez pas à acheter des serveurs, des réseaux, la mise en œuvre des opérations ou de technologie), mais laisse aussi assez d’espace pour innover et produire de l’ingénierie du logiciel valeur. doute le seul fournisseur actuel succès des nuages, sur la base de la part de marché, la perception des recettes et des clients de prendre place, est Amazon Web Services (AWS) qui fournissent une offre Paas. ¨C92C¨C93C¨C94C¨C95C
Summary Sommaire
¨C96C¨C97C¨C98C
Hope you enjoyed the article, in summary if developing cloud services or even building out a cloud infrastructure I would recommend that you focus on your users and if your a cloud provider, your users’ users; remembering that only a certain percentage of those users will be customers (I won’t getting into discussing Chris Anderson’s 5% recommended conversion rate for the long tail , however I would recommend understanding what some of those calculations might be). Espérons que vous avez aimé cet article, en résumé, si le développement des services ou encore des nuages à la construction d’infrastructures d’un nuage, je vous recommandons de vous concentrer sur vos utilisateurs, et si votre fournisseur d’un nuage, vos utilisateurs, les utilisateurs; de se souvenir que seul un certain pourcentage de ces utilisateurs être des clients (je ne vais pas entrer dans la discussion Chris Anderson recommandé 5% du taux de conversion pour la longue queue, mais je recommande la compréhension de ce que certains de ces calculs pourraient être). ¨C99C
If you’re looking to develop services over the cloud, think carefully about where you and your teams skills lie, and where would you most want them focusing there efforts; working on installing and tuning operating systems and application platforms or writing business value focused applications and services, before choosing at which level to engage with your cloud provider(s). Si vous cherchez à développer des services sur le nuage, la réflexion sur l’endroit où vous et vos équipes les compétences se trouvent, et où vous le plus envie de les y concentrer les efforts, le travail sur l’installation et le réglage des systèmes d’exploitation et plates-formes d’application ou de rédaction de la valeur axée applications et des services, avant de choisir à quel niveau de dialoguer avec votre fournisseur de nuage (s). ¨C100C¨C101C¨C102C¨C103C
I haven’t mentioned enterprise adoption of cloud based services, and that’s because I’d like to post that in the near future in a different article. Je n’ai pas mentionné l’adoption d’entreprise de services basés sur les nuages, et c’est parce que je voudrais pour écrire que dans un avenir proche dans un autre article. ¨C104C
Hope you enjoyed the article and all the best, Espérons que vous avez aimé l’article et tous les meilleurs, ¨C105C¨C106C
Kürzlich Philipp Strube meiner ursprünglichen genannten “Cloud Betreuungsmodell” Artikel in seinem Blog-Post “Paas, IAAS, Saas: Den Überblick zu behalten ist wie immer ein Problem für sich”.Recently Philipp Strube mentioned my original ” Cloud Relationship Model ” article in his blog post ” Paas, Iaas, Saas: Den Überblick zu behalten ist wie immer ein Problem für sich “. And given all the traffic it’s generated I thought I’d translate the article into German for Philippe’s readers. Und da der gesamte Verkehr ist es, die ich dachte, ich übersetzen den Artikel in Deutsch für Philippe Leser. I’ve had to use electronic translation (Google, actually) as I’m afraid my written and spoken German isn’t quite good enough to be able to do it manually in a reasonable amount of time. Ich habe die Verwendung elektronischer Übersetzung (Google, eigentlich), wie ich fürchte, mein Wort und Schrift Deutsch ist nicht gut genug sein, um es manuell in einer angemessenen Höhe der Zeit. I haven’t had time to translate the model itself, but you are more than welcome to recreate, reuse and distribute it, although I’d hope you would attribute the original version to me at this site. Ich habe nicht genug Zeit hatte, um das Modell selbst, aber Sie sind mehr als willkommen zu neu, Wiederverwendung und zu verteilen, auch wenn ich hoffe, Sie würden Attribut der ursprünglichen Version für mich auf dieser Seite. Please let me know if there are any outstanding translation issues and I’ll amend them when I can. Bitte lassen Sie mich wissen, wenn es alle noch ausstehenden Fragen und Übersetzung ich ändern, wenn ich kann.
This article was originally a guest post I did recently for Stewart Townsend over at Sun Startup Essentials describing the cloud relationship model I had developed as an artefact when discussing cloud computing. Dieser Artikel war ursprünglich ein Gast-post Ich habe vor kurzem für Stewart Townsend über auf Sonntag Startup Essentials beschreiben die Wolke Modell hatte ich als ein Artefakt bei der Erörterung Wolke Computing.
I wanted a simply model which I could share with people and use as a discussion point, whilst still capturing the major areas of cloud computing which I considered most pertinent. I developed this model about six months ago and have since found it useful when talking with people about cloud computing. Ich wollte ein Modell, das einfach konnte ich mit Menschen und die Verwendung als Diskussion, während die Aufnahme noch die wichtigsten Bereiche der EDV-Wolke, die ich als besonders wichtig. Ich habe dieses Modell an etwa sechs Monaten und haben gefunden, da es für sinnvoll, wenn im Gespräch mit Menschen über Wolke Computing.
Here’s the model and I’ll go though it’s major elements below. Hier ist das Modell, und ich gehe auch wenn es die wichtigsten Elemente aufgeführt.
