CSix Eco-Green Website

The following message thread occurred in the old CSix Cloud Computing Yahoo Group starting 10-19-9. The text was transferred in case anyone wants to continue the discussion here.

---

CSIX Eco-Green website

Posted by: "bill_slagle"   bill_slagle

Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:48 am (PDT)

The CSIX Eco-Green SIG (EGG) has their website up and running. If you
want to take a look then see http://www.ecogreen group.org

I think it's interesting that they are using a Content Mgmt System (CMS)
called Joomla. I attended the Drupal BAD Camp this weekend at
UC-Berkeley. I wonder how Joomla and Drupal compare? Just curious.

=Bill=

---

Re: CSIX Eco-Green website

Posted by: "Glenn Reitsma"  greitsma

Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:56 am (PDT)

Joomla and Drupal are very similar. From what I've read Joomla is a bit
easier to learn and get something up quickly while Drupal has greater
flexibility but with a steeper learning curve to get started building the
site. Once the site is built the content management is easy from either one.

Glenn Reitsma
408-307-3058

http://glennreitsma .emurse.com/ (on-line resume)
http://www.linkedin .com/in/glennrei tsma

---

Re: CSIX Eco-Green website

Posted by: "Raj V"  rajvish

Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:22 am (PDT)

It would depend on the job.

Joomla is very good if you want  a  quick professional looking site. But Joomala has its own way of looking at things.

Drupal is more complicated but has a better abstraction that makes it a better Content Management System and Framework.

I also notice that Drupal seems ( no numbers yet) to consume less system resources than Joomla.

Having said that they are fast approaching the status of "What is better? Emacs or vi?"

Googling Drupal Vs. Joomla produces 4,650,000  sites. :-)

Raj

Cloud Computing Snafu Deletes Microsoft Sidekick T-Mobile Data

The following message thread occurred in the old CSix Cloud Computing Yahoo Group starting 10-13-9.  The text was transferred in case anyone wants to continue the discussion here.

---

Cloud computing snafu deletes Microsoft Sidekick T-Mobile data

Posted by: "jmcd0205"   jmcd0205

Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:42 am (PDT)

FYI, Blog posting from sfgate.com by Yobie Benjamin. Companies need to remember some basics, like backing up data, maybe 2-3x...?

Eight hundred thousand T-Mobile subscribers who use Microsoft's Danger Sidekick smart phones suffered the worst possible failure that can occur to anyone's personal data. All the customers' data - address books, calendars, to-do lists and photos was wiped out... kaput... gone... destroyed... forever and ever.

This computing nightmare affects not only Sidekick owners but everyone who owns a smart phone who now have to question the integrity of their own devices.

T-Mobile, the operator of the Sidekick's data service and Microsoft fumble to explain how this massive clusterfoot happened.

T-Mobile's web site explains:

Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger' s latest recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device -- such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos -- that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger. That said, our teams continue to work around-the-clock in hopes of discovering some way to recover this information. However, the likelihood of a successful outcome is extremely low... Sidekick users "NOT reset their device by removing the battery or letting their battery drain completely, as any personal content that currently resides on your device will be lost."

The implication of the statement is Microsoft servers suffered a catastrophic failure and that there was no backup. How the f&^% is it possible there was no single backup on an enterprise so critical to the personal lives of tens of thousands of T-Mobile/Microsoft Sidekick users?

This isn't the first time a Web service has crashed and left its users without access to data stored "in the cloud." Google's Gmail has had multiple outages but it has very quickly recovered with no data loss.

This is the FIRST TIME a MAJOR cloud-computing vendor didn't have any backups. It is a total failure of systems from Microsoft's server operating systems, storage systems, processes, procedures and everything that shoulda, woulda, coulda happened.

Folks, this is Microsoft we're talking about here. It's the same company who wants us to upgrade to Windows 7. It's the company who wants to be your cloud computing company of choice. It's the same company who sells server operating systems.

The blame is also being shared with Hitachi Data Systems who provided the failed backup systems. It is being reported Microsoft contracted Hitachi Data Systems (HDS) to do remedial work on the server infrastructure and that, during the work, the server infrastructure failed. There was no backups or replicated data set and so the data was lost forever.

Further this involves a major telecommunications company - T-Mobile, not some small rural mobile phone provider. We need to understand so consumers know what to avoid in the future.

In every company I have ever worked in or consulted for, backing up is part of Information Technology 101. I always advocate not only one backup but sometimes double and triple backups and minimum 30-day archives. How can Microsoft, Hitachi and T-Mobile allow this massive failure?

Microsoft, Hitachi and T-Mobile must come clean and explain where and how the failures occurred lest they suffer the consequence of loosing the public and corporate enterprises' trust. For now till they explain their names are all in the mud.

This is a complete failure. It would be a tough day to sell Microsoft server operating systems software today and even harder to sell Hitachi Data's backup systems... unless Microsoft, Hitachi and T-Mobile comes clean and explains how this massive failure can happen. If I were a company chief information officer or chief information security officer, I would have to do a complete double-take before I commit to a server operating system or backup solution that can suffer such catastrophic failure.

