On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Alexis Richardson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexis.richardson@gmail.com">alexis.richardson@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Thanks Sam. That is great.<br>
<br>
To borrow a phrase: "No junk, no confusion".<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Thanks. On further investigation it turns out that the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_layer">application layer</a>" is a well accepted concept independent of the OSI stack:<br>
<br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><b>Application Layer</b> is a term used in categorizing protocols and methods in architectural models of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network" title="Computer network">computer networking</a>. Both the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model" title="OSI model">OSI model</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Suite" title="Internet Protocol Suite">Internet Protocol Suite</a> (TCP/IP) contain an application layer.<br>
</blockquote><br>"Software" on the other hand, *is* confusing.<br><br>So I've attached b/w and colour versions of the stack (calling it a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_model">reference model</a> is ambitious) as well as the OmniGraffle sources. I've also removed the CC-BY-SA requirement so it's now under the new <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">CC Zero</a> license (e.g. public domain). That basically means you can use it how you like without even having to give attribution (which is not to say you can't/shouldn't, and claiming it as your own invention would be disingenous).<br>
<br>Sam<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div class="h5">On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Sam Johnston <<a href="mailto:samj@samj.net">samj@samj.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> You could put 'clients' at the top and 'servers' at the bottom.<br>
><br>
> Ooh, that's almost too clean... the reason for these layers incidentally is<br>
> that an effective taxonomy should cater for all subjects and both clients<br>
> (like netbooks, next gen browsers, etc.) and servers (unified computing et<br>
> al) were left high and dry.<br>
><br>
> Other comments inline.<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Simon Wardley <<a href="mailto:simon.wardley@canonical.com">simon.wardley@canonical.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Absolutely, but I'd never say anyone was stupid.<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 19:52 +0100, Alexis Richardson wrote:<br>
>> > +1<br>
>> ><br>
>> > KISS aaS ;-)<br>
><br>
> :) KISS aaS goodbye perhaps.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Simon Wardley<br>
>> > <<a href="mailto:simon.wardley@canonical.com">simon.wardley@canonical.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > > My $0.0001 cents work<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Back in 2006 we used to describe the computing stack (when it came to<br>
>> > > utility computing) in terms of three layers :-<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Software : the provision of complete user applications [no-one wanted<br>
>> > > to<br>
>> > > call it applications because the acronym would have been "Application<br>
>> > > as<br>
>> > > a Server or "AaaS"]<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Framework: includes development platform, messaging queue, databases<br>
>> > > and<br>
>> > > all the common elements used in the creation of an application.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Hardware : the provision of raw compute resources, storage and<br>
>> > > networks.<br>
><br>
> AaaS, FaaS and HaaS were never going to fly :) But now we're talking about<br>
> de-aaSing it matters less. I prefer Infrastructure and Platform... I'm just<br>
> stuck on Application (my first choice) vs Software (more a concession for<br>
> the "software services"/SaaS bandwagon).<br>
><br>
> I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on having an application vs a software<br>
> layer. Application fits with the OSI stack and earlier concepts like<br>
> "Application Service Provider"... "Software Services" is easily confused<br>
> with "Software + Services" but is less of a stretch from "SaaS".<br>
><br>
> If we can find something which is generally acceptable (and get people to<br>
> accept it) then our users are going to be less confused/scared about<br>
> adopting cloud computing.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> > > These ideas were based upon the concepts of componentisation.<br>
>> > > Obviously<br>
>> > > since that time we've had all the renaming games and as Lefkowtiz<br>
>> > > described back in July 2007 the "aaS" wars caused by the appearance of<br>
>> > > Jedi thought masters.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > By the beginning of 2009 we had settled once again on a three layer<br>
>> > > structure of application / platform / infrastructure. Obviously above<br>
>> > > these are additional layers such as data, process, organisation and<br>
>> > > ....<br>
