Thanks. Got it and agreed. We need to focus. But we should make sure we depict the world that is above and below us in a realistic way. |-----Original Message----- |From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:alexis.richardson@gmail.com] |Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:59 AM |To: Sam Johnston |Cc: Krishna Sankar (ksankar); occi-wg@ogf.org |Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network / Storage | |Our current goal is to settle on an API for IaaS. Anything remotely |confusing needs to be parked. | |In the context of this goal: | |"Compute", "Storage", "Network", inasmuch as they have an API, are |*infrastructure services* provided by folks who are in the IaaS |business. They abstract the infrastructure so that it can be |consumed. Hence I suggest that 'infrastructure' is the right word to |put below the three infrastructure services. We don't care what |happens below that. | | | |On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote: |> One recent post by one analyst which concedes that it's a "problematic |term, |> perhaps, because a few of the vendors employ it towards different |ends" |> isn't reason enough to scuttle it (which has been in fairly widespread |use |> for well over a decade), especially in the absence of an alternative |> proposal. Appistry have dropped the term and Microsoft's Azure is now |a |> "Services Platform" (someone's dyslexic perhaps), even if they still |use |> fabric sporadically with developers. |> |> This is what Cisco have to say about Unified Fabrics: |>> |>> The typical data center environment supports two to three parallel |>> networks: one for data, one for storage, and possibly one for server |>> clustering. In addition, servers often have dedicated interfaces for |>> management, backup, or virtual machine live migration. Supporting |these |>> interfaces imposes significant costs related to interfaces, cabling, |rack |>> space, upstream switches, and power and cooling. |>> |>> Unified fabric consolidates these different types of traffic onto a |>> single, general-purpose, high-performance, highly available network |that |>> greatly simplifies the network infrastructure and reduces costs. To |do all |>> this, a unified fabric must be intelligent enough to identify the |different |>> types of traffic and handle them appropriately. |>> |>> In addition to reducing total cost of ownership, unified fabric |supports |>> broader data center virtualization by providing consistent, |ubiquitous |>> network and storage services to all connected devices. |> |> I'd like to see us get some clarity here one way or another because |it's a |> source of significant confusion (if we can't get it right between us |then |> what are customers meant to think?). |> |> Sam |> |> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Alexis Richardson |> <alexis.richardson@gmail.com> wrote: |>> |>> Fabric is also used to refer to PaaS: |>> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2008/11/14/cloud-types/ |>> |>> I suggest we drop the word 'fabric'. |>> |>> |>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote: |>> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Krishna Sankar (ksankar) |>> > <ksankar@cisco.com> wrote: |>> >> |>> >> 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. |>> > |>> > [Ab]use of the term "fabric" to refer to software platforms like |Azure |>> > is so |>> > far as I can tell a fairly recent trend (and one I'm relatively |>> > unconvinced |>> > by). Granted the contept (whereby many interconnected nodes, when |viewed |>> > from a distance, appear to be a single coherent "fabric") could be |>> > applied |>> > to both hardware and software, but it is most often applied to low |>> > level, |>> > interconnected hardware such as SANs and InfiniBand... and servers: |>> > |>> >> What is fabric computing and how does it improve upon current |server |>> >> technology? |>> >> The simplest way to think about it is the next-generation |architecture |>> >> for |>> >> enterprise servers. Fabric computing combines powerful server |>> >> capabilities |>> >> and advanced networking features into a single server structure. |>> > |>> > We do need something to refer to the underlying hardware/firmware |but |>> > I'm |>> > even less convinced by proposed alternatives ("unified computing" |being |>> > the |>> > most obvious example). Perhaps "Hardware Fabric" would clarify? |>> > |>> > Sam |>> > |>> > |> |>