Rather than the special case of Windows instances, the more interesting situation to look at is the availability of vendor-provided EC2 instances at a higher price. So I went to look a bit more into this, and I came out… very confused and $20 poorer.

Earlier in the week, I had noticed an announcement of IBM Tivoli on EC2 that explained that “the hourly price for Tivoli on EC2 includes an IBM license”. This seemed like a perfect place for me to start. My first question was “how much does it cost”? The blog entry doesn’t say. It links to a Tivoli on EC2 FAQ on the IBM site, which doesn’t say either (apparently IBM’s target customers work in recession-proof industries and do not “frequently ask” about prices). I then followed the link to the overall IBM and AWS FAQ but it just states that “charges will be announced by Amazon Web Services in the coming months”. Both FAQs explain how to use your traditional IBM license on EC2, but that’s not what I am after. At this point, I feel like a third-world tourist who entered a high-end jewelry store in Paris where no price is displayed. Call me plebeian, but I am more accustomed to Target-like stores with price-check scanners in the aisles…

I hypothesized that the AWS console might show me the price when I select the Tivoli AMIs. But no such luck. Tired of searching, and since I was already in the console, I figured I’d just launch an instance and see the hourly cost in my account usage. Since it comes in three versions (depending on how many targets you want Tivoli to manage), I launched one of each. Additionally, for one of them I launched instances of two different sizes so I can verify that the price difference is equal to the base EC2 price difference between such instance sizes. Here is what I got:

Of course, by the time my account usage page was updated (it took a few hours) I had found the price list which in retrospect wasn’t that hard to find (from Amazon, not IBM).

So maybe I am not the brightest droplet in the cloud, but for 20 bucks I consider that at least I bought the right to make a point: these prices should not be just on some web page. They should be accessible at the time of launch, in the console. And also in the EC2 API, so that the various EC2 tools can retrieve them. Whether it’s just for human display or to use as part of some automation logic, this should be available in an authoritative manner, without the need to scrape a page.

The other thing that bothers me is the need to decide upfront whether I want to launch a Tivoli instance to manage 50 virtual cores, 200 virtual cores or 600 virtual cores. That feels very inelastic for an EC2 deployment. I want to be charged for the actual number of virtual cores I am managing at any point in time. I realize the difficulty in metering this way (the need for Tivoli to report this to AWS, the issue of trust…) but hopefully it will eventually get there.

While I am talking about future improvements, another limitation is that there can currently only be one vendor per AMI. What if someone wants to write an application that runs on top of Oracle Middleware and package this as a paid AMI? It would be nice if Amazon eventually allowed the price of the instance to be split three-ways (Amazon, Oracle, application vendor).

In any case, now you know why this investigation left me poorer. The confused part comes from the fact that I had earlier experimented with Amazon Paid AMIs and it was an entirely different experience. Better in some ways: you get a clear price list upfront such as this.

But not as good in other ways: you have to purchase the paid AMI in a way that it is somewhat disconnected from the launch of the instance. And for some reason you paid for this directly out of your credit card as opposed to it going to your AWS usage account along with all your other charges. I would expect that many customers will use these paid AMIs are part of a larger EC2 deployment and as such it seems awkward to have it billed separately.

But overall, it’s the disconnect between the two that the confuses me. Are there two different types of paid AMIs (three if you include the Windows EC2 instances)? What am I missing?

The next step in my investigation should probably be to create an AMI and set a price on it, so I get the vendor’s view in addition to the consumer’s view. And maybe I can earn my $20 back in the process…

Related posts:

1. Cloud + proprietary software = ♥
2. Dear Microsoft, here is my $0.25 Windows license fee for the month
3. Reality check on Cloud portability
4. Are these your files? I found them on my cloud
5. Running Oracle in Amazon’s cloud
6. Cloudman to the rescue?

There was a lot to support this view. EC2 was one year old and its usage was overwhelmingly based on open source software (OSS). For proprietary software, there was no clear understanding of how licensing terms applied to Cloud deployments. Not only would most sales reps not know the answer, back then they probably wouldn’t have comprehended the question.

Two and a half years later… well it doesn’t look all that different at first blush. EC2 seems to still be a largely OSS-dominated playground. Especially since the most obvious (though not necessarily the most accurate) measure is to peruse the description/content of public AMIs. They are (predictably since you can’t generally redistribute proprietary software) almost entirely OSS-based, with the exception of the public AMIs provided by software vendors themselves (Oracle, IBM…).

And yet the situation has improved for usage of proprietary software in the Cloud. Most software vendors have embraced Cloud deployments and clarified licensing issues (taking the example of Oracle, here is its Cloud Computing Center page, an overview of the licensing policy for Cloud deployments and the AWS/Oracle partnership page to encourage the use of Oracle software on EC2; none of this existed in 2007).

But these can be called reactive adaptations. At best (depending on the variability of your load and whether you use an Unlimited License Agreement), these moves have brought the “proprietary vs. OSS” debate in the Cloud back to the same parameters as for on-premise deployments. They have simply corrected the initial challenge of not even knowing how to license proprietary software for Cloud deployments.

But it’s not stopping here. What we are seeing is some of the parameters for the “proprietary vs. OSS” debate become more friendly towards proprietary software in the Cloud than on-premise. I am referring to the emergence of EC2 instances for which the software licenses are included in the per-hour rate for server instances. This pretty much removes license management as a concern altogether. The main example is Windows EC2 instances. As a user, you don’t have to deal with any Windows license consideration. You just request a machine and use it. Which of course doesn’t mean you are not paying for Windows. These Windows instances are more expensive than comparable Linux instances (e.g. $0.34 versus $0.48 per hour in the case of a “standard/large” instance) and Amazon takes care of paying Microsoft.

