The Wisdom of Clouds

With a nod toward the heterogeneous application development environments that exist in most enterprise IT departments, IBM on Wednesday launched a pair of services targeted at building cloud applications.

The first, the IBM Smart Business Development and Test on the IBM Cloud, is a cloud service hosted in IBM's data centers that provides tools and interfaces designed to support developers using Java, .NET, and Open Source environments. This service provides computing and storage capacity, and support for WebSphere middleware, Rational Software Delivery Services, and its Information Management database. It also provides "pre-configured integrations" of some Rational services based on IBM's Jazz framework, its collaborative software platform.

There are no pre-configured integrations announced for third-party or open source tools or languages.

In addition to the Smart Business offering, IBM is adding private cloud-targeted tools and services to the IBM Rational Software Delivery Services for Cloud Computing offering. These tools and services target three key elements of the development and testing of cloud applications:

• Agile development services, aimed at enabling collaborative development and testing through a set of best practices.

• An integrated set of services for test management and planning and test lab management.

• Tools, such as IBM Rational Asset Manager, which are targeted at increasing the efficiency of distributed application development teams.

By combining the expertise gained by IBM's Global Services organizations and the Rational Lab Services team in building and delivering development and test tools and practices in IBM-based clouds, the company hopes to become a one-stop shop for companies looking for a solid return on investment from adopting the cloud model in development and test.

IBM Smart Business Development and Test on the IBM Cloud can be accessed as a free beta, and the IBM Rational Software Delivery Services for private clouds are also available in beta through the companies sales force.

Recent failures to protect consumer data stored on the Internet (aka "the cloud") point to an alarming gap between the value of that data and the care with which some vendors treat that data.

Microsoft subsidiary Danger failed to put in even adequate safeguards for its customers' data. Amazon Web Services failed to discover an obvious problem that kept a loyal customer down for 20 hours. Coghead's agreement to sell to SAP without any provisions to continue support for existing customers.

(Credit: DB King/Flickr)

The truth is that cloud computing means that now, more than ever, IT operations is a profession that has a very real economic and quality-of-life effect on its consumers--in very many ways much like health care or the law. I think it's time we hold ourselves as individual and organizations to similar standards that we expect from doctors, lawyers, and law enforcement. Our ethics must reflect an understanding of the responsibility we are being granted by the rest of society.

The instances above are examples of companies failing to follow well-known professional protocols, or putting the needs of the business ahead of the needs of the client. Heck, look at just about any cloud operator's terms of service, and you see paragraph after paragraph of text that basically states, "If something goes wrong, you can't blame us."

I think its time to change this attitude. I see a couple of options, neither of which I love, to achieve this. I'd love to hear from some innovative thinkers on others.

1. Pass "cloud consumer protection" laws. This was something that was briefly explored after I wrote my "Cloud Computing Bill of Rights" post in August of 2008. However, the folks who got involved at that time weren't a) vendors or b) policymakers, so we didn't get far.

   The biggest issue with using the law to enforce professional culpability is that it requires government bureaucracy for enforcement. That bureaucracy doesn't exist today, and would be expensive to create.

2. Allow for "cloud malpractice" suits. Oh, I know, I know. Most of you in the IT profession are squirming in your chairs right now, ready to jump down my throat about how medical malpractice has created as many problems as it has solved. Again, I don't love this option, either.

   However, if Danger had lost arguably hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of data (or more) because it didn't tangibly fear the reprisals that would come if it lost it, it would be nice to see a big ol' sledgehammer of justice ready to rain down. I'm sorry, but failure to follow known professional practices is malpractice, and malpractice suits exist to punish those who forget that.

Let me reemphasize that I don't love either option, but I do know something has to change. The public is placing an extremely high level of trust on "cloud" services, and there has to be more than the simple threat of loss of revenue to reflect this. What do you think? Is it time to wield a big stick with respect to cloud service operations, or will the natural evolution of the market do the job for us?