Major Cloud Communities Major Cloud Gemeinschaften
In the cloud there are three major participants: In den Wolken gibt es im wesentlichen drei Teilnehmer:
the Cloud Providers; building out Clouds, for instance Google, Amazon, etc. Effectively technology providers. die Cloud Provider; Gebäude aus Wolken, zum Beispiel Google, Amazon, etc. effektiv Technologieanbietern.
the Cloud Adopters / Developers; those developing services over the Cloud and some becoming the first generation of Cloud ISVs. I have included Cloud “Service” developers and Cloud ISV developers together. die Wolke Adopters / Entwickler, die Entwicklung von Diensten über den Wolken und einige werden die erste Generation der Cloud ISVs. Ich habe Cloud “Service”-Entwickler und ISV-Cloud Entwickler zusammen. This group are effectively service enablers. Diese Gruppe tatsächlich Dienstfunktionen.
Cloud “End” Users; those using Cloud provisioned services, often without knowing that they are cloud provisioned, the most obvious example of which are the multitude of Facebook users who have no idea there favorite FB app. Cloud “End”-Nutzer, die mit Cloud bereitgestellten Dienstleistungen, oft ohne zu wissen, dass sie Wolken vorhanden, das offensichtlichste Beispiel für die sich die Vielzahl der Facebook-Benutzer, die keine Ahnung haben, es Lieblings-FB App. is running on AWS. läuft auf AWS. These are the service consumers. Es handelt sich um den Dienst der Verbraucher.
I think it’s important to talk about these communities because I keep hearing lots about the Cloud Providers, and even more about the issues and ‘needs’ of the Cloud adopters / developers, but very little in terms of Cloud “End” Users. In a computing eco-system such as this where “services” are supported by and transverse technology providers, service enablers and service consumers an end to end understanding of how this affects these reliant communities is required. Ich denke, es ist wichtig, darüber zu sprechen, weil diese Gemeinschaften ich viel über die Anhörung Cloud-Provider, und noch mehr über die Probleme und Bedürfnisse “der Wolke Anwender / Entwickler, aber nur sehr wenig in Bezug auf die Ableitung von” End “-Benutzer. In einer Eco-Computing-System wie diesem, wo “Dienstleistungen” werden von Quer-und Technologie-Anbietern, Service-Enabler und Service der Verbraucher ein Ende zu Ende zu verstehen, wie sich diese auf dieser Reliant Gemeinden erforderlich ist. Obvious issues such as SLAs for end users and businesses which rely upon high availability and high uptime from there cloud providers come to mind; however other “ilities” and systemic qualities come to mind such as security, and that’s before looking at any detailed breakdown of functional services. Offensichtliche Fragen wie SLAs für Endnutzer und Unternehmen, die sich auf hohe Verfügbarkeit und hohe Verfügbarkeit von dort Wolke Anbieter kommen in den Sinn, aber andere “ilities” und systemischen Eigenschaften kommen in den Sinn wie Sicherheit, und das ist, bevor man eine detaillierte Aufschlüsselung der funktionsfähigen Dienste.
The point here is that the cloud adopters / developers and interestingly the cloud “watchers” (ie the press, media, bloggers and experts) would be mindful to remember the needs and requirements of genuine end users; for myself it’d certainly be invigorating to hear more on this topic area. Der Punkt hier ist, dass die Wolke Anwender / Entwickler und interessanterweise der Wolke “Watchers” (dh der Presse, Medien, Blogger und Experten) würden darauf achten, nicht vergessen, den Bedürfnissen und Anforderungen der Endnutzer echten, für mich würde es sicherlich belebend zu hören, mehr zu diesem Thema werden.
Simon Wardley , a much more eloquent public speaker than myself, does a wonderful pitch which includes a look at the different “as a Service types” which he boils down to being a load of “aaS” (very amusing, and informative, try and catch Simon presenting if you can). Simon Wardley, eine sehr viel beredter Redner als ich, hat eine wunderbare Tonhöhe, die einen Blick auf die verschiedenen “als Service-Typen”, die er läuft darauf hinaus, dass eine Last von “ Aas” (sehr witzig und informativ, versuchen Fang und Simon, die, wenn Sie können).
I wholeheartedly agree that there is a large amount of befuddlement when it comes to the differing “aaS” types and sub-types, and new ones are springing up relatively frequently, however I also think it’s important to not ignore the differences between them. Ich voll und ganz zustimmen, dass es eine große Menge von befuddlement, wenn es darum geht, die unterschiedlichen “ Aas” und Sub-Typen und neue Boden relativ häufig, aber ich denke, es ist wichtig, nicht über die Unterschiede zwischen ihnen.
For me, and many others, I think first popularised by the ” Partly Cloudy – Blue-Sky Thinking About Cloud Computing ” white paper from the 451 Group, the differing “aaS” variants are identified as billing and engagement models. That white paper also postulates the five major Cloud Computing provider models, into which the majority of minor “aaS” variants fall. They are: Für mich und viele andere, ich glaube, von der ersten popularisierte “teilweise bewölkt – Blue-Sky Thinking About Cloud Computing” weißen Papier aus dem 451-Fraktion, die unterschiedlichen “* Aas” Varianten sind als Rechnungs-und Engagement Modelle. Das Weißbuch postuliert auch die fünf größten Anbieter Cloud Computing-Modelle, in denen die Mehrheit der minderjährigen “* Aas” Varianten fallen. Sie sind:
Managed Service Provision (MSP); not only are you hiring your service from the cloud, you’ve someone to run and maintain it too. Managed Service Providing (MSP), nicht nur die Mieten Sie Ihren Service aus der Wolke, die Sie jemandem zu laufen und sie zu pflegen.
