As some of you know, I’ve recently joined Bright Computing.
Last week, I attended Bio-IT World 2013 in Boston. Bright had an excellent show – lots of great conversations, and even an award!
During numerous conversations, the notion of extending on-site IT infrastructure into the cloud was raised. Bright has an excellent solution for this.
What also emerged during the conversations were two uses for this extension of local IT resources via the cloud. I thought this was worth capturing and sharing. You can read about the use cases I identified over “On the Bright side …“
The following message just arrived in my inbox:
From: “Jott Networks”
Date: February 13, 2008 1:39:32 PM GMT-05:00
To: ian DOT lumb AT gmail DOT com
Subject: Canadian Local Numbers Announced
Reply-To: feedback AT jott DOT comHi everyone,
We are happy to announce that Canadian local numbers are finally here!
As most of you know, we have had a Toronto Jott number (647-724-5814) for some time and have been working on acquiring more local numbers across Canada.
Still confused as to why we are not releasing a toll free number? Jott requires caller ID to know who is sending a Jott to what contact information. In an effort to protect your privacy, most Canadian mobile providers have blocked caller ID information from being passed to toll free numbers. This leaves the alternative of using local access numbers across the country, so that everyone can send Jott messages without having to pay long distance fees.
Below is the list of available Jott numbers in Canada. Find the number in your area code and program it to your speed dial today!
AURORA : +12898020110
CALGARY : +14037751288
EDMONTON : +17806287799
HALIFAX : +19024828120
HAMILTON : +19054819060
KITCHENER : +15199572711
LONDON : +15194898968
MARKHAM : +12898000110
MONTREAL : +15146670329
OTTAWA : +16136861502
QUEBEC CITY : +14189072209
SAINT JOHNS : +17097570047
SHERBROOKE : +18193401636
TORONTO : +16477245365
TORONTO : +14168001067
VANCOUVER : +17787868229
VANCOUVER : +16044841347
VICTORIA : +12509847093
WINDSOR : +15198000031
WINNIPEG : +12042728154
Brought to you by Jott.com – 1-866-JOTT-123
300 East Pike Street, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98122
Click here to stop receiving emails like this.
This is excellent news!
And just in case this is your first visit to my blog, you can read other Jott-related posts here.
If what I’ve been reading over the past few days has any validity to it at all, there will continue to be increasing interest in cyberinfrastructure (CI). Moreover, this interest will come from an increasingly broader demographic.
At this point, you might be asking yourself what, exactly, is cyberinfrastructure. The Atkins Report defines CI this way:
The term infrastructure has been used since the 1920s to refer collectively to the roads, power grids, telephone systems, bridges, rail lines, and similar public works that are required for an industrial economy to function. … The newer term cyberinfrastructure refers to infrastructure based upon distributed computer, information, and communication technology. If infrastructure is required for an industrial economy, then we could say that cyberinfrastructure is required for a knowledge economy. [p. 5]
[Cyberinfrastructure] can serve individuals, teams and organizations in ways that revolutionize what they can do, how they do it, and who participates. [p. 17]
If this definition leaves you wanting, don’t feel too bad, as anyone whom I’ve ever spoken to on the topic feels the same way. What doesn’t help is that the Atkins Report, and others I’ve referred to below, also bandy about terms like e-Science, Grid Computing, Service Oriented Architectures (SOAs), etc. Add to these newer terms such as Cooperative Computing, Network-Enabled Platforms plus Cell Computing and it’s clear that the opportunity for obfuscation is about all that’s being guaranteed.
Consensus on the inadequacy of the terminology aside, there is also consensus that this is a very exciting time with very interesting possibilities.
So where, pragmatically, does this leave us?
Until we collectively sort out the terminology, my suggestion is that the time is ripe for immediate immersion in what cyberinfrastructure and the like might feel like or are. In other words, I highly recommend reviewing the sources cited below in order:
- The Wikipedia entry for cyberinfrastructure – A great starting point with a number of references that is, of course, constantly updated.
- The Atkins Report – The NSF’s original CI document.
- Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery – A slightly more concrete update from the NSF as of March 2007.
- Community-specific content – There is content emerging on the intersection between CI and specific communities, disciplines, etc. These frontiers are helping to better define the transformative aspects and possibilities for CI in a much-more concrete way.
Frankly, it’s a bit of a slog to wade through all of this content for a variety of reasons …
Ultimately, however, I believe it’s worth the undertaking at the present time as the possibilities are very exciting.