The worst part of this (having owned a Sidekick) is there is NO EASY WAY to backup your Sidekick. It's supposed to do it for you. This absolutely sucks for T-Mobile subscribers who use the Microsoft Sidekick dumb phone.

It's small comfort that T-Mobile suspended the further sales of Microsoft's Sidekick smart phone.

---

Re: Cloud computing snafu deletes Microsoft Sidekick T-Mobile data

Posted by: "Bob Sutterfield"  bsut2002

Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:16 am (PDT)

Here's how I understand the situation, from other sources:

Microsoft bought Danger some time ago. This acquisition included their
products, staff, physical assets (like servers and software), and their
revenue contracts (like that with T-Mobile). Microsoft is partway through
ingesting their acquisition, and came to the point of technical
integration. The Danger services were singly homed, without redundancy,
which is why they wanted to move onto Microsoft's cloud. They were
re-installing the OS, and preparing to later install the cloud management
software and Danger-specific service software, onto the Danger servers.
This task was being performed by a Hitachi contractor working for
Microsoft.

The project plan assumed (it turns out mistakenly) that the servers and
services and databases were already configured in a manner compliant with
the Microsoft cloud infrastructure spec, so the technician was simply
re-installing everything. If that assumption had been accurate, the
services and databases would have been in service redundantly someplace
else, and removing the Danger infrastructure from service would have
triggered a fail-over to those other instances. (This is why I always
design services with tripled infrastructure: one I can put under
maintenance, one in service, and another backup in case the primary fails
while I'm doing maintenance. Plus I never use cold backups, I always use
hot-hot load balancing between multiple primary active instances.)

I don't know why the integration project plan didn't include an assessment
of the existing infrastructure and dependencies. I don't know why the plan
didn't include the task of backing up the Danger user databases before
FDISKing the servers. I hope the technician didn't lose her job - the
outage was the project manager's fault.

---

Re: Cloud computing snafu deletes Microsoft Sidekick T-Mobile data

Posted by: "Bob Sutterfield"  bsut2002

Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:45 pm (PDT)

I forgot to mention: This is getting publicity as a Cloud Computing
Failure. It's SAAS (in the sense that we can now label anything that's
hosted "someplace else" as SAAS to replace the old-fashioned ASP label) and
therefore a Cloud application, but it's not running on a Cloud
infrastructure (elastic pools of virtualized resources). They intended to
move it from a traditional hosting infrastructure onto a Cloud, and that
move plan is where the mistakes happened.

Using AWS S3 Service as an External Disk for my Laptop

The following message thread occurred in the old CSix Cloud Computing Yahoo Group starting 10-05-9.  The text was transferred in case anyone wants to continue the discussion here.

---

Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
To: CSix-Cloud@yahoogroups.com
From: Chaganti Radhakrishna <chaganti.radhakrishna@...>
Subject: Using AWS S3 service as an external disk for my laptop

Folks,

Want to experiment with a simple cloud use case - that of backing up my personal laptop hard-drive on AWS S3 instance. Has anyone done this before? What do you see as the pros and cons of doing this? Like to hear your thoughts on this use case.

RK Chaganti

---

Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:44:05 -0700
From: "Waiming Mok" <wmm@...>
To: "'Chaganti Radhakrishna'" <chaganti.radhakrishna@..., CSix-Cloud@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [CSix-Cloud] Using AWS S3 service as an external disk for my laptop

Might be cheaper with Carbonite (www.carbonite.com )

if you just want to backup your (1) computer.

We can consider carbonite to be in the cloud.



Amazon S3: 15 cents / GB/mo @ 100 GB = $15 / month

(not including upload bandwidth costs)

Vs

Carbonite: $3.61 / month for unlimited backup storage per computer.



Waiming

---

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:48:05 -0700
From: "Rich Zbriger" <rich.zbriger@...
Reply-To: <rich.zbriger@...
Subject: RE: [CSix-Cloud] Using AWS S3 service as an external disk for my laptop

I have been using Carbonite for about 6 months with my desktop computer at
home and it works very well. It runs in the background and backs up new
files and updates to existing files. Backups are not performed immediately,
but seem to be sufficiently often. The initial system backup can take quite
a long time about 12-15 GB per DAY. They recommend not trying to back up a
complete system just user data, but you can specify whatever you want backed
up.



Rich

Grid vs Cloud

The following message thread occurred in the old CSix Cloud Computing Yahoo Group starting 9-3-9.  The text was transferred in case anyone wants to continue the discussion here.

---

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:49:19 -0700

To: CSix-Cloud@yahoogroups.com

From: Glenn Reitsma <glenn.reitsma@...>

Subject: grid vs cloud

Is there a common distinction between grid computing and cloud computing or are the two terms synonymous ?