Software as a Service (SaaS); pretty much ubiquitous as a term and usually typified by Salesforce.com , who are the SaaS poster child. Software as a Service (SaaS), so ziemlich allgegenwärtig als Begriff und in der Regel gekennzeichnet durch Salesforce.com, wer sind die SaaS-Poster Kind.
Platform as a Service (PaaS); the application platform most commonly associated with Amazon Web Services. Platform as a Service (Paas); die Anwendung Plattform am häufigsten im Zusammenhang mit Amazon Web Services.
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS); Infrastructure as a Service (IAAS);
Major Architectural Layers Major Architectural Ebenen
Also included in the diagram are the major architectural layers that are included in each of the above billing / engagement models offered by the Cloud providers. Auch in der Grafik sind die wichtigsten architektonischen Schichten, die in jedem der oben genannten Billing / Engagement Modelle von der Cloud-Anbieter. They are: Sie sind:
Operations; and this really is operations supporting functional business processes, rather than supporting the technology itself. Operations, und das ist wirklich funktionellen Maßnahmen zur Förderung von Geschäftsprozessen, sondern als Unterstützung der Technologie.
Service layer; made up of application code, bespoke code, high-level ISV offerings. Service-Schicht, aus der Anwendung Code, maßgeschneiderten Code, High-Level-ISV-Angebote.
Platform layer; made up of standard platform software ie app. Plattform Schicht; aus der Standard-Plattform-Software, dh App. servers, DB servers, web servers, etc., and an example implementation would be a LAMP stack. Server, DB-Server, Web-Server, usw., und ein Beispiel dafür wäre eine LAMP-Stack.
Infrastructure layer; made up of (i) infrastructure software (ievirtualisation and OS software), (ii) the hardware platform and server infrastructure, and (iii) the storage platform. Infrastruktur-Schicht, die sich aus (i) Infrastruktur-Software (ievirtualisation und OS-Software), (ii) die Hardware-Plattform-und Server-Infrastruktur und (iii) die Speicherplattform.
Network layer; made up of routers, firewalls, gateways, and other network technology. Network Layer; aus Routern, Firewalls, Gateways und andere Netzwerk-Technologie.
This rather oversimplifies the architecture, as it’s important to note that each of the cloud billing / engagement models use capabilities from each of the above architectural layers; for instance their can be a lot of service simply in managing a network, however these describe the major architectural components (which support the service being procured), not simply ancillary functions, effectively what are the cloud providers customers principally paying for. Diese eher übermäßige der Architektur, wie es ist wichtig zu beachten, dass jeder der Wolke Abrechnung / Engagement Modelle verwenden Fähigkeiten aus jedem der oben genannten architektonischen Schichten, zum Beispiel ihre kann eine Menge Service einfach in die Verwaltung eines Netzes, aber diese Beschreibung der wichtigsten Architektur-Komponenten (die Unterstützung der Service werden soll), nicht einfach Nebendienstleistungen Funktionen, wirksam sind, was die Wolke Anbieter hauptsächlich Kunden bezahlen.
Delta of Effort / Delta of Opportunity Delta Aufwand / Delta von Opportunity
This is much more than the ‘gap’ between the cloud providers and the cloud users, wherein the cloud adopters / developers sit, the gap between the cloud providers and the end cloud users can be called the delta of effort, but also the delta of opportunity. Dies ist viel mehr als die “Lücke” zwischen der Wolke und den Wolken Benutzer, dass die Wolke Anwender / Entwickler sitzen, die Kluft zwischen der Wolke und den Ende Wolke Benutzer kann die Delta-Aufwand, sondern auch das Delta der Chance. ¨C88C
It is the delta of effort in terms of skills, abilities, experience and technology that the cloud adopter needs to deliver a functional service to their own “End Users”. This will be potentially a major area of cost to the cloud adopters. Es ist das Delta der Anstrengungen im Hinblick auf die Fertigkeiten, Fähigkeiten, Erfahrungen und Technologien, dass die Wolke Anwender braucht, um eine funktionale Service für ihre eigenen “End User”. Dies ist möglicherweise ein wichtiger Bereich der Kosten für die Wolke adopters. But it’s also the delta of opportunity;in terms of ‘room’ to innovate. Aber es ist auch das Delta der Möglichkeit, im Hinblick auf die “Zimmer”, zu innovieren.
The more capability procured from the cloud provider (ie higher up the stack as a whole), the less you have to do (and procure) yourself. However the less procured from the cloud provider the more opportunity you have engineer a differentiating technology stack yourself. This itself has it’s disadvantages because the cloud adopters / developers could potentially not realise the true and best value of their cloud providers infrastructure. Die Fähigkeit, die aus der Wolke-Anbieter (z. B. die weiter oben in der Stack als Ganzes), desto weniger müssen Sie tun (und Beschaffung) selber. Doch die weniger die aus der Wolke Anbieter die Möglichkeit haben Sie ein Ingenieur differirende Technologie-Stack selbst . Dieses selbst hat seine Nachteile, weil die Wolke Anwender / Entwickler möglicherweise nicht, die wahre und beste Wert ihrer Wolke Anbieter Infrastruktur.