The removal of license management as a concern may not make a big difference to large corporations that have an Unlimited License Agreement, but for smaller companies it may take a chunk out of the reasons to use open source software. Not only do you not have to track license usage (and renewal), you never have to spend time with a sales rep. You don’t have to ask yourself at what point in your beta program you’ve moved from a legitimate use of the (often free) development license to a situation in which you need a production license. Including the software license directly in the cost of the base Cloud resource (e.g. the virtual machine instance) makes planning (and auto-scaling) easier: you use the same algorithm as in the “free license” situation, just with a different per hour cost. The trade-off becomes quantitative rather than qualitative. You can trade a given software stack against a faster CPU or more memory or more storage, depending on which combination serves your needs better. It doesn’t matter if the value you get from the instance comes from the software in the image or the hardware. This moves IaaS closer to PaaS (force.com doesn’t itemize your bill between hardware cost and software cost). Anything that makes IaaS more like PaaS is good for IaaS.

From an earlier post, about virtual appliances:

As with all things computer-related, the issue is going to get blurrier and then irrelevant . The great thing about software is that there is no solid line. In this case, we will eventually get more customized appliances (via appliance builders or model-driven appliance generation) blurring the line between installed software and appliance-based software.

I was referring to a blurring line in terms of how software is managed, but it’s also true in terms of how it is licensed.

There are of course many other reasons (than license management) why people use open source software rather than proprietary. The most obvious being the cost of the license (which, as we have seen, doesn’t go away but just gets incorporated in the base Cloud instance rate). Or they may simply prefer a given open source product independently of any licensing aspect. Some need access to the underlying code, to customize/improve it for their purpose. Or they may be leery of depending on one entity for the long-term viability of their platform. There may even be some who suspect any software that they don’t examine/compile themselves to contain backdoors (though these people are presumably not candidates for Cloud deployments in he first place). Etc. These reasons remain pretty much unchanged in the Cloud. But, anecdotally at least, removing license management concerns from both manual and automated tasks is a big improvement.

If Cloud providers get it right (which would require being smarter than wireless service providers, a low bar) and software vendors play ball, the “proprietary vs. OSS” debate may become more favorable to proprietary software in the Cloud than it is on-premise. For the benefit of customers, software vendors and Cloud providers. Hopefully Amazon will succeed where telcos mostly failed, in providing a convenient application metering/billing service for 3rd-party software offered on top of their infrastructural services (without otherwise getting in the way). Anybody remembers the Minitel? Today we’d call that a “Terminal as a Service” offering and if it did one thing well (beyond displaying green characters) it was billing. Which reminds me, I probably still have one in my parent’s basement.

[Note: every page of this blog mentions, at the bottom, that "the statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation" but in this case I will repeat it here, in the body of the post.]

[UPDATED 2009/12/29: The Register seems to agree. In fact, they come close to paraphrasing this blog entry:

"It's proprietary applications offered by enterprise mainstays such as Oracle, IBM, and other big vendors that may turn out to be the big winners. The big vendors simply manipulated and corrected their licensing strategies to offer their applications in an on-demand or subscription manner.

Amazonian middlemen

AWS, for example, now offers EC2 instances for which the software licenses are included in the per-hour rate for server instances. This means that users who want to run Windows applications don't have to deal with dreaded Windows licensing - instead, they simply request a machine and use it while Amazon deals with paying Microsoft."]

[UPDATED 2010/1/25: I think this "Cloud as Monetization Strategy for Open Source" post by Geva Perry (based on an earlier post by Savio Rodrigues ) confirms that in the Cloud the line between open source and proprietary software is thinning.]

Related posts:

1. Dear Microsoft, here is my $0.25 Windows license fee for the month
2. Can I get a price check on this AMI?
3. Introducing the Oracle Cloud API
4. BMC acquires ITM Software
5. Interesting links
6. IT management and Cloud: now some products

The SOA governance saga is still ongoing, now away from the spotlight and mostly from an implementation perspective rather than a standard perspective (by the way, what’s up with GIF?). Instead, the spotlight has turned to Cloud computing and that’s what we are supposedly going to control through cataloging next.

Earlier this year, I commented on the release of an ITSM catalog product for Cloud computing (though I was addressing the convergence of ITSM and Cloud computing more than catalogs per se).

More recently, Lori MacVittie related SOA governance to the need for Cloud catalogs. She makes some good points, but I also see some familiar-looking “irrational exuberance”. The idea of dynamically discovering and invoking a Cloud service reminds me too much of the initial “yellow pages” scenarios for UDDI (which quickly got dropped in favor of a more modest internal governance focus).

I am not convinced by the reason Lori gives for why things are different this time around (“one of the interesting things virtualization brings to the table that SOA did not is the ability to abstract management of services”). She argues that SOA governance only gave you access to the operational WSDL of a Web service, while Cloud catalogs will give you access to their management API. But if your service is an IT service, then your so-called management API (launch/configure/control VMs) is really its operational interface. The real management interface is the one Amazon uses under the cover and they are not going to expose it to you anymore than your bank is going to expose its application server administration console to you (if they do, move your money somewhere else before someone does it for you).

After all, isn’t SOA governance pretty close to a SaaS catalog which is itself a small part of the overall Cloud (IaaS+PaaS+SaaS) catalog question? If we still haven’t succeeded in the smaller scope, what are the odds of striking gold quickly in the larger effort?

Some analysts take a more pragmatic view, involving active brokers rather than simply a new DNS record type. I am doubtful about these brokers (0.2 probability, as Gartner would put it) but at least this moves the question onto business terms (leverage, control) rather than technical terms. Which is where the battle will be fought.

When it comes to Cloud catalogs, I think they are needed (if only for the categorization of Cloud services that they require) but will only play a supporting role, if any, in any move towards dynamic Cloud provisioning. As with SOA governance it’s as an internal tool, supported by strong processes, that they will be most useful.

Throughout human history, catalogs have been substitutes for control more often than instruments of control. Think of astronomy, zoology and… nephology for example. What kind will IT Cloud catalogs be?