To date, this series has tried to guide you through the changes happening from the infrastructure, developer, and end user perspectives that signal the demise of the full-featured server operating system and the virtual server. Virtualization, and the large scale, multi-tenant operations model we know and love as "cloud computing," are enabling IT professionals to rethink the packaging, delivery, and operation of software functionality in extremely disruptive--and beneficial--ways.

(Credit: Wonderlane)

So, what does this mean to the future of information technology? How will the role of IT, and the roles within IT, change as a result of the changing landscape of the technology it administers? What new applications--and resulting markets--are enabled by the "big rethink"?

Here are just a few of my own observations on this topic:

1. Software packaging will be application focused, not server focused. As anyone who has deployed a distributed application in the last two decades can tell you, the focus of system deployment has been the server, not the application, for some time now. In the highly customized world of IT systems development before virtualization and the cloud, servers were acquired, software was installed upon the servers in very specific ways, and the entire package was managed and monitored largely from the perspective of the server (e.g. what processes are running, how much CPU is being used, etc.).

   As OS functionality begins to get wrapped into application containers, or moved onto the hardware circuitry itself, the packaging begins to be defined in terms of application architecture, with monitoring happening from the perspective of software services and interfaces rather than the server itself. These packages can then be moved around within data centers, or even among them, and the focus of management will remain on the application.

   That's not to say that no one will be watching the hardware. Infrastructure operations will always be a key function within data centers. However, outside of the data center operations team, it will matter less and less.

2. Enterprise IT will begin to bend enterprise and solutions architectures to align better with what is offered from the cloud. I may not agree with some that the cloud will stifle differentiation in software systems, but one thing is very true.

   As end users select software-as-a-service applications to run core pieces of their business, meet integration and operations needs from the cloud, and generally move from systems providers to service providers, the need to reduce customization will be strong. This is both to reduce costs and strengthen system survivability in the face of constant feature changes on the underlying application system.

3. The changing relationship between software and hardware will result in new organizational structures within the IT department. When it comes to IT operations--specifically data center operations--we've generally lived with administrative groups divided along server, storage, and network lines from before the dawn of client-server application architectures.

   This organization, however, is an artifact of a time when applications were tightly coupled to the hardware on which they were deployed. In such a static deployment model, expertise was needed to customize these technologies in pursuit of meeting specific service-level goals.

   When you decouple software deployment from underlying hardware, it begins to allow for a re-evaluation of these operational roles. Today, most companies are already in a transition in this respect, with increasing reliance on roles like "virtualization administrator" and "operations specialist" to fulfill changing needs.

4. The changing landscape of software development platforms will result in new philosophies of software architecture, deployment, and operations. I'm thinking here primarily of two things.

   First, agility will become king in large-scale systems development for classes of applications ranging from web applications to data processing to core business systems. Agility from the service provider's perspective, in the frequency in which they can release features and fixes. Agility from the perspective of the enterprise developer, through the ways in which they can rapidly iterate over the write-build-test cycle. Agility from the perspective of the entrepreneur, in that data center services are now a credit card away.

   Second, I think project management, whether for commercial offerings or for custom enterprise applications, will see rapid change. Agile programming and project management methods make a ton of sense in the cloud, as do service-oriented approaches to software and systems architecture. Project managers wondering what cloud computing will do to their day-to-day jobs should consider what happens if development can outpace a Gant chart.

5. The need for tactical systems administrators will be reduced. I've written about this in the past, but the tactical system administrator--the man or woman who grabs a trouble ticket from the top of the queue, takes care of the request, closes the ticket, then takes the next ticket from the queue--is going to largely (though probably not entirely) go away.

   Why? Automation. Most of the tasks such an admin does day to day are highly automatable: provisioning, failure recovery, scaling, infrastructure management and so on. These administrators are among the last "clerks" in business, and a result of the unfortunate fact that IT has been excellent at automating everything in business--except IT.