I suspect that there is an optimum level, around the Platform Layer, which abstracts enough complexity away (ie you don’t have to procure servers, networks, implementation or technology operations staff), but also leaves enough room to innovate and produce software engineered value. Arguably the only current successful cloud provider, based upon market share, perception, revenue and customer take up, is Amazon Web Services (AWS) who provide a PaaS offering. Ich vermute, dass es ein optimales Niveau, um die Plattform-Layer, die Abstracts genug Komplexität entfernt (dh Sie müssen nicht beschaffen Servern, Netzwerken, der Durchführung oder der Technologie Operationen Mitarbeiter), aber auch genügend Spielraum für Innovation und Herstellung von Software-Engineering Wert. die wohl nur die aktuellen erfolgreiche Anbieter Wolke, die sich auf Marktanteil, Wahrnehmung, Einnahmen und Kunden nehmen, ist Amazon Web Services (AWS), die eine Paas bieten.
Summary Zusammenfassung
Hope you enjoyed the article, in summary if developing cloud services or even building out a cloud infrastructure I would recommend that you focus on your users and if your a cloud provider, your users’ users; remembering that only a certain percentage of those users will be customers (I won’t getting into discussing Chris Anderson’s 5% recommended conversion rate for the long tail , however I would recommend understanding what some of those calculations might be). Hoffen, dass Ihnen die Artikel, in der Zusammenfassung, wenn die Entwicklung Wolke oder sogar Ausbau der Infrastruktur eine Wolke Ich würde empfehlen, dass Sie sich auf Ihre Benutzer und wenn Ihr Provider eine Wolke, die Benutzer “Benutzer; Erinnerung, dass nur ein bestimmter Prozentsatz der Nutzer Kunden werden (ich werde nicht immer in der Diskussion Chris Anderson, 5% empfohlen, Conversion-Rate für den langen Schwanz, aber ich würde empfehlen, zu verstehen, was einige dieser Berechnungen werden könnten).
If you’re looking to develop services over the cloud, think carefully about where you and your teams skills lie, and where would you most want them focusing there efforts; working on installing and tuning operating systems and application platforms or writing business value focused applications and services, before choosing at which level to engage with your cloud provider(s). Wenn Sie zur Entwicklung von Diensten über den Wolken, sich genau überlegen, wo Sie und Ihre Teams Fähigkeiten liegen, und wo würden Sie am meisten wollen, dass sie sich es Bemühungen, auf die Installation und Tuning-Betriebssysteme und Plattformen Antrag schriftlich oder geschäftlichen Nutzen sich Anwendungen und Dienstleistungen, vor der Wahl, auf welcher Ebene, sich mit Ihrem Provider Wolke (n).
I haven’t mentioned enterprise adoption of cloud based services, and that’s because I’d like to post that in the near future in a different article. Ich habe nicht erwähnt Unternehmen Annahme Wolke Dienste, und dass deshalb, weil ich möchte, dass die Post in der nahen Zukunft in einem anderen Artikel.
Hope you enjoyed the article and all the best, Hoffen, dass Ihnen die Artikel und alles Gute,
Simon Wardley, Software Services Manager at Canonical UK and noted Cloud Computing expert and public speaker, responds to my article “Cloud Relationship Model“, with specific mention of my paraphrasing of a talk I saw him give; and thereby explains the history behind the “*aaS” double entendre.
Seriously though, the number of heads on the “*aaS” Hydra continues to grow, and Simon’s comment soon focuses upon the genuine need for a stable and standardised taxonomy, something I agree with wholeheartedly, along with a little bit of temperance and cool-headedness when it comes to thinking up and announcing more “*aaS” classifications…
Back in early 2007 when I gave a talk at ETECH, I described the changes in the industry as a continued shift of the computing stack from a product to a service based economy.
At that time I often categorised the computing stack into three layers – software, software platform and hardware (back from 2006). Whilst I had made comments that the software layer was really about applications and therefore SaaS should have had a more unfortunate acronym, this was not my true crime nor the origin of the joke.
The problem was that whilst SaaS and HaaS had been in common usage, the mid layer was known as SaaS Platform. This neither fitted neatly into the naming convention nor was it correct, as this layer of the stack contained many framework elements. So I started to describe this as the framework layer and FaaS seemed to be the obvious choice.
Hence at OSCON in Jul’07 I described the stack as a trio of SaaS, FaaS and HaaS.
Robert Lefkowitz (in a later talk at OSCON’07) warned us that this trio of “oh so wrong” nomenclature would lead to a whole lot of “aaS” and hence the joke was born.
Well Robert, as always, was spot on. In the last few years we’ve seen a plethora of different “aaS” terms (at last count it was about 16, including multiple versions of DaaS). The last few years has seen a constant exercise in revisionism.
Whilst the distinction between the layers of the computing stack is valid and meaningful, especially in context of the shift from products to services, what is not meaningful is the constant creation and recreation of terms.
Fortunately we now seem to be settling down to a three layer stack of application, platform and infrastructure – though I’m sure there is going to be more arguments.
This is why I argue the one thing we need in cloud computing today is a stable taxonomy.
Sun’s Dynamic Infrastructure is a Suite of Services, enabled by technology, and is just one of the ways that we can help you move toward a virtualized datacenter platform that fully exploits our expertise in IT architecture and process automation, enabling agility through the extremely flexible, efficient and secure deployment of the IT infrastructure.
It’s being going for at least three or four years, possibly even longer, and is led by Jason Caroline, who also spent time looking after Sun’s “Solution Delivery Network” (SDN, or what Scott used to call “a great big freking web tone switch”), and is currently involved in some of the work around Sun’s Cloud Computing offerings. You can learn a whole lot more about Sun’s Dynamic Infrastructure initiative here: https://www.sun.com/service/dynamicinfrastructure/
You’d probably be unsurprised to find that our Datacentre Virtualisation, Consolidation and Efficiency practice is one of our most repetitively successful lines of business in the UK and Ireland; and is enabled by the great delivery team that have assembled over the years in the UK Sun Services organisation (I even worked with them myself more than a few times whilst I was part of Sun’s Professional Services organisation).