Related posts:

1. Generalizing the Cloud vs. SOA Governance debate
2. “Freeing SaaS from Cloud”: slides and notes from Cloud Connect keynote
3. Open Cloud Manifesto, circa 2004
4. REST in practice for IT and Cloud management (part 3: wrap-up)
5. Cloud platform patching conundrum: PaaS has it much worse than IaaS and SaaS
6. Waiting for events (in Cloud APIs)

<component name="myBPELServiecComponent">
  ...
  <property name="bpel.config.inMemoryOptimization">true</property>
</component>

It doesn’t look like much. But it’s an major step for application-driven IT management (and eventually BSM).

Take a SCA component. Follow the SCA-defined component-to-composite and service-to-reference relationships upwards and eventually you’ll get to top level application services that have a decent chance of mapping well to business-relevant activities (e.g. order processing). Which means that the metrics of these services (e.g. availability, response time) are likely to be meaningful and important to the line of business. Follow the same SCA relationships downward and you’ll end up (in a SCA-based infrastructure like Oracle SOA Suite 11G), with target components that are meaningful to the IT administrator. Which means that their metrics and configuration settings (like “inMemoryOptimization”) are tracked and controlled by IT. You now have a direct string of connections between this configuration setting and a business relevant metric. You can navigate the connection in both directions: downward/reactive (“my service just went down, what changed in the infrastructure”) versus upward/proactive (“my service is always slow, what can I do to optimize the execution”).

Of course these examples are over-simplistic (and the title of this post is a bit too lyrical, on account of this). Following these SCA relationships in brute-force fashion will yield tens of thousands of low-level configuration settings for any top-level service, with widely differing importance and impact (not to mention that they interact). You need rules to make sense of this. Plus, configuration-based models are a complement to runtime transaction discovery, not a replacement (unless your model of the application includes every single line of code). But it’s not that often that you can see a missing link snap into place that clearly.

What this shows is the emergence of a common set of entities between the developer’s model and the IT admin model. And if the application was developed correctly, some of the entities in the developer’s model correspond to entities in the mental model of the application user and the line of business manager. SCA is the skeleton for this. Attaching configuration to SCA components puts muscle on the bone.

The road to BSM is paved with small improvements in the semantic alignment between IT infrastructure and application services. A couple of years ago, I tried to explain why SCA is very relevant for IT management. Now we can see it.

Related posts:

1. Coming up: SCA 1.0
2. More clues on the Oslo/SCA/SML trail: it’s “D”
3. SCA is not just for code portability
4. Is SCA to SML what SOA is to ITIL?
5. SCA, OGSi and Spring from an IT management perspective
6. Generalizing the Cloud vs. SOA Governance debate

Anyway, this is not a business or HR blog, it’s about the technology. And on that front, this looks like an interesting way for SpringSource to expand their monitoring from just the application down into some parts of the infrastructure, at least to some extent. SpringSource’s AMS (Application Management Suite) was already based on Hyperic, so the integration headaches should be minimal. And Hyperic has been doing some Cloud monitoring work too (see this podcast if you want to learn more about it), which if nothing else is PR gold these days (I am not saying it’s just that, but it is that for sure).

As a side note, it is ironic that Hyperic (which started inside Covalent until Javier Soltero spun it off and became its CEO) is now reunited with its mothership (SpringSource acquired Covalent last year).

I am a big proponent of management capabilities in application infrastructure. I applauded Rod Johnson for writing something along the same line last year and I am pleased to see him really push this approach with this acquisition.

Here are the questions that come to my mind when I read about this deal (keep in mind that this is competition from my perspective, so feel free to “question my questions” as you read):

I was going to ask whether this acquisition means that Hyperic users who don’t care for Spring are going to see diminishing value as the product becomes more tied to Spring. But if you look at what Hyperic gives you on the resources it manages, it’s mainly a list of metrics and a few control operations. These will still be there because they’ll be needed for the Spring-centric view anyway. It would be more of a question if Hyperic had advanced discovery features (e.g. examine all the config files of the managed resources and extract infrastructure topology from them). I would wonder if these would still be maintained/improved for non-Spring middleware. But again, not an issue here since I don’t think there is much of this in Hyperic today. And since presumably SpringSource made the acquisition in part to cover more resources types in their management offering (Rod talks about DB and VM management in his post), the list of supported infrastructure elements (OS, DB, VM, network…) will presumably grow rather than shrink. What may be trimmed down eventually is the list of application runtimes currently supported. If you’re a Hyperic/Coldfusion user you should probably attend the upcoming webcast to hear about the plans.

Still on the topic of Hyperic’s monitoring-only capabilities, it means that if Rod Johnson really wants to provide everything for Java developers to put “applications into production without the mediation of operations”, as he says, then he should keep his checkbook open (as a side note, if a developer puts “applications into production” then s/he doesn’t bypass operations but rather becomes operations; you may not think of yourself as one, but if you’re the one who gets called when the application crashes then you are in “operations”). SpringSource is still a long way from offering the complete picture. Here are my guesses for the management features on Rod’s grocery list:

• configuration management -many potential acquisition candidates
• in depth database management (going beyond the “you want metrics? we’ve got metrics!” approach to DB management) – fewer candidates

As far as in-house developement, I would expect this acquisition to first yield some auto-discovery of application (and infrastructure) topology in a Spring environment. Then they’ll have to decide if they want to double-down on Cloud support and build/buy more automation features or rather focus on application-centric management and join the fray of BTM / transaction tracing. Doing both at the same time would be very ambitious. This Register article seems to imply the former (Cloud) but my guess is that SpringSource will make the smart choice of focusing on the latter (application-centric management). I see in the Register that, “Peter Cooper-Ellis, SpringSource’s senior vice president of engineering and product management called management of the cloud and virtualized datacenters a strategic driver for the deal”. But this sounds more like telling a buzzword-hungry reporter what he wants to hear rather than actual strategy to me. We’ll see. I hope this acquisition and its follow-through will help move the industry in the right direction of application-centric management, something that will take more than one company.