   Where tactical systems administration will still be needed, however, is in what I like to call the "private cloud operations center," a concept similar to the network operations centers that exist in many Fortune 500 companies today. There, the administrator would monitor overall performance of applications running in the cloud (on both internal and external resources), as well as monitoring the performance of the cloud providers themselves.

There are a lot more forward-thinking thoughts that you and I could probably come up with when we think of the demise of traditional IT in favor of a lean, tight, cloud-oriented IT model. However, the great thing about being involved in cloud today is that the ground is shifting so fast, that I find myself changing many of the long-term predictions I made last year. I wouldn't presume to be able to see the future clearly in the face of cloud computing, but many of the key drivers are already out there.

The trick is to be open-minded about what you see, and to be willing to "rethink"...big.

So far in this series, I've described why the very form of application infrastructure delivery will change in the coming years, and why both infrastructure and software development will play a major role in that. These are powerful forces that are already at work, and you are already seeing their effects on the way enterprise IT and consumer Web applications are being operated.

There is one more key force that will change the way we acquire, build, and consume enterprise application functionality and data, however. It is the very reason that enterprise IT exists. I am speaking, of course, of the users--the business units and individuals that demand IT give them increased productivity and competitive advantage.

How is it that end users could affect cloud-based architectures? After all, isn't one of the key points about cloud computing that it hides infrastructure and operations from hosted applications and services? The answer is simple: the need for cloud-operated infrastructure comes from the need for more efficient application delivery and operations, which in turn comes from the accelerated need for new software functionality driven by end users.

The most obvious place where this is the case is software as a service. Cloud applications and services that fall under this category are targeted at end users; they deliver computing and storage functionality that meet specific business needs (such as customer relationship management (CRM) or application development and testing).

Here's the thing about most business applications, though, regardless of how they are delivered: they are almost never used out of the box, as is, without some form of customization. I worked for a short time at enterprise content management vendor, Alfresco, and I don't think there were any "as is" deployments. Every engagement involved customization.

For CRM vendor Salesforce.com, the evidence is the importance and success of its Force.com cloud development platform, as well as its AppExchange marketplace. Both allow users to customize or extend Salesforce.com for their needs, and even build new business applications that leverage customer data.

The result of this is that the cloud itself must be not only elastic, but agile. It must bend at all levels to the will of its users, and the degree and ease of configuring and customizing will quickly become competitive differentiators for vendors in all categories of cloud computing.

What are the best ways to accommodate this agility at scales large enough to meet the needs of cloud computing? Well, today that would be two technologies:

• Virtualization--the abstraction of computing, storage, and networking resources from underlying infrastructure
• Automation--the elimination of the need for human intervention in common, repeatable tasks and decisions

Now, if you are going to virtualize and automate infrastructure in support of a customization of a SaaS application, do you need an entire virtual server with a full featured operating system? Of course not. In fact, I would argue that you need least-common-denominator systems infrastructure to enable the customization to work. Otherwise you are creating unnecessary storage and computing baggage.

I think in many ways only the cloud-computing model enables this degree of efficiency in running customized business systems for end users. Because the service vendors (be it software, platform, or infrastructure services) are able to optimize for all customers at once, a given advancement in efficiency pays off much more (and much faster) for the service provider than it would for a single customer. Multi-tenancy is what makes the economics work for both the business user and the service provider.

My next and final post in the series will attempt to wrap all of this up, and to present a vision of what the cloud of the future may look like when the evolution and/or demise of the operating system and virtual server is complete. Though I harbor no illusions about it happening all at once, or being a pain-free transition, I, for one, am excited about the new technologies this future may enable. I hope you are, too.

In the second part of this series, I took a look at how cloud computing and virtualization will drive homogenization of data center infrastructure over time, and how that is a contributing factor to the adoption of "just enough" systems software. That, in turn, will signal the beginning of the end for the traditional operating system, and in turn, the virtual server.

However, this change is not simply being driven by infrastructure. There is a much more powerful force at work here as well--a force that is emboldened by the software-centric aspects of the cloud computing model. That force is the software developer.

