Must Read: Sorry, but bringing back the Start menu won't help Windows 8

Topic: Servers

'I don't want your stinkin' cloud!'

Summary: Not everyone -- even small firms -- even small tech companies -- believes cloud computing has something to offer over on-premises systems.

Joe McKendrick

By for Service Oriented |

Mark Maunder, founder and CEO of Feedjit, which offers a Website visitor tracking tool, says the cloud -- at least as it is being presented by vendors -- is a load of hype.  As he describes it:

"During the last four years I’ve watched friends and acquaintances get burned by the cloud either due to down time or cost. We pay $3400 per month to host our 20 dedicated machines in a single rack. We have a gigabit connection to the Net and our average bandwidth throughput is around 125 megabits per second constantly. I’m tired of the Wired Magazine crowd giving me crap for not 'being in the cloud' or 'getting with the cloud' or whatever."

Mark, whose company runs its own servers and data center, throws down the gauntlet to cloud proponents:

"During the last 4 years I’ve had 99.9% uptime and I’ve spent a total of $190,000 during those 4 years on hosting, which includes the capital investment in the servers. We’ve had a constant throughput of 80 to 120 megabits per second (increasing over time) and roughly 40% avg CPU usage on 20 dual CPU machines (with dedicated Intel E5410 CPU’s each with 4 cores).  ...we do 400 to 800 app requests per second and we also have an average of 25,000 concurrent connections on our front-end server. I’ll bet anyone who reads this a beer that you won’t find a cloud provider who can do this for you for less than 3X what I’ve paid. [That works out to $3,958 per month.]"

Cloud offers a tremendous amount of resources to startups and smaller companies that otherwise would be cost-prohibitive, at least at the initial investment phase. For larger companies, it's a way to get around the bean-counters when trying out new initiatives or pursuing innovation.

But there's nothing wrong with managing your own physical infrastructure, and Mark points out that it is ultimately a lot cheaper in the long run. This is a point that many larger enterprises continue to weigh in their systems decisions -- hence, the enormous interest in private clouds, in which a virtualized service layer is built to support (and hide) legacy and siloed systems.  But it's still the company's own IT infrastructure.

Topics: Servers, Apps, Cloud, Data Centers, Hardware, Intel, Outage, Processors, Start-Ups

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

11 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • Been waiting for this one

    About time we saw an article on the realistic value of the cloud.


    :)
    rhonin
    Reply Vote

  • RE: 'I don't want your stinkin' cloud!'

    What I don't like is that the definition of cloud has been co-opted by external vendors when "cloud" really has nothing to do with location. Cloud is a methodology and a way to manage all of the required computing resources so that you get the absolute most (value, performance, etc.) out of the absolute least (cost, effort, etc.). If you look at the definition of cloud per NIST, it doesn't say anything about where. You can have a fully functioning, cost effective, highly efficient cloud that is fully encased within your data center. A cloud where all resources are fungible pools and workloads are fluid....where processing is done where it makes sense "at the time" and "under the conditions" automatically and integrated into all relevant business systems. This isn't rocket science.
    justthinking
    Reply Vote

    • Yup

      @justthinking

      Why do you think Microsoft is putting a lot of leverage towards marketing Windows Server as a cloud OS? Just look at their current messaging: everything is "Server + Cloud" now. It used to be that when you went their Windows Server webpages, it was just about standard infrastructure for access control and management (AD) and storage. Now they are pushing Private Cloud as the "in" way to do infrastructure, with a VM self-service portal as a necessary element. They even have full instructions on how to build your own Private Cloud infrastructure, which is worth its weight in gold: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/private-cloud/hyperv-cloud-deployment.aspx

      It's funny, because Windows Server 2008 R2 is now a very mature product in capabilities, and yet they've stretched the usefulness of it by defining a new category of use. I only wish they had some kind of scaled down variant of this for smaller businesses. Cloud technology and VDI applies even to them, but Small Business Server is starting to look a bit archaic in contrast.