While perusing my blog’s WordPress stats recently, I noticed that my opinion piece on the creation of the Open Grid Forum (OGF) was receiving interest.
On Googling “open grid forum”, my GRIDtoday article rated as the number three result. In first place was the OGF’s Web site itself, and in second place a breaking news article on the OGF in GRIDtoday. Not bad, given that Google reports some 17.7 million results (!) for that combination.
This prompted me to Google “open grid forum lumb”. Not surprisingly, my GRIDtoday article rated first out of some 822 results. Following four results pointing to my blog, and one more to a Tabor Communications’ teaser, is the seventh result:
[gfac] FW: Final OGF Coverage Report
Harris also discusses a cynical article contributed by Ian Lumb of York University (formerly of Platform Computing Inc.), “Open Grid Forum: Necessary…but …
http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/gfac/2006-July/000171.html – 12k – Cached – Similar pages – Note this
Somewhere between “… cynical article …”, and a subject line that belies an internal communication, my attention was grabbed!
So I clicked on the link and received back: “The requested URL /pipermail/gfac/2006-July/000171.html was not found on this server.” Darn!
Then I clicked on “Cached” … and:
This is G o o g l e‘s cache of http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/gfac/2006-July/000171.html as retrieved on 30 Sep 2006 05:14:59 GMT.
G o o g l e‘s cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
Below is an extract from the cached version of the page:
[gfac] FW: Final OGF Coverage Report
Linesch, Mark mark.linesch at hp.com
Thu Jul 6 16:15:25 CDT 2006
- Next message: [gfac] Open Grid Forum At-Large Board Nominations
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
From: Hatch, Marcie [mailto:Marcie.Hatch at zenogroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:08 PM
To: Linesch, Mark; Steve Crumb; tony.dicenzo at oracle.com; John Ehrig; Don Deutsch; Toshihiro Suzuki; robert.fogel at intel.com
Cc: Maloney, Nicole
Subject: Final OGF Coverage Report
There have been nine pieces of total coverage resulting from the EGA/GGF merger announcement. The coverage has remained informative and continues to reiterate the key messages that were discussed during the press conference. Please note, the expected pieces by Patrick Thibodeau of Computerworld and Elliot King of Database Trends and Applications have not appeared, to date.
GRIDToday has featured four different pieces as a result of the announcement. Editor Derrick Harris summarized the various stories in an overview, providing the details of the announcement and points to the overall importance of grid computing. Harris also discusses his Q&A with Mark regarding the next steps for the OGF, the pace of standards adoption and how the OGF plans to balance the concerns of the commercial community with those of the research community.
Harris also discusses a cynical article contributed by Ian Lumb of York University (formerly of Platform Computing Inc.), “Open Grid Forum: Necessary…but Sufficient?” Lumb uses his experience working for Platform as a basis for his pessimistic outlook on grid computing. Hestates, “I remain a grid computing enthusiast, but as a realistic enthusiast, I believe that grid computing sorely needs to deliver definitive outcomes that really matter.”
Please let us know if you have any questions.
According to their Web site: “ZENO is a new-style communications company.” (Indeed!) And presumably, Marcie Hatch is one of their representatives. In this internal communication of the OGF’s Grid Forum Advisory Committee (GFAC), Ms. Hatch relays to OGF president and CEO Mark Linesch and colleagues her assessment of the coverage on the Enterprise Grid Alliance / Global Grid Forum merger announcement.
In the first paragraph of Ms. Hatch’s message, it is revealed that there have been nine items on the merger, although at least two more items were anticipated. The second paragraph introduces the coverage in GRIDtoday, and in the third paragraph, explicit reference to my GRIDtoday article is made. Before commenting on Ms. Hatch’s assessment of my article, let’s review how GRIDtoday editor Derrick Harris contextualized it originally:
However, not everyone is wholly optimistic about this new organization. Ian Lumb, former Grid solutions manager at Platform Computing, contributed an opinion piece questioning whether the OGF will be able to overcome the obstacles faced by the Grid market. While most in the Grid community are singing the praises of the OGF — and for good reason — it is nice to have a little balance, and to be reminded, quite honestly, that it will take a lot of work to get Grid computing to the place where many believe it should be.