Over the last couple of days I’ve been getting more than a little bored by all the articles on the Register going on about IBM’s Dynamic Infrastructure initiative, especially as if you’d imagine from the articles no-one had ever combined the words “Dynamic” and “Infrastructure” before and because of the relative closeness of some of the messaging (and yes, you could argue the initiatives are totally different but my gripes are to do with the above).
You may think I’m going over the top here, but really, six articles in the last two days, each mentioning “Dynamic Infrastructure”, is going a bit far. I couldn’t resist leaving the following comment on the article most focused upon the initiative in the hope that that leaves the aforementioned a little more balanced…
…Sun have been talking about ‘Dynamic Infrastructure’ for a few years now, in a similar light, you’d almost imagine someone might have read their press releases and material too.
Given that today marks the 5th year of https://blogs.sun.com (or just “bsc” to us Sun bloggers), and that it was this month two years ago that I published my first blog article (entitled “And finally“, an opinion piece on Gartner’s top ten predictions from 2007), I thought it would be nice to explore what “success” was in terms of blogging.
The most obvious indicator is large and regular readership, but I can’t imagine that that is all there is to it. The next most obvious criteria might be opinion setting, but measuring this seems troublesome and unscientific at that moment (until at least further semantic web infrastructure is in place to better relate meme flow across the Internet, although saying that Autonomy have an excellent visual analysis tool which is an early leading example in this field, the problem with this current non-semantic web model is that you have to generate meta-data by supposition, some of which is irregular at best).
Inward and outbound links are a major contributing factor in the calculation of Google’s “PageRank” algorithm, but I expect this to change significantly in the next few years as two things occur, increasingly effective “Search Engine Optimization” (SEO) techniques which will require modification to Google’s rating criteria, and the rise of the semantic web as increasing amounts of meta-data is included with unstructured data across the Internet, driving up implicit relationships between information.
And that leaves me with syndication and pieces written in response to your articles. Frankly I’m not sure that you can qualify syndication as a measure of success of your blog, but I do think it’s a good indicator of how far your message is being spread. I’m still uncomfortable with this, as I would prefer something more Empirical, however I think it may be about the best ‘soft’ indicator we have at the moment.
So using syndication of, and responses to, my articles, as a potential leading indicator, I correlated the following list. Historically I would have used Technorati to generate this information, but Technorati is suffering from some real issues lately, it’s page layout has become befuddled, and worst of all it’s not capturing (even remotely) the responses to my articles, subsequently I used Google Analytics’ “Referring Sites” breakdown instead (the list below isn’t remotely exhaustive, so if there is anything missing you’d like me to add let me know).
Advertised on Sun’s corporate Architecture Services page “Architect Your IT Environment” as “Financial Services Market: Read a blog about how IT architecture impacts financial trading” https://www.sun.com/service/architect/
All three of these articles are highlighted by Dave Johnson, the original designer and developer of Apache Roller / Roller Weblogger, the technology that underpins and enables the Sun Blogging platform, in his article “Eclectic Roller hacks” https://rollerweblogger.org/roller/entry/eclectic_roller_hacks
Given I’ve only been blogging for around two years I’m extremely pleased with the reaction and coverage I’m getting so far, which, in terms of success, works for me. The most successful articles from above appear to be those focused upon Cloud Computing, Business, Technology and Enterprise Architecture, Government IT, and large scale and complex systems, so expect more in a similar vein, as well as a focus upon the emerging field of “Web Science”. I have to admit I wasn’t keen on blogging initially, and felt rather badgered into it; at the time blogging seemed terribly self-referential to me. However it’s been a genuinely pleasant surprise to find people have enjoyed the articles and have gone on to re-use them and the ideas contained within. Many thanks to all my readers for all the encouragement along the way!
Or is that “Elephant on the table” I’m never quite sure which of the two you should use, but whichever is the case you’ll be unsurprised to know that it turns out for regulatory and legislative reasons we as individuals should demonstrate caution and discretion about blogging about ‘you know what’ or writing about ‘you know who’ or ‘them’ either. So there we go, that’s why there’s less of ‘that sort of thing’ than you’d probably like.
In the absence of opinion pieces coming out of the https://blogs.sun.com community it’s best to stick with the official updates which can be found below.
Read an excellent article the other week in the IEEE’s Communications Magazine on the UK’s contribution to early packet switching and what would evolve into Ethernet and the Internet.
At the moment you have to be an IEEE member to view the article, however it’s an excellent piece, especially for those interested in the history of communications and technology, as well as the UK’s contribution to the field.
I was particularly interested to read about the barriers the UK teams had, especially when it came to support from the UK communications and technology ecosystem of the time and the incumbent Government. Despite the gap in time some of the issues were surprisingly similar to those present today.
Here’s the abstract from the IEEE site:
In this issue of the History Column we bring you an article by Prof. Peter Kirstein, one of the original contributors to early packet switching. We are probably all familiar with the history of the Internet, beginning with its genesis in the American-developed ARPAnet of the late 1960s and early 1970s. We may be less familiar with the contributions of British researchers, as well as those in other countries such as France, at about the same period of time, who worked closely with American researchers as well as independently in developing the packet-switching technology so fundamental to the Internet. Prof. Kirstein recounts the early activities by British engineers, led by Donald Davies of the National Physical Laboratory, the British Post Office, those of his own group at University College London, and others as well. He also ties this work into ongoing activities in the United States at the time. In future History Columns we plan to have similar articles by U.S. packet-switching pioneers on their own early activities in the field. This series of articles on the genesis of the Internet should be of great interest to all communication engineers. We commend the article following to your attention.