[UPDATED 2009/5/7: A nice article on the acquisition by Charles Humble at InfoQ. Though I have to take issue with the assertion that "many aspects of monitoring that are essential in a data centre, such as OS and network monitoring, are irrelevant in the context of the cloud".]

[UPDATED 2009/6/23: Via Coté, an announcement that shows that the Cloud angle might have more post-aquisition juice than I expected. Unless this thing coasted on momentum alone.]

Related posts:

1. Thoughts on VMWare, SpringSource and PaaS
2. SpringSource Application Management Suite
3. Between skinny and bloated
4. PaaS portability challenges and the VMforce example
5. Analyzing the VMforce announcement
6. Spring flowers

The changes currently at work in the IT world can be organized along three axis:

• IT infrastructure and management
• Application development and delivery
• Business and regulation

Each of these categories is ridiculously large. It’s only through the prism of the relationships between them that they provide any value. Think about three balls linked by coil springs.

If you give one of these balls a shake, you will start a hard-to-predict dance between them. This is similar to how the three domains above relate to one another. Changes in one (say a new focus on regulatory compliance in the “business” area, the emergence of virtualization technology in the “infrastructure” area or the appearance of Web 2.0 applications in the “application” area) start a complex movement involving all three. It takes a while to achieve a new equilibrium (and in practice it is never achieved since changes occur too often, adding stimulus to an already excited system). For a visual illustration, see this little YouTube video (but imagine that the three balls are arranged in a triangle rather than linearly and that every so often one of them gets pulled in a random direction).

This is not new of course. There have been changes in these three areas for as long as IT has existed (starting before it was called IT) and they have always driven changes in how IT is managed. To some extent they also have always influenced one another. The “new” part is that the connections are a lot tighter now, that the springs have a much higher force constant (the “k” in “F=-kx”). So here is my attempt at mapping today’s hot buzzwords on a map organized along these areas.

Before you ask: yes of course I have a very rigorous methodology, based on very precise quantitative data, to establish with certainty the exact x, y and z coordinates of each label. Buzzword topology is a precise science.

You may notice that the buzziest buzzword (at least currently), “Cloud”, does not appear on the map. It’s because it buzzes so much that it would be all over it, engulfing what currently appears as “virtualization”, “datacenter automation”, “Iaas”, “PaaS”, “SaaS” and “opex/capex”. There are two main parts in the “Cloud” buzzword: the “Technical Cloud” and the “Business Cloud”. The “Technical Cloud” is where we take virtualization and standardization (of machines, networks and application infrastructure) and turn that mind-boggling complexity into a manageable system that can be programmed to deliver applications (Cisco recently called it “Unified Computing”; HP, IBM and others have been trying to describe and brand it for a long time). Building on these technical capabilities comes the second part of “Cloud”, the “Business Cloud”. It is the ability to use infrastructure owned by a third party (presumably one able to leverage economies of scale) and all the possibilities this opens in the business realm. That’s what “Cloud” started as, back when it was known as “Utility Computing” and before it was applied to everything under the sun. A recent illustration of the relationship between the “Technical Cloud” and the “Business Cloud” is the introduction of vCloud by VMWare (their vision includes using VMotion technology, a piece of the “Technical Cloud”, not just to move machines between neighboring hypervisors but between organizations, enabling the “Business Cloud”). Anyway, that’s why “Cloud” it’s not on the map. It is actually all over it.

The system displayed on the map is vibrating very intensely right now, and I don’t see this changing anytime soon. Just for fun, here are candidates for future boxes on the map:

• In the “IT infrastructure and management” category, maybe one day we’ll get to real metadata-driven management integration across the stack (as opposed to the more limited “application modeling” area listed above), whether through RDF or not.
• In the “application development and delivery” category, maybe Doug Purdy’s vision “to make everyone a programmer (even if they don’t know it)” will be realized, whether through Oslo or not.
• In the “business and regulation” category, maybe one day corporations will actually start caring about the customer data they are entrusted to (but only if mishandling it finally costs them more than “sorry about that, here is a one year credit monitoring subscription now go away”).

In summary, the evolution of IT management is driven not only by changes in IT technology but also by changes in two other fields (“application development and delivery” and “business and regulation”) with which it is tightly connected. Both of these fields are also in a very dynamic state. And they also influence one another, resulting in a complex three-way dance. You can’t understand the trajectory and moves of one dancer without seeing the others.

That’s what I mean by “IT management in a changing IT world”. Thanks for asking.

[UPDATED 2009/6/25: For more on the "technical cloud" versus "business cloud", go read Neil Ward-Dutton's nice explanation. He actually breaks down the "business cloud" in two (separating the economic aspect from the strategic aspect).]

Related posts:

1. IT management in a world of utility IT
2. Smoothing a discrete world
3. Generalizing the Cloud vs. SOA Governance debate
4. CMDB in the Cloud: not your father’s CMDB
5. Open Cloud Manifesto, circa 2004
6. REST in practice for IT and Cloud management (part 2: configuration management)

• crash the system it manages
• materially degrade its performance
• introduce security vulnerabilities to the system

It’s appropriate that the “primum non nocere” expression comes from a medical background, since IT management software acts, to a large extent, like the doctor of the datacenter. In that spirit, I wondered whether the Hippocratic Oath could also provide good guidelines to those designing IT management software.

Turns out, the original oath hasn’t aged so well (though it cannot hurt to remind IT consultants not to have sex with the IT staff of their customers or attempt to remove kidney stones on them).