Even with the benefit of hindsight, and Ms. Hatch’s assessment, I remain very comfortable with Harris’ contextualization of my article. And because it’s difficult to take the cynical spin from his words, I must assume that the cynical assessment derives from Ms. Hatch herself. For a variety of reasons, it’s very difficult for me to get through Ms. Hatch’s next sentence, “Lumb uses his experience working for Platform as a basis for his pessimistic outlook on grid computing.”, without laughing hysterically. I’m not sure how Ms. Hatch arrived at this assessment, as I appended to my GRIDtoday article the following in my bio:
Over the past eight years, Ian Lumb had the good fortune to engage with customers and partners at the forefront of Grid computing. For all but one of those eight years, Lumb was employed by Platform Computing Inc.
Now that’s a fairly positive spin for a cynic, and one that can be attested to by the Platform colleagues, customers and partners I interacted with. In re-reading my article, and indeed the earlier allusion to Platform in it, I believe it’s fairly clear that Ms. Hatch was unable to appreciate the Platform context. To re-iterate, I needed to step away from the community, so that I could appreciate the broader business and technical landscape. Ironicaly, even the OGF has acknowledged this broader landscape directly through the first of their two strategic goals. Ms. Hatch concludes her paragraph on my GRIDtoday article by quoting me directly. Not only is the quote not entirely a cynical one, it expresses sentiment that was conveyed by numerous others around the recent GridWorld event.
Not too surprisingly, I suppose, my GRIDtoday article did not make the “OGF News” page. Ironically, however, Globus Consortium president Greg Nawrocki’s blog post did:
July 2006 InfoWorld.com Blog, “A Broader Scope Needed for Grid Standards Bodie”
Greg’s blog entry starts off: “There is a great article in a recent GRIDtoday from Ian Lumb detailing the Open Grid Forum’s necessity but questioning its sufficiency.”
For those of you who’ve read this far, I feel I owe you some lessons learned in closing, so here goes:
- PR companies may position what they think you want to hear, but not necessarily what you need to hear – Engage in your own due dilligence to ensure that their assessment matches your assessment, especially on matters that have any technical content.
- OGF’s tagline is “Open Forum, Open Standards” – Hm?
- Google results may inflate perspective, but Google cache delivers the goods – Semantics aside, is there any credibility in 17.7 million results for an entity created this past July? (I just re-ran the query and we’re up to 19.1 million results. Not bad for a few hours!) Google cache allowed me to view a mailing-list archive that, I expect, should’ve been off limits.
Cynically yours, Ian.
In the Business section of last Wednesday’s Toronto Star, energy reporter Tyler Hamilton penned a column on power-based billing by datacenter services provider Q9 Networks Inc. Rather than bill for space, Q9 chief executive officer Osama Arafat is quoted in Hamilton’s article stating:
… when customers buy co-location from us, they now buy a certain number of volt-amps, which is a certain amount of peak power. We treat power like space. It’s reserved for the customer.
Power-based billing represents a paradigm shift in quantifying usage for Q9.
Along with an entirely new business model, this shift represents a calculated, proactive response to market realities; to quote Osama from Hamilton’s article again:
Manufacturers started making the equipment smaller and smaller. Customers started telling data centre providers like us that they wanted to consolidate equipment in 10 cabinets into one.
The licensing of commercial software is desparately in need of an analogous overhaul.
Even if attention is restricted to the relatively simple case of the isolated desktop, multicore CPUs and/or virtualized environments are causing commercial software vendors to revisit their licensing models. If the desktop is networked in any sense, the need to recontextualize licensing is heightened.
Commercial software vendors have experimented with licensing locality in:
- Time – Limiting licenses on the basis of time, e.g., allowing usage for a finite period of time with a temporary or subscription-based license, or time-insensitive usage in the case of a permanent license
- Place – Limiting licensing on the basis of place, e.g., tieing usage to hardware on the basis of a unique host identifier
Although commercial software vendors have attempted to be responsive to market realities, there have been only incremental modifications to the existing licensing models. Add to this the increased requirements emerging from areas such as Grid Computing, as virtual organizations necessarily transect geographic and/or organizational boundaries, and it becomes very clear that a new usage paradigm is required.
With respect to the licensing of their commercial software, the situation is not unlike Q9’s prior to the development of power-based billing. What’s appealing about Q9’s new way of quantifying usage is its simplicity and, of course, its usefulness.
It’s difficult, however, to conceive such a simple yet effective analog in the case of licensing commercial software. Perhaps this is where the Open Grid Forum (OGF) could play a facilitative role in developing a standardized licensing framework. To move swiftly towards tangible outcomes, however, the initial emphasis needs to focus on a new way of quantifying the usage of commercial software that is not tailored to idealized and/or specific environments.