Let me explain. Almost 15 years ago, I went to work for a start-up that was trying to change the way distributed software applications were developed forever. The company was Forte Software, since acquired by Sun (itself soon to be acquired by Oracle), and its CTO, Paul Butterworth, and his team were true visionaries when it came to service-oriented software development (pre-"SOA"), event-driven systems, and business process automation.

What I remember most about Forte's flagship product, a fourth-generation language programming environment and distributed systems platform, was the developer experience:

• Write and test your application on a single machine, naming specific instances of objects that would act as services for the rest of the application.

• Once the application executed satisfactorily on one system, use a GUI to drag the named instances to a map of the servers on your network, and push a single button to push the bits, execute the various services, and test the application.

• Once the application tested satisfactorily, create a permanent partitioning map of the application, and push a single button to distribute the code, generate and compile C++ from the 4GL if needed, and run the application.

This experience was amazingly productive. The only thing it could have used was automation of the partitioning step (with runtime determination of scale, etc.), and the ability to get capacity for the application dynamically from a shared pool. (The latter was technically possible if you used a single Forte environment to run all of the applications that would share the pool, but there still would be no automation of operations.)

I have spent the last 10 years trying to re-create that experience. I also believe most distributed systems developers (Web or otherwise) are looking for the same. This is why I am so passionate about cloud computing, and why I think developers--or, perhaps more to the point, solutions architects--will gain significant decision making power over future IT operations.

I look at it this way: if an end user is looking for an IT service, such as customer relationship management, a custom Web application, or even a lot of servers and storage for an open-source data processing framework, there is almost always something that takes the knowledge and skills of someone who can create, compose, integrate, or configure software systems to meet those needs.

Furthermore, there remains a lot of reliance by nontechnical professionals on their technical counterparts to determine how computing can solve a particular problem. For the most part, in most corporate and public sector settings, the in-house IT department has traditionally been the only choice for any large-scale computing need.

Until recently, if a business unit hired a technologist to look for alternatives to internal IT, the costs of any other "IT-as-a-service" offering (outsourcing, service bureaus, etc.) was extremely expensive and would immediately have to be rationalized against internal IT--usually to the detriment of the alternative. On top of that, all of those alternatives required long-term commitments, so "trying things out" wasn't really an option.

The economics of the cloud change things dramatically. Now the cost of those services are cheap, can be born for very short periods of time, and can all be put on a credit card and expensed. A business unit can go a long way to proving the economic advantages of a cloud-based alternative to internal IT before their budget is significantly impacted.

Developers are increasingly choosing alternative operations models to internal IT, and will continue to do so while the opportunity is there. Internal IT ultimately has to choose between competing with public clouds, providing services that embrace them, or both.

(There are often reasons why internal IT can and should provide alternatives to public cloud computing services. See just about the entire debate over the validity of private clouds.)

So, how does the cloud accommodate and attract software developers? I believe the key will be the development experience itself; key elements like productivity, flexibility, types and strength of services, and so on will be critical to cloud providers.

We need more development tools that are cloud focused (or cloud extensions to the ones we have). We need more of an ecosystem around Ruby on Rails and Java, currently the two most successful open development languages in the cloud, or innovative new approaches to cloud development. We need to tighten up the development and testing experience of PaaS options like Google App Engine, making things "flow" as seamlessly as possible.

We need more IaaS providers to think like Amazon Web Services. We always hold up AWS as the shining light of Infrastructure as a Service, but the truth is that they are actually a cloud platform that happens to have compute and storage services in their catalog. How much more powerful is AWS with other developer-focused services, such as DevPay, Simple Queue Service, and Elastic Map Reduce? This attracts developers, which in turn attracts CPU/hrs and GB/hrs.