>> > > but let's not get into it.<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Can we please stick to the three layers of application, platform and<br>
>> > > infrastructure and not introduce any NEW concepts.<br>
><br>
> That mostly works for me, and that's why those three layers are highlighted<br>
> in my diagrams, but see comments above about effective taxonomies.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> > > As for fabric or instance based - all three layers can be provided<br>
>> > > either on a fabric or instance basis. SOLO is an example of an<br>
>> > > instance<br>
>> > > based PaaS whereas Azure is a fabric based PaaS etc. EC2 might be<br>
>> > > instance based IaaS but there is no reason why we can't (with SSI)<br>
>> > > more<br>
>> > > of a fabric based IaaS.<br>
><br>
> The fabric vs instance argument is bogus - there's a whole spectrum<br>
> (consider for example an app running in a single virtual instance which,<br>
> thanks to fancy hardware, has an obscene amount of memory and processor<br>
> cores). That's ok becuase differentiating is not particularly helpful<br>
> anyway.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> > > Of course this is from an user perspective. From an operator<br>
>> > > perspective<br>
>> > > you might end up with bare bones -> SSI (providing a large fabric) -><br>
>> > > virtual instances (for end users).<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > All sorts of combinations are possible. This is why we always tried to<br>
>> > > keep it simple. I'd suggest you focus on instance based infrastructure<br>
>> > > and keep it simple.<br>
><br>
> All this stuff looks the same anyway - you can start, stop and restart a<br>
> fabric based platform workload just as much as you can an instance based<br>
> infrastructure workload.<br>
><br>
> Sam<br>
><br>
>> > > Just my thoughts ...<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Kindest<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > Simon W<br>
>> > ><br>
>> > ><br>
>> > > On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 19:19 +0100, Alexis Richardson wrote:<br>
>> > >> You could put 'clients' at the top and 'servers' at the bottom.<br>
>> > >><br>
>> > >><br>
>> > >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Sam Johnston <<a href="mailto:samj@samj.net">samj@samj.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > >> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Krishna Sankar (ksankar)<br>
>> > >> > <<a href="mailto:ksankar@cisco.com">ksankar@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > >> >><br>
>> > >> >> Going back, I think, first the Compute, Storage, Network should be<br>
>> > >> >> under<br>
>> > >> >> infrastructure. The Platform comes next. There is something that<br>
>> > >> >> the<br>
>> > >> >> PaaS provides more than IaaS and that need to go there.<br>
>> > >> ><br>
>> > >> > OK so there are 5 layers here (there were 6 but "storage" has been<br>
>> > >> > consumed<br>
>> > >> > by "infrastructure" and "services" by "software" - "fabric" was<br>
>> > >> > spawned<br>
>> > >> > primarily in response to Cisco's "unified computing" foray into the<br>
>> > >> > server<br>
>> > >> > space):<br>
>> > >> ><br>
>> > >> > Client<br>
>> > >> > Software<br>
>> > >> > Platform<br>
>> > >> > Infrastructure<br>
>> > >> > Fabric<br>
>> > >> ><br>
>> > >> > The idea is that fabric delivers raw computing power to the<br>
>> > >> > infrastructure<br>
>> > >> > layer, which in turn delivers neatly packaged compute / network /<br>
>> > >> > storage to<br>
>> > >> > the platform layer, which delivers components (e.g. queues,<br>
>> > >> > persistence,<br>
>> > >> > etc.) and services (e.g. search, data feeds) to the software which<br>
>> > >> > in turn<br>
>> > >> > delivers machine and user interfaces to the clients (e.g. twitter<br>
>> > >> > web vs<br>
>> > >> > api).<br>
>> > >> ><br>
>> > >> > In any case the thing I care about for OCCI is that Infrastructure<br>
>> > >> > ~=<br>
>> > >> > Compute / Network / Storage and I don't think we've got any<br>
>> > >> > contention<br>
>> > >> > there.<br>
>> > >> ><br>
>> > >> > Sam<br>
>> > >> ><br>
>> > >> >><br>
>> > >> >> |-----Original Message-----<br>
>> > >> >> |From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:<a href="mailto:alexis.richardson@gmail.com">alexis.richardson@gmail.com</a>]<br>
>> > >> >> |Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:43 AM<br>
>> > >> >> |To: Krishna Sankar (ksankar)<br>
>> > >> >> |Cc: Sam Johnston; <a href="mailto:occi-wg@ogf.org">occi-wg@ogf.org</a><br>
>> > >> >> |Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network /<br>
>> > >> >> Storage<br>
>> > >> >> |<br>
>> > >> >> |Ha, indeed :-)<br>
>> > >> >> |<br>
>> > >> >> |Standards don't need window dressing ...<br>
>> > >> >> |<br>
>> > >> >> |<br>
>> > >> >> |On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Krishna Sankar (ksankar)<br>
>> > >> >> |<<a href="mailto:ksankar@cisco.com">ksankar@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > >> >> |> And say "Cloud has no clothes" ;o)<br>
>> > >> >> |><br>
>> > >> >> |> Cheers<br>
>> > >> >> |> <k/><br>
>> > >> >> |> |-----Original Message-----<br>