Hanoch Eiron, Open Grid Forum (OGF) vice president of marketing, recently contributed a special feature to GRIDtoday. Even though Eiron’s contribution spans a mere three paragraphs, there is ample content to comment on.
Eiron opens with:
Let’s face it — the Grid hype by commercial vendors in the past few years was premature. Some would say that it has actually slowed the development of grids as it created customer expectations that could not be met.
IBM’s arrival on the Grid Computing scene, publically marked by their endorsement of the Open Source Globus Toolkit, signified the dawn of vendor-generated hype. However long before IBM sought to paint Grid Computing blue, it was Global Grid Forum (GGF) and Globus Project representatives who were the source of hype. Back in these BBB (Before Big Blue) days, academic gridders evangelized that Grid Computing represented the next phase in the ongoing evolution of Distributed Computing. And specifically with respect to Grid Computing standards and the Globus Toolkit:
This evolution in standards has wreaked havoc on the implementation front. For example, in moving from Versions 2 (protocol-specific implementation based on FTP, HTTP, LDAP, etc.) to 3 (introduction of Web services via OGSI) to 4 (refinement of previously introduced OGSI Web Services to WS-RF), the Open Source Globus Toolkit has undergone significant changes. When such changes break forward-compatibility in subsequent versions of the software, standards evolution becomes an impediment to adoption.
For a specific example, consider CERN’s gamble with Grid Computing:
The standards flux, that resulted in evolving variants of the Globus Toolkit, caused CERN and its affiliates some grief for at least two reasons.
- First, projects like the LHC require significant advance planning. Evolving standards and implementations make advance planning even more challenging, and the allusions to gambling quite appropriate.
- Second, despite the fact that CERN’s primary activity is academic research, CERN needs to provide a number of production-quality services. Again, such service levels are difficult to deliver on when standards and implementations are in a state of continuous change.
In other words, it’s not just vendors who have been guilty of hype and over-promising on deliverables.
Later in his first paragraph, Eiron states: “… it is clear that from a public perception standpoint, grids are now in a trough.” I couldn’t agree more. As the recent GridWorld event has ably demonstrated, considerable confusion exists about Grid Computing. Newbies, early adopters and even the Griderati, are uncomfortable with the term, unclear on what it means and how it fits into the broader context of clustering, cyberinfrastructure, Distributed Computing, High Performance Computing (HPC), Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), Utility Computing, virtualization, Web Services, etc. (That adaptive enterprise and autonomic computing don’t receive much play is of mild consolation.) Grid Computing is in a trough because it is suffering from a serious identity crisis. Fortunately, Eiron and OGF are not in denial, and have plans to address this situation.
Eiron refers to Grid Computing’s latest poster child, eBay. And although I haven’t had the benefit of a deep dive on the technical aspects of the eBay Grid, I expect it to be a grid more in positioning than substance. In a GRIDtoday Q&A with Paul Strong, distinguished research scientist at eBay Research Labs, there is evidence of cluster-level workload management, clustered databases, farms of Web servers, and other examples of Distributed Computing technologies. However, nothing that Strong discusses seems that griddy. All of this echoes what I wrote previously in a GRIDtoday article:
The highest-profile demonstrations of Grid computing run the risk of trivializing Grid computing. It may seem harsh to paint the well-intentioned World Community Grid as technologically trivial, but in terms of full disclosure, this is not the most sophisticated demonstration of Grid computing. Equally damaging are those clustered applications (like Oracle 10g) that masquerade as Grid-enabled. Taking such license serves only to confuse and dilute the very essence of Grid computing.
Eiron’s own words serve well in summing up here:
Is it clear that the community needs to do a better job of explaining the role of grids within the landscape of close and perhaps somewhat overlapping technologies, such as virtualization, services-oriented architecture (SOA), automation, etc. The Grid community also needs to better articulate how the architectures, industry standards and products can help customers reap the benefits of grids. It can use the perception trough as an opportunity to re-group and create a solid story that can be delivered upon, or morph into something else. It seems that much of the influence on how things will evolve is now in the Grid community’s own hands.
Of course, only time will tell if this window of opportunity is still open, and if the Grid Computing community is able to capitalize on it.
In a recent GRIDtoday article William Fellows, a savvy principal analyst with The 451 Group, states:
When asked, 70 percent of early adopters who responded to a survey said there is a better term than “Grid” to describe their distributed computing architectures: 23 percent said virtualization, 23 percent said HPC, 19 percent said utility computing, 19 percent said clustering, and 15 percent said SOA.
Sadly, this serves only to underline much of what I’ve blogging about lately.