On the other hand, there is a modern version (written by Louis Lasagna in 1964) that maps quite well to our domain. Here it is, with each paragraph followed (in bold font) by its translation for IT management. Just food for thoughts.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

Follow standards, publish configuration best practices in your domain of expertise, contribute to open source projects.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

Provide useful features that fully address customer needs. Not a superficial product, but not a boatload of useless features and meaningless metrics either.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

Good technology is important, but so are support, documentation and user interface.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

Don’t push “consulting engagements” to stretch your application to deliver features it is not designed for. Instead, integrate with products that perform the function well.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

Implement roles, permissions and auditing. Be very careful not to inadvertently crash, slow or compromise the target system. Keep in mind, in your design, that you and your developers are fallible.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

You are not managing just a server, a JVM or a database. Considers the entire IT system and the business value it delivers.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

Proactively monitor the system, detect problems before they impact the system and, when possible, automate resolution.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

Don’t cheat, or abuse your position. Be honest and decent with customers, partners and competitors.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

If you do all this, customers will keep buying from you and may even like you.

Related posts:

1. A review of OVF from a systems management perspective
2. The Oslo accords (presumably between composite application modeling and systems management)?
3. REST in practice for IT and Cloud management (part 2: configuration management)
4. Manageability, management integration and WS-Management
5. Exploring “IT management in a changing IT world”
6. IT management in a world of utility IT

But why stop at EC2 instances? If I can do it there, why can’t I do it at home? Considering how rarely my home desktop is booted to Windows, I would love to pay my Windows license in a metered way. It would basically be limited to time spent editing video and participating in family Skype videconference (at least until I manage to get Skype full screen video to work on Ubuntu).

After all, why only Amazon and not other Cloud providers. And when this happens, I think I may become a cloud provider myself. It would be a small-scale operation. One physical CPU (my desktop). And one user (me). I would meter my usage and dutifully pay Microsoft every month based on the number of hours during which I was running Windows.

How much would that be? Well, a Linux Small Standard Image EC2 instance (the closest thing to my aging desktop) costs $0.10 per hour. The Windows version costs $0.125 per hour, so the Windows license on this machine costs 2.5 cents per hour. On a given month, I don’t use it for more than 10 hours (edit/render one DVD plus a few hours on Skype). That’s 25 cents. Does Microsoft take Paypal? Is the Microsoft tax about to get more progressive?

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft manages to be flexible on server OS licensing (where it has plenty of competition) and while keeping its highly profitable (and unfairly front-loaded and restrictive) desktop OS licensing intact.

[UPDATED 2009/1/19: What do you know, here is a Microsoft patent for a "Metered Pay-As-You-Go Computing Experience", found through this article.]

Related posts:

1. Cloud + proprietary software = ♥
2. Windows XP Service Pack 3
3. Microsoft’s Bob Muglia opens the virtualized kimono
4. Native “SSH” on Windows via WS-Management
5. Exclusive! Mark Hurd pulls a Steve Jobs on Microsoft
6. Can I get a price check on this AMI?

But I do have something against their story being used to set the benchmark for infrastructure flexibility. For those who haven’t heard it five times already, the summary of “their story” is ramping up from 50 to 5000 machines in a week (according to the podcast). Or from 50 to 3500 (according to the this AWS blog entry). Whatever. If I auto-generate my load (which is mostly what they did when they decided to auto-create a custom video for each new user) I too can create the need for a thousands of machines.

This was probably a good business decision for Animoto. They got plenty of visibility at a low cost. Plus the extra publicity from being an EC2 success story (I for one would never have heard of them through their other channels). Good for them. Good for Amazon who made it possible. And who got a poster child out of it. Good for the facebookers who got to waste another 30 seconds of their time straining their eyes. Everyone is happy, no animal got hurt in the process, hurray.

That’s all good but it doesn’t mean that from now on any utility computing solution needs to support ramping up by a factor of 100 in a week. What if Animoto had been STD’ed (slashdoted, technoratied and dugg) at the same time as the Facebook burst, resulting in the need for 50,000 servers? Would 1,000 X be the new benchmark? What if a few of the sites that target the “lonely guy” demographic decided to use Animoto for… ok let’s not got there.

There are three types of user requirements. The Animoto use case is clearly not in the first category but I am not convinced it’s in the third one either.

1. The “pulled out of thin air” requirements that someone makes up on the fly to justify a feature that they’ve already decided needs to be there. Most frequently encountered in standards working groups.
2. The “it happened” requirements that assumes that because something happened sometimes somewhere it needs to be supported all the time everywhere.
3. The “it makes business sense” requirements that include a cost-value analysis. The kind that comes not from asking “would you like this” to a customer but rather “how much more would you pay for this” or “what other feature would you trade for this”.

When cloud computing succeeds (i.e. when you stop hearing about it all the time and, hopefully, we go back to calling it “utility computing”), it will be because the third category of requirements will have been identified and met. Best exemplified by the attitude of Tarus (from OpenNMS) in the latest Redmonk podcast (paraphrased): sure we’ll customize OpenNMS for cloud environments; as soon as someone pays us to do it.

Related posts:

1. Cloud computing: would you like flexibility with your simplicity?
2. Moving towards utility/cloud computing standards?
3. Waiting for events (in Cloud APIs)
4. Reality check on Cloud portability
5. Grid cloudification #2
6. REST in practice for IT and Cloud management (part 1: Cloud APIs)

A few early thoughts on all this:

• No offense to Forbes but I wouldn’t read too much into the article. Being Forbes, they get quotes from a list of well-known people/companies (Google and Amazon spokespeople, Forrester analyst, Nick Carr). But these quotes all address the generic idea of utility computing standards, not the specifics of Bert’s project.
• Saying that “several small cloud-computing firms including Elastra and Rightscale are already on board with 3Tera’s standards group” is ambiguous. Are they on-board with specific goals and a candidate specification? Or are they on board with the general idea that it might be time to talk about some kind of standard in the general area of utility computing?
• IEEE and W3C are listed as possible hosts for the effort, but they don’t seem like a very good match for this area. I would have thought of DMTF, OASIS or even OGF first. On the face of it, DMTF might be the best place but I fear that companies like 3Tera, Rightscale and Elastra would be eaten alive by the board member companies there. It would be almost impossible for them to drive their vision to completion, unlike what they can do in an OASIS working group.
• A new consortium might be an option, but a risky and expensive one. I have sometimes wondered (after seeing sad episodes of well-meaning and capable start-ups being ripped apart by entrenched large vendors in standards groups) why VCs don’t play a more active role in standards. Standards sound like the kind of thing VCs should be helping their companies with. VC firms are pretty used to working together, jointly investing in companies. Creating a new standard consortium might be too hard for 3Tera, but if the VCs behind 3Tera, Elastra and Rightscale got together and looked at the utility computing companies in their portfolios, it might make sense to join forces on some well-scoped standardization effort that may not otherwise be given a chance in existing groups.
• I hope Bert will look into the history of DCML, a similar effort (it was about data center automation, which utility computing is not that far from once you peel away the glossy pictures) spearheaded by a few best-of-bread companies but ignored by the big boys. It didn’t really take off. If it had, utility computing standards might now be built as an update/extension of that specification. Of course DCML started as a new consortium and ended as an OASIS “member section” (a glorified working group), so this puts a grain of salt on my “create a new consortium and/or OASIS group” suggestion above.
• The effort can’t afford to be disconnected from other standards in the virtualization and IT management domains. How does the effort relate to OVF? To WS-Management? To existing modeling frameworks? That’s the main draw towards DMTF as a host.
• What’s the open source side of this effort? As John mentions during the latest Redmonk/Willis IT management podcast (starting around minute 24), there needs to a open source side to this. Actually, John thinks all you need is the open source side. Coté brings up Eucalyptus. BTW, if you want an existing combination of standards and open source, have a look at CDDLM (standard) and SmartFrog (implementation, now with EC2/S3 deployment)
• There seems to be some solid technical raw material to start from. 3Tera’s ADL, combined with Elastra’s ECML/EDML, presumably captures a fair amount of field expertise already. But when you think of them as a starting point to standardization, the mindset needs to switch from “what does my product need to work” to “what will the market adopt that also helps my product to work”.
• One big question (at least from my perspective) is that of the line between infrastructure and applications. Call me biased, but I think this effort should focus on the infrastructure layer. And provide hooks to allow application-level automation to drive it.
• The other question is with regards to the management aspect of the resulting system and the role management plays in whatever standard specification comes out of Bert’s effort.

Bottom line: I applaud Bert’s efforts but I couldn’t sleep well tonight if I didn’t also warn him that “there be dragons”.

And for those who haven’t seen it yet, here is a very good document on the topic (but it is focused on big vendors, not on how smaller companies can play the standards game).

[UPDATED 2008/6/30: A couple hours after posting this, I see that Coté has just published a blog post that elaborates on his view of cloud standards. As an addition to the podcast I mentioned earlier.]

[UPDATED 2008/7/2: If you read this in your feed viewer (rather than directly on vambenepe.com) and you don't see the comments, you should go have a look. There are many clarifications and some additional insight from the best authorities on the topic. Thanks a lot to all the commenters.]

Related posts:

1. Cloud API: what’s cooking between IBM and VMWare?
2. Can Cloud standards be saved?
3. A pulp view of Cloud computing politics
4. Standards Disconnect at Cloud Connect
5. Introducing the Oracle Cloud API
6. DMTF calls the ball on Cloud standards

This is important, of course, for all the reasons that BMC, HP, Oracle and others have been explaining for a while (how often have you heard the word “alignment” over the last three years, compared to the previous thirty?). It’s becoming even more important now, as the options for IT sourcing (from the traditional “give it all to Unisys”, to SaaS, to running your own apps in a utility computing environment…) are multiplicating. Choosing between Intel and AMD CPUs in your datacenter is a technical decision, but choosing between an on-premise application, a SaaS application and running your application on EC2 is driven by business considerations of cost, risks, control, flexibility, etc. And it’s not just a one-time decision, it’s the day to day management that follows these decisions.

I don’t know much about the current ITM offering, but it was never clear to me how much they could deliver as a narrow layer, separate from the heavy-duty IT management stack (I can see how they would deliver financial and project management tools, but what about *really* linking day to day IT administration decisions to the business impact). Being part of BMC, presumably allowing deeper integration into real IT management operations, seems to make sense.

I just wish they didn’t make it sound so easy: “BMC’s purchase of ITM Software creates a unique, integrated solution that provides customers with a single comprehensive view into…”. So just signing the check creates the integration? Now I am going to get calls from our execs asking why it takes so much work to integrate acquired products, if BMC can do it the same day they sign the deal…

While I am at it, here is the press release that HP put out to list the announcements at their Software Universe conference this week. I notice that it’s all about new versions of ex-Mercury products. No OpenView, Peregrine or Opsware content, as far as I can tell. Without looking at it in more details I don’t know how different these new versions really are. What appears pretty new is the SaaS offering (also based on Mercury products) at the end of the press release. On the nitpicking side, can anyone tell me what these “static configuration management databases” are that are “unable to support the real-time needs of today’s complex technology environments”? I can see how a “static” database would be hard-pressed to help, but I haven’t noticed any vendor selling read-only config stores.

[UPDATED 2008/6/18: More details about the HP announcement at InfoWorld. Including quotes from my ex-boss Ramin. Congrats on getting UCMDB 7.5 out of the door!]

Related posts:

1. Bridging the gap between business and IT: application to software pricing
2. Did someone at EDS miss the memo?
3. Progress Software acquires IONA… and MindReef too
4. Oracle acquires mValent for application config management
5. Oracle acquires ClearApp for composite application management
6. Oracle acquires Amberpoint

The promise was published to address fears some people had that adopting Microsoft-created specifications (especially non-standard ones) would put them at risk of patent claims from Microsoft. The core of the promise is only two paragraphs long. The first one contains this section:

“To clarify, ‘Microsoft Necessary Claims’ are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification.”

