Good, makes sense. Saw Sam's e-mail as well. Am fine with SaaS, PaaS and IaaS. I also had a similar diagram at http://doubleclix.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/cloud-computing-and-grids/. It is a little outdated. But then SaaS is Software over PaaS; PaaS is fabric over IaaS; IaaS is compute, storage and network. Isn't fabric the P is PaaS ? and in IaaS, we see raw compute/storage/network ? If we want to maintain the Software-Platform-Infrastructure terminology hierarchy I am fine with that. Then we should switch the fabric and the Compute-Storage-Network. Cheers <k/> |-----Original Message----- |From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:alexis.richardson@gmail.com] |Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 8:58 AM |To: Krishna Sankar (ksankar) |Cc: Sam Johnston; occi-wg@ogf.org |Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network / Storage | |Krishna | |(I think that ..) This is meant in the sense of: | |SaaS |PaaS |IaaS | |.. which is I think now an accepted stack. PaaS would include things |like Google App Engine which provides application services that |abstract storage, network, and compute, for example database, |messaging, and scheduling respectively. | |alexis | | |On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Krishna Sankar (ksankar) |<ksankar@cisco.com> wrote: |> Sam, |> |> Isn't the platform and infrastructure reversed ? IMHO, |> Infrastructure should be above the platform. Also shouldn't we have a |VM |> layer just below the software ? |> |> Cheers |> |> <k/> |> |> |> |> From: occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On |Behalf Of |> Sam Johnston |> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:25 AM |> To: occi-wg@ogf.org |> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network / Storage |> |> |> |> Morning, |> |> Turns out this isn't such a bad idea as between writing and sending |that |> post Andy Edmonds independently suggested exactly the same thing via |the |> wiki (suggestion: change workload to compute - workload might be |something |> ran on a compute resource). |> |> This is such a good (albeit obvious) idea - thanks David/RM-WG - that |I've |> even updated my cloud computing reference model (attached) by adding |> "network' to it. |> |> Sam |> |> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote: |> |> Evening, |> |> So one thing I did see validated by the rm-wg document was the trend |towards |> compute/network/storage that we're fast settling on ourselves. |> |> Our current terminology however is far more specific - we've picked up |> "Drive" and "Server" from ElasticHosts for example. While this does |make |> sense a lot of the time there's nothing to say that OCCI can't be used |for |> VDI for example, where the "servers" are in fact "clients". Take it a |step |> further and you've got things like Dreamhost PS which kind of like a |virtual |> provate server in that it behaves like one (it can be restarted via |their |> API etc.), only it refers to resource allocations in a shared hosting |> environment or MySQL instances. |> |> Granted that's outside of our remit but ther'es no point stopping them |from |> using it by choosing our terminology poorly. In fact a lot of these |> functions can apply equally to physical machines as they can to |lightweight |> threads in an Apache process (and everything in between including, of |> course, virtual machines which are currently our primary target). |> |> I've been trying to think of other resources outside of these three |main |> types but even strange things like ISDN interfaces (yes, this sort of |thing |> does appear in enterprise data centers) can be handled via PCI |passthrough |> parameters on a virtual machine. |> |> All in all, unless anyone has any concerns about this approach I'd |like to |> adopt this terminology throughout. |> |> Sam |> |> |> |> _______________________________________________ |> occi-wg mailing list |> occi-wg@ogf.org |> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg |> |>