      Speaking of which, why should Private Cloud be limited to enterprise? "Hybrid Cloud" seems to be a step towards Private Cloud for smaller businesses where they can't afford the hardware for the infrastructure.
      Joe_Raby
      Reply Vote

  • Hybrid is not a bad model

    And you get the benefits of both. Obviously there are many cases where it's better to have your own infrastructure though. Like everything else just because it's all the rage doesn't mean it's for everyone.
    LiquidLearner
    Reply Vote

  • Back to this argument again?

    The grand all-encompassing cloud works for some and not for others. Companies pushing the "cloud" as the solution to everything including world hunger, disease and poverty are only looking out for their bottom line. Same as any other business.
    kraterz
    Reply Vote

  • RE: 'I don't want your stinkin' cloud!'

    The "cloud" is supposed to be vendor agnostic anyways - anybody, including theoretically yourself, can be a "cloud" provider. This idea that "the cloud" has to be a mega vendor like Microsoft or Google is rather bogus.

    This is why I'm not fond of "cloud" talk - the "cloud" is ill-defined and not concrete. It's a purposefully vague word that benefits nobody.
    CobraA1
    Reply Vote

  • Easy arithmetic: new architecture

    The accounting is, I think, straightforward.<br><br>VENDOR: my customer has 1000 worth of computers which cost him 3000 to run. I'll charge him 3500 claiming a saving and keeping the rest.<br><br>CUSTOMER: my costs are 4000 for a dedicated computing facility which is not utilised more than 10%, this cloud whatsit saves on all fronts and provides good utilisation, so I expect a reduction to 1000.

    Vague though the cloud definition is I like to see some evidence of new architecture ... not just a virtualisation of the old.
    johnfenjackson@...
    Reply Vote

  • New architecture, methodology, and delivery model

    Use a PaaS evaluation framework to decide when your vendor and team is cloud washing instead of transforming. PaaS offerings can be evaluated and compared across the following criteria categories:
    ??? Cloud Characteristics
    ??? Cloud Dimensions
    ??? Production Ready
    ??? DevOps Activities and Phases
    ??? Cloud Architecture
    ??? Platform Services
    ??? Programming Model

    A version1.0 evaluation framework can be found at
    http://blog.cobia.net/cobiacomm/2011/11/02/paas-evaluation-framework-for-cios-and-architects/
    cobiacomm
    Reply Vote

  • RE: 'I don't want your stinkin' cloud!'

    I agree. Cloud computing rocks when it is aimed at home users. If I owned a company I am not sure I want all my data on someone network.
    Randalllind
    Reply Vote

  • RE: 'I don't want your stinkin' cloud!'

    My simple definition:

    cloud = outsourcing :)
    dtdono0
    Reply Vote

  • Many of the posters her are absolutely right...

    I support a small research team that does not need a lot infrastructure...ie: less than 10 people. They wanted email that wasn't "Free" and provided all the usual professional options...ie: They were familiar with and wanted to use Outlook. In this instance going with Microsoft Hosted Email at $5 per head per month was a no brainer...however, I agree that all of the larger organizations I have worked for are very skeptical about hosting their data on other folks systems. Remember guarantees are easy to promise, but major corporations crying Mia-Culpa and begging forgiveness has been going on for as long as it has been practiced. In an age where the US Military cannot protect it's remote controlled flying death drones with their Gazillion dollar budgets, do you really think that your data will be in safer hands once it is completely out of your physical control and may well be hosted in foreign countries? I do see areas where a mixed environment makes lots of sense. Just remember...with new technology and potential capability...we get the same lies marketing guys have been feeding us for the last 35 years. Ultimately when it comes to any short or long term technological solution...the game is managing entropy with least amount of downtime and under-utilized infrastructure...it's a moving target that cannot be "Handled" by one approach, solution, or expert.
    whitmj@...
    Reply Vote
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close