That seams to pretty clearly state that only the required portions of a specification are covered by this promise. Which is a very significant limitation, as specifications often tend to (over-) use optional features. But if you read further, the list of “Covered Specifications” (those to which the promise applies), contains this statement:

“this Promise also applies to the required elements of optional portions of such specifications.”

I find this very puzzling because it seems to contradict the previous statement. And more importantly, it’s hard to understand what it really means. That’s where the fun starts:

For example, if my spec defines a document <a> with an optional element <b> that itself has an optional sub-element <c>, as in:

<a>
  ...
  <b>
    ...
    <c>...</c>
  </b>
</a>

The <b> element is a required part of the “b” optional portion of the spec (the portion of the spec that defines that element), so I guess it is covered, but is <c>? That’s an optional element of an optional portion (the “b” portion) of the spec, so it isn’t. Unless you consider the portion of the spec that defines <c> (the “c” portion of the spec) to be an optional portion of the spec itself. In which case the <c> element is covered.

But if you take that second line of reasoning, then everything in the spec is covered because for any feature, no matter how “optional” it is, there is a portion (optional or not) of the specification that describes this feature. And if you are implementing that portion, for example the portion that defines element <foo>, by definition element <foo> is required for it (how can an element not be a required part of its own definition?). But if Microsoft intended to cover all parts of the specification, why not say so rather than this recursion-inducing “required elements of optional portions” statement? And if not, why do they choose to only cover optional elements that are one degree removed from the base of the specification?

Wouldn’t it be fun to see a court of law deal with a suit that hinges on this statement (provided that you’re not a party in the suit, of course)?

When a real spec lawyer took a look at this promise, he didn’t comment on the second statement, the one that raises the most questions in my mind.

[UPDATED 2008/4/29: The "promise" has seen many updates. The original (which is the one Andy Updegrove reviewed at the previous link) came out on 2006/9/12. The one I reviewed is dated 2008/3/25. There is no change history on the Microsoft site, but the Wayback machine has archived some older versions. The oldest one I can find is dated 2006/10/23 and it does not contain the sentence about "required elements of optional portions" that puzzles me. So it's likely that the version Andy reviewed didn't include this either and as such was clearly limited to required portions of the specifications (something that Andy pointed out).]

Related posts:

1. Less is more: inventory of XPath subsets
2. Missing out on the OCCI fun
3. Commedia dell (stand)arte
4. WS-ResourceTransfer published
5. WS-Transfer, its WSDL and its WS-I compliance: the art of engineered uselessness
6. How not to re-use XML technologies

• After XBox this will take their focus further away from enterprise software. Good for Oracle.
• I wonder how my friends at Yahoo (none of which I know to be great fans of Microsoft’s software) feel about this (on the other hand the stock price rise can’t be too unpleasant for them)
• Time to get ready to move away from Yahoo Mail

Turns out I should have added an additional piece of good news to the first bullet: after this they won’t be able to afford SAP for a while. This I just realized after reading this New York Times column which argues, in short, that Microsoft should acquire SAP rather than Yahoo.

A few quotes from the article:

• “you’ve probably never heard of BEA“: this obviously doesn’t apply to readers of this blog.
• “it’s not much fun hanging out on the enterprise side of the software business“: ouch. If it’s fun you’re after, try the IT management segment of enterprise software business.
• “to find the best acquisition strategy, ask, ‘What would Larry do?’“: does this come as a bumper sticker?

Of course if Microsoft gets Yahoo and things go really badly, then it could be SAP who acquires Microsoft…

Related posts:

1. Loosening my coupling with Yahoo (excuse my SOA-speak)
2. SOA management: round-up of recent news
3. CA joining “Federated CMDB” effort
4. Sea, Services and Sun
5. System Center “Cross Platform Extension”: too many distractions
6. Oracle buys Virtual Iron

At my level of understanding of intellectual property law as it applies to the IT industry (I am not a lawyer, but I have spent a fair amount of time discussing the topic with them), this sounds like a good decision. But it is a tiny light in an ocean of darkness that creates so many opportunities for abuse. And the resulting fear prevents a lot of good work from happening. The second patent-related news item of the day (a patent reform bill driven by “major U.S. high-tech companies”) might do something to address the larger problem. Reducing damages, strengthening the post-grant review process and ending the “forum shopping” that sends most of these suits to Texas sounds like positive steps. All in all, I am more sympathetic to “major U.S. high-tech companies” (which include my current and former employers) than to patent trolls. At the same time, I have no illusion that “major U.S. high-tech companies” are out to watch for the best interest of entrepreneurs and customers.

Related posts:

1. Unhealthy fun with IP aspects of optionality in specifications
2. Someone is paying attention
3. Oedipus meets IT management?
4. Network World article about SML

As an IT management architect who is unfortunately unlikely to be in position to retire anytime soon (donations accepted for the send-William-to-retirement-on-a-beach fund) it forces me to wonder what IT management would look like in a world in which utility computing is a common reality.

First, these utility computing providers themselves will need plenty of IT management, if not necessarily the exact same kind that is being sold to enterprises today. You still need provisioning (automated of course). You definitely need access measuring and billing. Disaster recovery. You still have to deal with change planning, asset management and maybe portfolio management. You need processes and tools to support them. Of course you still have to monitor, manage SLAs, and pinpoints problems and opportunities for improvement. Etc. Are all of these a source of competitive advantage? Google is well-known for writing its infrastructure software (and of course also its applications) in house but there is no reason it should be that way, especially as the industry matures. Even when your business is to run a data center, not all aspects of IT management provide competitive differentiation. It is also very unclear at this point what the mix will be of utility providers that offer raw infrastructure (like EC2/S3) versus applications (like CRM as a service), a difference that may change the scope of what they would consider their crown jewels.