For those not in the IEEE, who are thus excluded from reading this excellent article, the BBC has a nice online piece about the UK’s contribution to early packet switching technology, with particular reference to British mathematician Dr. Donald Davies at the UK’s National Physical Laboratory (NPL), accompanied by some nice video clips too.
The Wall Street Journal has just broken the news that Sun is to be acquired by Oracle over at https://online.wsj.com/article/SB124022726514434703.html This time it’s much more than a rumor or conjecture as both Sun and Oracle are announcing the news as well… …..
Many thanks to all those that attended last night, it was extremely encouraging for me as a speaker to see such a large turn out. We had around seventy people at the event, which was extremely good going and as well as the nature and content of the presentation I attribute the large participation to two factors; (1) the IET and BCS working together to deliver joint events, to the credit of the two organisations, and (2) the excellent and very professional publications and marketing capabilities of the IET and BCS. Many of the attendees were neither members of the IET nor BCS and it was really good to see so many potential members come along.
Also attending the event were Sun Microsystems only Fellow of the IET, Mike Ashton, one of our leading Programme Managers world-wide, a Sun “Principal Project Manager”, Anthony Harrison of the BCS’s newest ‘Speciality Group’, that of Enterprise Architecture itself, Andrew Mohan, Chairman of the BCS Manchester Branch, and Paul Ashmore, Leader of the IET Manchester “Engineering, management and manufacturing technical group”.
Special thanks to both Andrew and Paul, as well as Arvind Sud (of Sun Microsystems), for setting up and co-ordinating the event with participation and involvement from both the IET and BCS. At the end of the presentation I was extremely surprised, and pleased, to be presented with a pair of crystal flutes, so many thanks for that.
As usual afterwards I stayed around to speak with the attendees, and answer their questions, I even got a pint of Guinness too! I’ve included the follow up information that people either asked or emailed about here:
Lot’s of people have asked for a copy of the slides, although as I said during the presentation it’s not much use without the Brummy at the front because this demonstrates my current preference on slides (i.e. not a lot on them except for a few key data points whilst I concentrate on giving an informative and interesting presentation), however a copy is available here (in PDF format): https://blogs.sun.com/eclectic/resource/presentation/Enterprise-Architecture-Case-Studies-2009-Manchester-0.1.pdf
The Thoughtworks article, by their then CTO, Rebecca Parsons, entitled “Enterprise Architects Join the Team”, which contains probably the earliest suggestion of rotation of staff to and from project teams to help minimise ‘Ivory Tower’ syndrome is available here (in PDF format): https://martinfowler.com/ieeeSoftware/enterpriseArchitects.pdf
Francis Heyligen’s paper on the subject of increasing system complexity and information overload caused by the Ephemeralization of systems, and how this complexity can negate some of benefits of that Ephemeralization (a key problem I see in the proliferation of complexity of large scale IT estates), entitled “Complexity and Information Overload in Society: why increasing efficiency leads to decreasing control” is here (in PDF format): https://web.archive.org/web/20070103091059/https://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/Info-overload.pdf
Some research into the comparative effectiveness of Project Management methodologies can be found in “Business Focused IT and Service Excellence” by David Miller, specifically the section entitled “Learning from the past” (figures 1.1 and 1.2 particularly pertinent).
The first pass review that I did of TOGAF 9 at it’s release, including some of it’s major issues and why I am wholly supportive of the standard despite these, as well as links to number of other reviews of the standard, is here: https://blogs.sun.com/eclectic/entry/open_group_release_togaf_9
The blog article I wrote which captures the response to the Capgemini CTO blog that included quotes from the above article, which I had replied to, looking at some of the challenges still facing TOGAF 9 is here: https://blogs.sun.com/eclectic/entry/capgemini_cto_blog_togaf_9
The Open Group’s “IT Architect Certification” (ITAC) programme is probably the most mature, objective and framework neutral certification programme for IT Architects. In my opinion ITAC is easily the best of the Architect Certification programmes at the moment, and is based upon demonstrable examples of your work as an Architect; along the vein of ‘implementation matters’, which for me is the only valid current metric. What’s especially good is that it is not biased towards TOGAF whatsoever. Sadly, when I last looked, I found that it was rather expensive and this is the primary reason I believe that it’s adoption has not been as successful as one might have liked. I was hoping that the newly inaugurated BCS Enterprise Architecture Speciality Group might work towards getting the ITAC standard adopted in, or at least integrated with, the BCS and SFIAplus, the IT Skills Framework published by the BCS with support from the IET and the UK e-Skills Council (the sector skills council for IT and Telecoms skills). And I further hoped that at some time in the future we might even see a “Chartered IT Architect” qualification similar to “Charted IT Professional” (CITP) and the beginnings of genuine recognition for the Business and Technology Architectural profession, something I know the IET have already started to persue. Perhaps with the joint effort of the IET and BCS we might see this come about in the relatively near future. The link to the ITAC main page is here: https://www.opengroup.org/itac/
Finally no UK wide Sun Tech Days event this year instead we in the UK have decided to host the Sun UK Developer Update, on Thursday the 19th March 2009 (which is tomorrow I’m afraid to say), where there will be the latest news, reviews and updates from Sun’s Java Evangelists and the James Gosling, the original designer behind Java (both Language, Compiler and Virtual Machine): https://uk.sun.com/sunnews/events/2009/mar/developer_conference/
If any more questions come through I’ll make sure that I post my responses in the above list as well as respond directly so that everyone has access to my responses.