How does all of this affect the virtual server and operating system, the topic of this series? Well, if the application developer is getting more services directly from the development platform, what is the need for a bevy of advanced services in the operating system? And if that platform is capable of hiding the infrastructure used to distribute application components--or even hide the fact that the application is distributed altogether--then why use something that represents a piece of infrastructure to package the bits?

Next in the series, I want to consider the role of the business users themselves in rethinking enterprise architectures. In the meantime, you can check out part 1 of this series about how cloud computing will change the way we deliver distributed applications and services; and part 2 about how server virtualization is evolving.

I'm one of many who believe this week's announcement of Apps.gov--a portal targeted at reducing the cost and effort for public agencies to acquire cloud services--is forcing all of IT to face the economics of cloud computing.

Apps.gov, a federal government initiative out of the General Services Administration, demonstrates several concepts that have been the dream of many private enterprise IT departments for some time, but have been successfully executed by very few. Here are the five trends that I think Apps.gov demonstrates, and why you should pay attention:

1. The IT service catalog. For years, business managers--sick of the bureaucracy inherent in most service provisioning processes--have imagined a world in which they could select desired IT services from a catalog and click a button to complete the transaction. This Amazon-like service acquisition experience has many appealing advantages over process-heavy provisioning processes.

   For one thing, it demonstrates the power of applying superior consumer Web experiences to traditionally human IT processes. However, it also enables--heck, encourages--agencies to explore and validate the cost savings that are purported to be inherent in cloud computing.

   This should be great news to IT service catalog vendors like NewScale and the like. When CEOs see the App.gov interface--rightly or wrongly--many will wonder why they can't give their organization the same experience.

2. Core categories of service from an end user's perspective. One of the things that greatly simplifies the home page for Apps.gov is the simple four-category breakdown of cloud service offerings. This makes it much less intimidating for users to go exploring to see what they can find and gives vendors an opportunity to consider how to best position their offerings.

   What the categories are is "Business Apps", "Produtivity Apps", "Cloud IT Services," and "Social Media Apps."

   What they aren't is "SaaS," "PaaS," and "IaaS" (the so-called "SPI" model). While the latter categorizations helps technologists classify the types and audiences of various cloud services, they mean nothing to most end users of those services (especially SaaS services).

   I will be the first to admit that categorization of anything as complex as the IT market is difficult, if not impossible. But my initial experience with this site tells me these groupings aren't too bad. I would expect to hear more IT organizations and vendors talking about service delivery in these terms instead of the SPI model.

3. Automation and/or removal of bureaucracy. This to me is perhaps the most intriguing thing about Apps.gov. When federal CIO Vivek Kundra announced Apps.gov this week, he noted that the site is largely aimed at removing the costs for each agency to acquire cloud services. He gave the example of the Transportation Safety Administration, which was looking to add blogging capabilities to its IT portfolio. The estimated cost to taxpayers: $650,000. Kundra pointed out that consumers can get blogs for free.

   I see two ways bureaucracy is removed through cloud computing and Apps.gov. First, automation will eliminate many of the manual processes that have to be put in place to manage the volume of service requests most agencies experience. Second, the removal of redundant approvals, certifications, price negotiations, service level agreement negotiations, and so on will take out tremendous waste in an organization as large as the federal government.

   Both of these practices can be applied to commercial IT infrastructure as well, and I expect to see many companies watching and learning from the government's experience.

4. "Adopt at your own pace" mentality. Another common mistake made by many enterprises is to look for magic bullets that solve budget, agility, or performance problems. Chuck Hollis, EMC's CTO of global marketing, once told me he sees three ways that companies can move toward the cloud: they can try to move all legacy infrastructure into a cloud model at once, they can put an ultimatum in place that demands that all new work be done in the cloud, or they can experiment with "baby clouds"--small, noncritical projects that can prove both capability and economy, thus rationalizing a steady expansion into more critical application domains.

   I believe that the federal government is in fact taking the third approach, allowing agencies to see what is available, but to adopt those services at their own pace. That's not to say the White House won't put incentives and guidance into future budgets to encourage adoption. In fact, Kundra confirmed that this is indeed the case. However, there is no "mandate" that punishes an agency for working at its own pace and rationalizing its adoption as it goes.