An important variable in determining the market for IT management software directed at utility providers is the number of these providers. Will there be a handful or hundreds? Many people seem to assume a small number, but my intuition goes the other way. The two main reasons for being only a handful would be regulation and infrastructure limitations. But, unlike with today’s utilities, I don’t see either taking place for utility computing (unless you assume that the network infrastructure is going to get vertically integrated in the utility data center offering). The more independent utility computing providers there are, the more it makes sense for them to pool resources (either explicitly through projects like the Collaborative Software Initiative or implicitly by buying from the same set of vendors) which creates a market for IT management products for utility providers. And conversely, the more of a market offering there is for the software and hardware building blocks of a utility computing provider, the lower the economies of scale (e.g. in software development costs) that would tend to concentrate the industry.

Oracle for one is already selling to utility providers (SaaS-type more than EC2-type at this point) with solutions that address scalability, SLA and multi-tenancy. Those solutions go beyond the scope of this article (they include not just IT management software but also databases and applications) but Oracle Enterprise Manager for IT management is also part of the solution. According to this Aberdeen report the company is doing very well in that market.

The other side of the equation is the IT management software that is needed by the consumers of utility computing. Network management becomes even more important. Identity/security management. Desktop management of some sort (depending on whether and what kind of desktop virtualization you use). And, as Microsoft reminds us with S+S, you will most likely still be running some software on-premises that needs to be managed (Carr agrees). The new, interesting thing is going to be the IT infrastructure to manage your usage of utility computing services as well as their interactions with your in-house software. Which sounds eerily familiar. In the early days of WSMF, one of the scenarios we were attempting to address (arguably ahead of the times) was service management across business partners (that is, the protocols and models were supposed to allow companies to expose some amount of manageability along with the operational services, so that service consumers would be able to optimize their IT management decision by taking into account management aspects of the consumed services). You can see this in the fact that the WSMF-WSM specification (that I co-authored and edited many years ago at HP) contains a model of a “conversation” that represents “set of related messages exchanged with other Web services” (a decentralized view of a BPEL instance, one that represents just one service’s view of its participation in the instance). Well, replace “business partner” with “SaaS provider” and you’re in a very similar situation. If my business application calls a mix of internal services, SaaS-type services and possibly some business partner services, managing SLAs and doing impact/root cause analysis works a lot better if you get some management information from these other services. Whether it is offered by the service owner directly, by a proxy/adapter that you put on your end or by a neutral third party in charge of measuring/enforcing SLAs. There are aspects of this that are “regular” SOA management challenges (i.e. that apply whenever you compose services, whether you host them yourself or not) and there are aspects (security, billing, SLA, compliance, selection of partners, negotiation) that are handled differently in the situation where the service is consumed from a third party. But by and large, it remains a problem of management integration in a word of composed, orchestrated and/or distributed applications. Which is where it connects with my day job at Oracle.

Depending on the usage type and the level of industry standardization, switching from one utility computing provider to the other may be relatively painless and easy (modify some registry entries or some policy or even let it happen automatically based on automated policies triggered by a price change for example) or a major task (transferring huge amounts of data, translating virtual machines from one VM format to another, performing in-depth security analysis…). Market realities will impact the IT tools that get developed and the available IT tools will in return shape the market.

Another intriguing opportunity, if you assume a mix of on-premises computing and utility-based computing, is that of selling back your spare capacity on the grid. That too would require plenty of supporting IT management software for provisioning, securing, monitoring and policing (coming soon to an SEC filing: “our business was hurt by weak sales of our flagship Pepsi cola drink, partially offset by revenue from renting computing power from our data center to the Coca cola company to handle their exploding ERP application volume”). I believe my neighbors with solar panels on their roofs are able to run their electric counter backward and sell power to PG&E when they generate more than they use. But I’ll stop here with the electric grid analogy because it is already overused. I haven’t read Carr’s book so the comment may be unfair, but based on extracts he posted and reviews he seems to have a hard time letting go of that analogy. It does a good job of making the initial point but gets tiresome after a while. Having personally experienced the Silicon Valley summer rolling black-outs, I very much hope the economics of utility computing won’t be as warped. For example, I hope that the telcos will only act as technical, not commercial intermediaries. One of the many problems in California is that the consumer don’t buy from the producers but from a distributor (PG&E in the Bay Area) who sells at a fixed price and then has to buy at pretty much any price from the producers and brokers who made a killing manipulating the supply during these summers. Utility computing is another area in which economics and technology are intrinsically and dynamically linked in a way that makes predictions very difficult.

For those not yet bored of this topic (or in search of a more insightful analysis), Redmonk’s Coté has taken a crack at that same question, but unlike me he stays clear of any amateurish attempt at an economic analysis. You may also want to read Ian Foster’s analysis (interweaving pieces of technology, standards, economy, marketing, computer history and even some movie trivia) on how these “clouds” line up with the “grids” that he and others have been working on for a while now. Some will see his post as a welcome reminder that the only thing really new in “cloud” computing is the name and others will say that the other new thing is that it is actually happening in a way that matters to more than a few academics and that Ian is just trying to hitch his jalopy to the express train that’s passing him. For once I am in the “less cynical” camp on this and I think a lot of the “traditional” Grid work is still very relevant. Did I hear “EC2 components for SmartFrog”?

[UPDATED 2008/6/30: For a comparison of "cloud" and "grid", see here.]

[UPDATED 2008/9/22: More on the Cloud vs. Grid debate: a paper critical of Grid (in the OGF sense of the term) efforts and Ian Foster's reply (reat the comments too).]

Related posts:

1. Moving towards utility/cloud computing standards?
2. Exploring “IT management in a changing IT world”
3. Where will you be when the Semantic Web gets Grid’ed?
4. Open Cloud Manifesto, circa 2004
5. Oedipus meets IT management?
6. Smoothing a discrete world