There it is in the title, have a great Saint Patrick’s Day!
Here’s the wonderful Ronnie Drew (sadly missed) and Shane McGowen (thankfully still with us), of the Dubliners and the Pogues respectively, on the Late Late Show with Gay Byrne, to help kick start the day…
We already have a number of customers in the UK building out private clouds (and even more building public clouds), but who’ll be the first to go public with a successful implementation?
Interest in cloud computing services among our readers was much higher than we anticipated. Out of almost 500 respondents, 155 companies said that a reduction in IT budget made cloud services more attractive, while a third said they were researching the topic and needed to know more. Roughly 30% of respondents said building a private or internal cloud versus tapping into a public cloud like Amazon was more compelling to their organization. About 13% said public cloud services were more compelling, 24% said neither was interesting right now and 31% said they didn’t know. Improving IT efficiency was the biggest driver for building a private cloud infrastructure, but ironically, 45% of readers said that keeping existing operations running prevented them from moving to a private cloud.
With the economy and budget constraints on everyone’s minds, the lack of clarity about the cost of cloud computing came out as the biggest barrier to adoption among our readers. Unknown management and support headaches was the next biggest turnoff, followed closely by concerns about security and reliability. Respondents also worry about getting locked into a cloud provider and how the move to cloud services would affect their staffing.
In regards to the inhibitors above we at Sun UK can definitely help when it comes to understanding costs involved and implications for management and support, as well as approaches to security of the service. Engineering for reliability is something were very proud of at Sun and have significant experience, and part of the answer to staff skills portability is to ensure you adopt open and accessible cloud implementations which engender low costs of entry and low costs of exit.
Last nights presentation went well, which is always a relief, especially as my sat-nav had sent me ’round the Wrekin’; we had good attendance and it was great to see so many people I know come along too. …..
I’ll be speaking about Futurology, how Sun sees the future of the technology industry, the trends in the industry, what the implications are for the UK and the wider World given the expected changes, and how they are set to impact us in both our personal and professional lives.
Here are some more details about the event:
Date: Monday, 16th March 2009
Time: 7.00pm (refreshments available from 6.30pm)
Location: Novotel, Bostock Lane, Long Eaton, Nottingham NG10 4EP (map)
Price: Free and non-members are more than welcome! (reserve a place)
And for those of you interested in attending any of the other locally hosted events a full list of the branches events schedule for 2009 can be found here: https://nottmderby.bcs.org/events09-mar.php
As usual I’d be delighted to see you there and will stay around a little while afterwards if anyone would like to talk over any of the contents.
In an odd moment of synchronicity our next door neighbour has just been round and I happened to mention the talk on Monday. Saying that I’ll probably talk about Ray Kurzweil and might even speak about Toffler (often credited as the ‘Father of Futurology’). My neighbour, who spent many years in the Army, went on to say that he’d met Alvin Toffler many years ago when Toffler had been commissioned to speak with the US and UK military about the future of warfare and the impact advancing technology would have on it. Given that anecdote it seems appropriate to quickly cover Buckminster Fuller, as well as more modern, British, futurologists like James Martin and Peter Cochrane too.
For more information the event is advertised both with the IET and BCS. The core details are:
Date: 17 March 2009
Time: 18:00 Refreshments / 18:30 Start
Location: Conference Room 6, The Manchester Conference Centre, Sackville Street, Manchester M1 3BB.
Cost: Free, open to all (including non-members of the IET or BCS), no registration required.
The case studies presented explore my experiences with Enterprise Architecture in three major customer engagements. They include an Enterprise Architecture team which led its company into a £70+ million ‘pitfall’; the use of Enterprise Architecture to define a Service Oriented Architecture; and an example of how much Enterprise Architecture is about achieving the proper governance model.
Key takeaways:
Enterprise Architecture best practices drawn from multiple engagements.
How to use good governance to avoid and limit the ‘Ivory Tower’ syndrome.
How to combine Enterprise Architecture and Service Oriented Architecture to deliver sustainable Transformation.
Although given the current downturn I’ll probably also go into some of the issues facing EA programmes due to the credit crunch and what can be done to ensure that they continue to receive executive sponsorship and funding.
Happy to answer any and all questions; please consider that I’ll be attempting to condense three major and very large scale Enterprise Architecture case studies into a talk lasting an hour and a half or so, therefore I will definitely be around to speak with afterwards.
The nice people at the IET have also created a flyer for the event, which is available here.
And I’d just like to say ‘Many Thanks’ to Arvind Sud (of Sun) for originally helping to organise this event with the Engineering, Management and Manufacturing Technical Group of the IET and especially for co-ordinating the initial joint participation of both the IET and the BCS at this meeting.
I posted the following comment in response to Jonathan Schwartz’s latest blog post and vlog “Sun’s Network Innovations (3 of 4)“, however Jonathan and his blog pixies can’t be up and reviewing this yet because it’s awaiting moderation (and too right too, it’s the dead of night in California, and frankly I’m happy Jonathan is keeping busy running Sun, as he’s our CEO, if you didn’t know).
Hi Jonathan,
In 1998 I was involved in building Harrods Online as Chief Architect (employed by Harrods). We used a heavily Netscape based stack, using both Netscape Web Server and Netscape Application Server. And at the time Netscape had over 56% of the Enterprise Web Server market-share as well as being some of the best available technologies at hand.