>> > >> >> |> |From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:<a href="mailto:alexis.richardson@gmail.com">alexis.richardson@gmail.com</a>]<br>
>> > >> >> |> |Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:39 AM<br>
>> > >> >> |> |To: Sam Johnston<br>
>> > >> >> |> |Cc: Krishna Sankar (ksankar); <a href="mailto:occi-wg@ogf.org">occi-wg@ogf.org</a><br>
>> > >> >> |> |Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network /<br>
>> > >> >> Storage<br>
>> > >> >> |> |<br>
>> > >> >> |> |Fabric is also used to refer to PaaS:<br>
>> > >> >> |> |<a href="http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/11/14/cloud-types/" target="_blank">http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/11/14/cloud-types/</a><br>
>> > >> >> |> |<br>
>> > >> >> |> |I suggest we drop the word 'fabric'.<br>
>> > >> >> |> |<br>
>> > >> >> |> |<br>
>> > >> >> |> |On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Sam Johnston <<a href="mailto:samj@samj.net">samj@samj.net</a>><br>
>> > >> >> wrote:<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Krishna Sankar (ksankar)<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> <<a href="mailto:ksankar@cisco.com">ksankar@cisco.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>><br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> But then SaaS is Software over PaaS; PaaS is fabric over<br>
>> > >> >> IaaS;<br>
>> > >> >> |IaaS<br>
>> > >> >> |> |is<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> compute, storage and network. Isn't fabric the P is PaaS ?<br>
>> > >> >> and in<br>
>> > >> >> |> |IaaS, we<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> see raw compute/storage/network ?<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>><br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> If we want to maintain the Software-Platform-Infrastructure<br>
>> > >> >> |> |terminology<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> hierarchy I am fine with that. Then we should switch the<br>
>> > >> >> fabric<br>
>> > >> >> |and<br>
>> > >> >> |> |the<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> Compute-Storage-Network.<br>
>> > >> >> |> |><br>
>> > >> >> |> |> [Ab]use of the term "fabric" to refer to software platforms<br>
>> > >> >> like<br>
>> > >> >> |> Azure<br>
>> > >> >> |> |is so<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> far as I can tell a fairly recent trend (and one I'm<br>
>> > >> >> relatively<br>
>> > >> >> |> |unconvinced<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> by). Granted the contept (whereby many interconnected nodes,<br>
>> > >> >> when<br>
>> > >> >> |> |viewed<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> from a distance, appear to be a single coherent "fabric")<br>
>> > >> >> could be<br>
>> > >> >> |> |applied<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> to both hardware and software, but it is most often applied<br>
>> > >> >> to low<br>
>> > >> >> |> |level,<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> interconnected hardware such as SANs and InfiniBand... and<br>
>> > >> >> servers:<br>
>> > >> >> |> |><br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> What is fabric computing and how does it improve upon<br>
>> > >> >> current<br>
>> > >> >> |server<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> technology?<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> The simplest way to think about it is the next-generation<br>
>> > >> >> |> |architecture for<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> enterprise servers. Fabric computing combines powerful<br>
>> > >> >> server<br>
>> > >> >> |> |capabilities<br>
>> > >> >> |> |>> and advanced networking features into a single server<br>
>> > >> >> structure.<br>
>> > >> >> |> |><br>
>> > >> >> |> |> We do need something to refer to the underlying<br>
>> > >> >> hardware/firmware<br>
>> > >> >> |but<br>
>> > >> >> |> |I'm<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> even less convinced by proposed alternatives ("unified<br>
>> > >> >> computing"<br>
>> > >> >> |> |being the<br>
>> > >> >> |> |> most obvious example). Perhaps "Hardware Fabric" would<br>
>> > >> >> clarify?<br>
>> > >> >> |> |><br>
>> > >> >> |> |> Sam<br>
>> > >> >> |> |><br>
>> > >> >> |> |><br>
>> > >> >> |><br>
>> > >> ><br>
>> > >> ><br>
>> > >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> > >> occi-wg mailing list<br>
>> > >> <a href="mailto:occi-wg@ogf.org">occi-wg@ogf.org</a><br>
>> > >> <a href="http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg" target="_blank">http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg</a><br>
>> > > --<br>
>> > > Simon Wardley<br>
>> > > Software Services Manager,<br>
>> > > Canonical Ltd.<br>
>> > > TEL: +44 (0)207 630 2451<br>
>> > > MOB : +44 (0)7972 911 449<br>
>> > > TWITTER: <a href="http://www.twitter.com/swardley/" target="_blank">http://www.twitter.com/swardley/</a><br>
>> > ><br>
>> > ><br>
>> --<br>
>> Simon Wardley<br>
>> Software Services Manager,<br>
>> Canonical Ltd.<br>
>> TEL: +44 (0)207 630 2451<br>
>> MOB : +44 (0)7972 911 449<br>
>> TWITTER: <a href="http://www.twitter.com/swardley/" target="_blank">http://www.twitter.com/swardley/</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>