5. Cloud is not defined by who runs it, but by the service provided. Kundra also noted that the government will always run its own infrastructure for some workloads and some data sets, whether for national security or due to the sensitivity of the data. The federal government will build its own clouds, and those clouds will in time be available through Apps.gov. The public sector is one space where the future of private cloud computing is assured.

   I will concede that the U.S. government is practically an IT marketplace in and of itself, but it is surprisingly similar to many industries that must deal with sensitive data, such as the payment card industry, health care, or military manufacturing. As the feds find that balance of public, private, and hybrid cloud services, you'd better believe that the private sector will follow.

Kundra is no slouch. He understands that a transition to cloud computing is a long-term technology goal for, not only Obama's administration, but likely the administration that follows. He also knows that this is a rare opportunity for the federal government to set an example for private industry in no uncertain terms--an example that may go a long way to ensuring the United States sets an example for the rest of the world.

One of the most interesting aspects of the weeks leading up to and including this year's VMWorld was the incredible innovation in cloud-computing service offerings for enterprises--especially in the category of infrastructure as a service. A variety of service providers are stepping up their cloud offerings, and giving unprecedented capabilities to their customer's system administrators.

In this category, enterprises are most concerned about security, control, service levels, and compliance; what I call the "trust" issues. Most of the new services attempt to address some or all of these issues head on. Given that this is the infancy of enterprise cloud computing, I think these services bode well for what is coming in the next year or two.

Here is a brief analysis of the offerings that recently caught my eye:

1. Amazon Web Services Virtual Private Cloud: There is no doubt that the smart people at Amazon continue to innovate at a breathtaking pace. The last three years have seen a whirlwind of new and upgraded services, ranging from storage and server capacity, to payment processing and content delivery.

   Amazon's new Virtual Private Cloud offering is just another example of how they listen to their customers when they build solutions. Not so much unique and innovative, as a near perfect execution of a simple solution to a raft of thorny problems, Amazon's VPC service is essentially a powerful VPN gateway which allows Amazon services to be added to the customer's network.

   Now, this doesn't directly address security, compliance, or service levels, but it gives enterprise customers a level of control over network configuration that was previously unavailable from Amazon, which in turn enables the customer greater latitude to address those issues.

2. Savvis "Project Spirit": Available in beta "by the end of this year," Savvis's Project Spirit adheres to a "Virtual Private Data Center (VPDC)" concept very similar to the Virtual Data Center vision espoused by Sun. In a video providing an overview of the service, Savvis indicates that Project Spirit provides three tiers of service, each with an increasing set of capabilities and improved quality of service (QoS).

   The video demonstrates wizard-based provisioning and drag-and-drop resource topology design, both of which are similar to features from GoGrid and Sun, though perhaps a little more aligned with the latter than the former.

   What I like about Project Spirit is its sense of configurability; something that I think has been missing from many IaaS offerings to date.

3. Terremark vCloud Express: Terremark is one of the first out of the gate with a basic "one server at a time" offering based on VMWare's vCloud Express infrastructure. Targeted at the same users who find Amazon's EC2 so easy to use, the service is meant as a simple, low-risk way for customers to acquire compute capacity.

   In a video recorded at VMWorld, Simon West, Terremark's VP of marketing, demonstrates provisioning a server in the service. Like other services in its class, it focuses on allowing you to select a server image from a menu of possibilities, click a button, and boot the resulting server in a few minutes. Pricing starts at $.036/hr for a 1 "VPU," 0.5GB server, but as Chris Flex of Citrix Systems notes in a blog post, Terremark charges differently than Amazon, so the CPU cost does not necessarily reflect cheaper overall operation costs.

   Terremark's new service complements its existing Enterprise Cloud service, which is targeted at larger, more sophisticated infrastructure needs.