Glenn Reitsma

408-307-3058

http://glennreitsma.emurse.com/    (on-line resume)

http://www.linkedin.com/in/glennreitsma

---

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:35:07 -0700

To: CSix-Cloud@yahoogroups.com

From: Bob Sutterfield <bob@...>

Subject: Re: [CSix-Cloud] grid vs cloud

Glenn Reitsma wrote:

Is there a common distinction between grid computing and cloud computing or are the two terms synonymous?

At the layer that's now called IaaS "Infrastructure as a Service", I think of the three RADlab distinctives (infinite resources, no commitment, pay by the drink) as distinguishing Grid from Cloud.  I think of Grid as denoting a large number of identical elements in a loosely coupled parallel architecture.  Many users do Grid-style large scale computing on a Cloud, but not all Grids are managed in a Cloud-y way.

At the layer that's now called SaaS "Software as a Service", there's not much difference from the user's point of view.

---

To: <CSix-Cloud@yahoogroups.com>

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:55:35 -0700

From: "Waiming Mok" <wmm@...>

Subject: RE: [CSix-Cloud] grid vs cloud

From my experience, grid (ala grid computing) tends to focus on

Solving computational intensive applications

(e.g. SLAC and CERN use grid for nuclear physics).

Grid has been around since the early days of

lower-cost rack-mount servers (sparc or x86).

There tends to be master job scheduler that dispatches jobs

To the various compute nodes (e.g. Rock, LSF, Sun Grid Engine).

There is a distributed file system shared between the nodes.

See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_computing

Some differences I know about between grid and cloud:

1)      Because grid tends to server computing intensive jobs, grid does not

Use virtualization to partition the hardware node, whereas cloud

Tends to use virtualization partitioning to get multiple OS and workloads

Running in a single node.

2)      Grid dispatches jobs (in form of applications) to the nodes running specific OS.

Cloud tends to spawn virtual machines at the IaaS level.

As Bob says, it’s possible to deploy grid within cloud – should take above into account.

Waiming

Cloud Organizing Concepts (Disorganized)

The following message thread occurred in the old CSix Cloud Computing Yahoo Group starting 8-28-9. The text was transferred in case anyone wants to continue the discussion here.

---

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:49:04 -0700
To: csix-cloud@yahoogroups.com
From: Bob Sutterfield <bob@...>
Subject: Cloud organizing concepts (disorganized )

Here are some disconnected organizing concepts that have been sitting in my drafts folder for a while...

UC Berkeley RAD Lab "Above The Clouds" definition of Cloud Computing includes three primary characteristics:

• Huge Resources - The illusion of infinite computing resources available on demand, thereby eliminating the need for Cloud Computing users to plan far ahead for provisioning
• No Commitment - The elimination of an up-front commitment by Cloud users, thereby allowing companies to start small and increase hardware resources only when there is an increase in their needs
• Pay by the Drink - The ability to pay for use of computing resources on a short-term basis as needed (e.g., processors by the hour and storage by the day) and release them as needed

Some would say, if it doesn't meet these criteria, it's not Cloud.

Key benefits of each of these three characteristics:

• Huge Resources - IT agility as systems can be sized to meet demand -- as load scales, system resources are easily obtained to ensure SLAs can be met
• No Commitment - No longer face the tradeoff between overprovisioning (waste of capital) and underprovisioning (waste of users)
• Pay by the Drink - Move IT payments from CAPEX to OPEX. Pay only for actual resources consumed. Tie IT cost to business benefit received

See the taxonomy diagram on page 22 of Guidance for Critical Areas of Focus in Cloud Computing for discussion of IaaS, PaaS, SaaS layering - also the nearby discussion of features, openness, and security.

Deployment Options:

        |                  |
Public  | Virtual Private  | Public Cloud
        |    (AWS++)       |        

        |------------------+---------------------
        |                  |

        | Internal Private | External Private Cloud
Private |                  |   (outsourcing++)

        |------------------+---------------------
             Dedicated     |  Shared

Here's a good presentation on Risk and Security in the Enterprise Cloud

---

To: <csix-cloud@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Junaid Qurashi" <junaidqurashi@...>
Subject: Re: [CSix-Cloud] Cloud organizing concepts (disorganized )

Re: [CSix-Cloud] Cloud organizing concepts (disorganized )

"Some would say, if it doesn't meet these criteria, it's not a Cloud"

How does private cloud fit in this definition. Some private cloud are restricted to a defined set of resources. Or are they not a cloud?

Junaid

---

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 22:20:42 -0700
To: csix-cloud@yahoogroups.com
From: Bob Sutterfield <bob@...>
Subject: Re: [CSix-Cloud] Cloud organizing concepts (disorganized )

Huge Resources - The illusion of infinite computing resources available on demand, thereby eliminating the need for Cloud Computing users to plan far ahead for provisioning

Junaid Qurashi wrote:

How does private cloud fit in this definition. Some private cloud are restricted to a defined set of resources. Or are they not a cloud?

From the private cloud's users' perspective, any resources they want are available, on demand, without planning for provisioning. They probably have a better-informed view of the limits of the private cloud than do the users of a public cloud, but still they get what they need when the ask for it, within those constraints.