Both of these technologies were available under free to use licenses from Netscape, with payment for support on top. Well I have to tell you in three years running this stack in production we never once paid for support, not a bean, nada, not on Christmas day, not on any day. Why? Because these were such stable technologies performing in their core capabilities that we knew from direct experience that very little would go wrong and because we architected a fully redundant and highly-available architecture based around horizontal scaling, network load-balancing, and avoiding session persistence where possible.
Looking back I would have liked to have paid Netscape something, even a token amount, because they were a great company, sadly missed, and perhaps if they’d been able to generate more revenues they’d still be with us. However this was a completely economic based business decision so we didn’t. Of course Sun eventually acquired these technologies through the iPlanet Alliance and we were able to integrate some of the innovation, robustness and domain knowledge into our own technologies.
I really wish at the time MySQL had been available, because we wouldn’t have had to pay Oracle either (our biggest license cost outside of Vignette, which was a core component). And before you ask, no, Harrods Online never went down because of any of the Netscape components, if anything by far the biggest problem areas were Vignette (esoteric, overtly Vignette specialised skill set required) and Oracle (connectivity to Vignette, Netscape, the other technologies we used, a number of content version issues, and it’s applicability as a web-scale technology). I know that some of these issues in these technologies have been resolved, but in both cases this was true then.
What’s cracking is that Sun has some of the best Architecture Services for Open Source deployments, especially large-scale implementations. Sun have a genuine sweet spot in the three areas needed to get these to work in the most cost efficient manner: Open Source Software (low barriers to entry, low barriers to exit, ease of availability, applicability to function), cost effective and highly price performant Hardware (Servers and Storage, both Open Source and Open Standards based), and the Professional and Managed Services needed to tie it all together and ensure operational effectiveness.
Frankly, I suppose we were ahead of the pack in many ways at Harrods Online, because the architectural principles used there are precursors of the one’s you’d see in a modern web-tier architectures, such as Flickr or Delicious. I know that if I was building that now not only would we have a near on 100% Open Source stack, but I’d also be looking at how I could offload some of our costs (especially in terms of low level and non-functionally focused skills and technologies) by utilising a Cloud Computing based infrastructure and platform provider.
All the best,
Wayne
If, and when, it gets authorised I’ll add a link here.
About five weeks ago, on the 3rd of February (2008), I celebrated the launch of the Open Group’s TOGAF version 9, with a short review of the new Enterprise Architecture (EA) Framework standard.
Afraid to say I couldn’t help responding to the author of the article, Ron Tolido (VP and CTO Continental Europe and Asia Pacific at Capgemini and Director at the Open Group), by adding a comment to it.
Being so busy I didn’t give it much thought after that, however last night, whilst at the inaugural meeting of the BCS Enterprise Architecture (EA) Speciality Group (SG) I met up with Matt Armstrong-Barnes, Chief Architect for the NHS Data SPINE Programme at BT, and a peer Chartered Fellow of the BCS (FBCS CITP), whom I haven’t seen since we worked together at HMRC.
Speaking with Matt we covered the release of TOGAF 9 and the article I’d written. He hadn’t seen the response I’d left at the Capgemini CTO Blog and guessing that you probably haven’t seen it either and, as it contain some further insight into my opinions on the latest release of TOGAF, I thought I’d repost it here too:
Hi Ron,
Many thanks for the mention; very kind of you.
When I last worked with Capgemini using the IAF I remember it being very much Zachman influenced, dare I say derived, in fact I recall the main overview diagram was extremely similar to the classic Zachman ‘framework’ diagram (a layered approach incorporating the six serving men model).
It’s a good job you guys have donated so much of your time and experience to the TOGAF standard, because frankly the Content Framework (or lack thereof) was the most obvious gap in the TOGAF portfolio. However I look forward to that particular area maturing because it is still only the first iteration. I believe that weaknesses in that particular area are the no.1 reason that Enterprises are still having to adopt more than one EA Framework to achieve a realistic EA.
There is one major gap still in TOGAF of course, but it shares this particular issue with all the major EA frameworks. And that is if only TOGAF could teach one how to architect then we might be getting somewhere!
Then we get down to the ‘minor’ practical areas that still need to be addressed, i.e. addressing ‘Ivory Tower’ syndrome, maintaining programme sponsorship and support, delivering an inclusive EA Governance structure that includes vendors and partners, rotation of EA staff into delivery programmes to maintain estate awareness, maintaining programme relevancy during the current economic downturn (when the Enterprise will be forced to focus on tactical issues), compartmentalising EA delivery into individual ‘steps’ which deliver incremental tactical advantage, getting the EA team to deliver value quickly, avoiding excessive focus on EA tools when the focus needs to be on defining a shareable and readily communicable EA, approaches to delivering an agile EA and derived estate which can readily adopt and react to industry and other outside pressures (such as radical innovation and ‘disruptive’ technology, changes in legislation, the effect of acquisitions and mergers, or new business stream and extreme business change). I would go on, but I’m sure you can think of many more yourselves.
Great post by the way, I enjoyed it a lot and agree wholeheartedly with much that you’ve captured here, especially around standardisation and having a common language across the EA community.
All the best,
Wayne
Since writing this a number of people have added comments, some of them quite informative, and this and the Capgemini CTO blog article itself are well worth five minutes investment if you’re interested in EA or TOGAF:
UK boffin: Social networking causes cancer, heart attacks, lupus, dementia…• The Register There’s mounting evidence that Facebooking, Twittering, and other “social networking” activities can kill you (or at least impact your health adversely). …..