4. OpSource Cloud: Hosting vendor, OpSource, is taking a more network-centric approach toward cloud definition, similar to the "subnets" that Amazon allows customers to create in its VPC offering. The OpSource cloud is in pre-beta now, with an October target for "public release." When the OpSource team demonstrated their user interface to me, they showed me a metaphor that begins with the definition of a "network," which is an isolated through custom routing capabilities at the OpSource data centers.

   Each network comes with eight public IP addresses (more can be added), and you can add resources such as servers, storage, and firewalls as you see fit. You can also create as many networks as you'd like for each account.

Obviously, there are many more offerings like these in the market today. However, it is interesting to note that the common theme here seems to be security, either through "isolation" via networking, and/or through the availability of enterprise-class firewalls, load balancers, and the like. The expansion of virtual data center offerings is also interesting, as I think it shows the early growth of what will likely be the true enterprise cloud-computing space.

Access control and user account management was a little sketchy in most of the services I saw, although some showed real promise.

However, one has to wonder as application architectures adjust to cloud computing, how much longer they are going to be tightly coupled to data center architectures. At what point will it no longer be advantageous for application owners to define infrastructure in terms of servers, storage, and security devices?

That being said, the independence of distributed applications from underlying architecture is a long way off, even from the enterprise perspective. I expect that by this time next year, we will see a stable of very strong enterprise public cloud offerings, with support for various compliance standards, sophisticated networking, and cloud-centric security services and technologies.

This is just the beginning of a long evolution, folks.

(Credit: James Martin/CNET)

SAN FRANCISCO--The claim has been made in the last couple of weeks that cloud computing has reached the top of analyst firms' famous hype cycle and is a top-of-mind issue for most IT organizations.

That's a bit misleading, as the interest in cloud computing is often taken out of context, and when you bring virtualization into the picture, that interest seems to remain exploratory rather than strategic.

Amazing innovation is happening in both public- and private-cloud offerings, and the overwhelmingly positive response to cloud computing--in particular to Amazon's top-notch Elastic Compute Cloud, Simple Storage Service, and related offerings, as well as Google Apps and the first generation of software-as-a-service superstars, such as Salesforce.com.

But the critical truth--that interest in virtualization technologies currently outweighs interest in the cloud-computing model--has been evident at trade shows I've attended over the the last several months targeting subjects ranging from networking to next-generation data centers to cloud computing itself, and it has hit home here at VMworld this week. The bottom line is that virtualization is where the money is this summer; cloud computing isn't.

Technology trends follow the patterns described by the science of complex adaptive systems. There is constant change and mutation, and there is a feedback loop that encourages stronger innovations to survive and grow while killing weaker ones, yet somehow, the system maintains a working balance that doesn't get too chaotic to manage or too ordered to allow innovation.

As with any complex adaptive system, traits that eventually come to dominate the system tend to start small: a single mutation, or the introduction of a small number of invasive foreign entities, for example. In the case of the "invasive" cloud computing model, the "DNA" is strong.

Amazon Web Services proves that you can get your infrastructure over the Internet. Salesforce.com proves you can run your business relationships through a browser. Both public and private clouds introduce flexibility and efficiency into IT services.

Cloud-computing bellwethers
Cloud computing is definitely in your future, in one form or another. It probably already plays a strong role in your day-to-day computing experience. That said, when you measure audiences at technology trade shows such as Cisco Live and Interop, you see where the real interest of the everyday IT professional is. At VMworld, the audiences at virtualization-related sessions have been consistently larger than those at cloud-centric sessions.

Recent cloud-only conferences have remained quite small--typically in the tens or hundreds of participants--in comparison to their brethren, and cloud-focused sessions at larger shows have been attended by fewer people their virtualization peers. Several of my cloud-focused colleagues have even noted that some shows end up with the same vendors pitching to each other over and over again.

Without a doubt, this is simply an indication of the current stage in which we find ourselves in the long evolution from internal data centers to cloud-centric operations. The ratio of interest will change (or, more appropriately, converge). But if you want to get into the head of most IT tech geeks today, you need to address the subject of virtualization first, then acknowledge cloud computing as a future target.

The best evidence I can personally attest to are the breakout sessions and panels in which I've participated. I have been giving two basic talks this summer, one focused on cloud computing's future ("Achieving the Intercloud"), and one about the journey from virtualization to cloud computing. Without a doubt, sessions with the term "virtualization" in the title have seen the best attendance, whether measured by room capacity or interaction after the talk.

Transitions ahead
What does that mean to the average cloud enthusiast? Well, for one thing, it remains important to see cloud computing as a transition--an operations model that requires addressing technology and cultural issues before widespread adoption. The good news here? Current trends in virtualization, automation, and early cloud offerings are forcing most of those issues to be faced head-on.

It also highlights how much work is ahead of us in helping those responsible for application operations see the value in cloud environments. This education will be greatly accelerated this year, thanks to the amazing work that customers large and small are doing, especially in public clouds. However, it will also require technologies that address the concerns that many have about moving virtualized workloads into someone else's infrastructure.

I'm betting that at this time next year (or the following year, at the latest), most of the convergence of virtualization and cloud interest will have happened, with the exception of the continued interest that service providers and enterprise data center operators will have in the physical infrastructure and management systems needed to provide cloud services.

It will be harder and harder to tell the difference between a talk discussing how to manage an application running in a virtual machine and one discussing how to manage a cloud workload. Many management vendors will demonstrate tools that manage virtualization (such as VMware vSphere) and public cloud services (especially Amazon's EC2 and S3) at the same time, with the same interfaces. Long lines will be form for topics that will have little to do with who owns the infrastructure or how it is paid.

At that point, the decoupling of physical infrastructure management and virtual workload management will nearly be complete--and the cloud-computing DNA will really begin to take over.

On the third anniversary of its Elastic Compute Cloud launch, Amazon Web Services late Tuesday announced a new service, the Virtual Private Cloud.

Targeted at customers with existing IT investments, the Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) service provides a way for companies to create a logically separated set of Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) instances and a secure VPN connection to their own networks.

Amazon Web Services illustrates how the Virtual Private Cloud functions.

(Credit: Amazon.com)

Jeff Barr, Amazon Web Services strategist, said in a blog that the service requires three elements: a VPC instance, an IPSec VPN gateway, and a block of IP addresses provided by the customer. The VPC's address space can range from 16 addresses (known to network administrators as a /28 address range) to 16,384 addresses (a /18 address range), and the addresses can be divided up into subnets to further partition traffic.

All Internet-bound traffic is routed through the customer's network and outbound security systems before reaching the public network, Barr said.

Amazon.com Chief Technology Officer Werner Vogels described in a blog Amazon's vision for the service:

(CIOs) have bought into the cloud as a target for a significant portion of their services, as the benefits are too obvious to ignore, and most expect that their transition will be a continuous process. They would accelerate the adoption of cloud services if they could access a form of cloud that would give them the best of both worlds: the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of accessing a virtually infinite pool of resources without owning it, while being able to integrate those resources into their existing datacenter environments such that they could continue to leverage existing investments in their management and control infrastructure...

We have developed Amazon Virtual Private Cloud (Amazon VPC) to allow our customers to seamlessly extend their IT infrastructure into the cloud while maintaining the levels of isolation required for their enterprise management tools to do their work.

Not all Amazon Web Services capabilities are supported in Amazon VPC at the start, such as Amazon EC2 security groups, DevPay AMIs, and Internet-facing IP addresses. The VPN service has been tested with equipment from Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks.

VPC pricing is based on a $0.05 hourly charge for VPN access, plus a cost for data transfer into and out of the connection, ranging from $0.10/GB to $0.17/GB. Charges for other Amazon Web Services, including Amazon EC2, are billed separately at Amazon's standard rates.