6 ms·

Private Ubuntu Cloud

auxbuss 16y ago
Perhaps it's just me, but how do you price this service? Or is it free? The web-site doesn't appear to provide a potential customer with the information they need to evaluate the service. At least, not easily.
- rmoriz 16y ago
  Iirc it's totally free and clones different amazon AWS API by integrating Eucalyptus (http://open.eucalyptus.com/ http://open.eucalyptus.com/). The problem is, that you need to rent/buy the maximum hardware size of your could upfront as amazon does it. Therefore it's a bigh myth you only pay what you use because the provider has to split all costs+interests among the customers (like EC2). Including costs of hardware/infrastructure not currently in use! If you have your own rack(s), tools like eucalyptus/ubuntu cloud can help you to dynamically scale your apps and use your hardware more efficent. But remember: To do this it needs more than some instant-on virtual machines: You need to be able to automatically spawn applications with tools like puppet or chef, too. This usually requires some amount of work and brain :-) Claiming to be able to scale to infinity just because you're using EC2/Eucalyptus/OpenStack is a biiiiiig common lie.
rakkhi 16y ago
I'm sorry but the whole concept of a private cloud makes no sense to me - why would you have a private electricity generator for your home? The security issues are a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), I have written about it here:http://rakkhi.blogspot.com/2010/07/cloud-computing-security-what-is-fuss.html http://rakkhi.blogspot.com/2010/07/cloud-computing-security-...
- dododo 16y ago
  the obvious: not every network is or can be connected to the internet, often for security reasons.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    The other obvious - it potentially makes your server management much easier, particularly if you need a lot of computing power, or lots of servers quickly.
- carson 16y ago
  The security issue isn't all FUD. There are legitimate reason that you may not want to use a cloud like EC2 for certain things. Remember, you don't control the hardware for EC2. Some could modify the system so that all security measures you take are defeated. Is that /dev/random you are using to encrypt your memory really random? Your private electricity example is probably a good example. Most datacenters and companies that rely on power pull it from multiple grids and actually do have a way to generate their own private power. The same will probably hold true for IaaS at some point. It will be something people grow to trust but if you want that last 0.1% you are going to have to do it yourself.
- thibaut_barrere 16y ago
  I believe one very important reason is: don't put your data on another network unless you really need it, because it always comes at a cost. For instance that is part of the french navy policy (separate networks). You find it funny, until it saves your ass :) Sidepoint: weither you believe it's FUD or not, it's a matter of fact that there is a real market here. A lot of medium to large companies are actually totally reluctant to put anything in the cloud. That's part of why you see github:fi, or the hoptoad firewalled version, or the ubuntu private cloud offer. Another sidepoint: working with vaguely sensitive data at home on an encrypted disk is OK for me, but putting it into an EC2 instance: I would get fired and/or sued (not FUD here, I've been warned!).
- bmelton 16y ago
  It's only FUD if you don't consider physical security at all important. When you're working with VERY sensitive data (the kind that mishandling could literally get you arrested for), you seek to secure it in every way possible. Perhaps ironically, a white-listed firewall rule for a cluster of EC2 instances is probably more secure than most government networks, but putting it anywhere that compromises physical security is just as bad.
  - rakkhi 16y ago
    Its not that I don't consider physical security as important - I just do not think that the physical security provided by your private data centre is any better than what Amazon provides. The economies of scale and the motivation to avoid a massive security incident that affects all their customers is just greater than what you have with internal IT. But of course do a risk assessment, maybe military data should not be on any sort of cloud. But I know internal government and military security is actually pretty poor - funnily enough generals care more making sure their comms work to their soldiers than whether it is encrypted - sound kind of like a business eh? Either way I predict that within 5 years, private clouds will be a thing of the past
    - eitally 16y ago
      Except that you can physically segregate it from the public network... or even the majority of your internal LAN/WAN. Private clouds will only continue to gain momentum in the enterprise, especially as they become easier to deploy & manage.
      - rakkhi 16y ago
        The difference between can and do I have never worked in a company that physically segregated their internal network to one connected to the internet - and I have worked in Fortune 50 banks, credit card processors and online businesses. Like I said military maybe different but I know colleagues that work for the government and you should hear about how their security actually is vs. the perception (much like banks) It is hard enough to get companies to segment their network into high value services vs the office network. The practical difficulty and cost of giving end users two machines connected to two different networks is just not worth the benefit gained. Especially considering you can achieve a level of risk that is acceptable to the board and executive management with logical controls private clouds are just a waste of money.
Spoutingshite 16y ago
This is built on Eucalyptus (www.eucalyptus.com) the open source cloud application.
mark_l_watson 16y ago
This only seems like a good idea for larger organizations. The idea would be to share a pool of server resources among many working groups with assumptions: 1. server utilization on average would be good 2. seldom have the situation where everyone wants to do large runs at once At CompassLabs we use Elastic MapReduce: great because we can use a large number of servers for a few hours, and the price is right. On the other hand, large companies like Yahoo run their own large Hadoop clusters (just as an example) So, this seems like a good idea only for large organizations.
ptn 16y ago
A bit off-topic: that page looks awful.
- hiteshiitk 16y ago
  Really painful for eyes too.

Perhaps it's just me, but how do you price this service? Or is it free? The web-site doesn't appear to provide a potential customer with the information they need to evaluate the service. At least, not easily.

rmoriz 16y ago
Iirc it's totally free and clones different amazon AWS API by integrating Eucalyptus (http://open.eucalyptus.com/ http://open.eucalyptus.com/). The problem is, that you need to rent/buy the maximum hardware size of your could upfront as amazon does it. Therefore it's a bigh myth you only pay what you use because the provider has to split all costs+interests among the customers (like EC2). Including costs of hardware/infrastructure not currently in use! If you have your own rack(s), tools like eucalyptus/ubuntu cloud can help you to dynamically scale your apps and use your hardware more efficent. But remember: To do this it needs more than some instant-on virtual machines: You need to be able to automatically spawn applications with tools like puppet or chef, too. This usually requires some amount of work and brain :-) Claiming to be able to scale to infinity just because you're using EC2/Eucalyptus/OpenStack is a biiiiiig common lie.

rakkhi 16y ago

I'm sorry but the whole concept of a private cloud makes no sense to me - why would you have a private electricity generator for your home? The security issues are a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD), I have written about it here:http://rakkhi.blogspot.com/2010/07/cloud-computing-security-what-is-fuss.html http://rakkhi.blogspot.com/2010/07/cloud-computing-security-...

dododo 16y ago
the obvious: not every network is or can be connected to the internet, often for security reasons.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  The other obvious - it potentially makes your server management much easier, particularly if you need a lot of computing power, or lots of servers quickly.
carson 16y ago
The security issue isn't all FUD. There are legitimate reason that you may not want to use a cloud like EC2 for certain things. Remember, you don't control the hardware for EC2. Some could modify the system so that all security measures you take are defeated. Is that /dev/random you are using to encrypt your memory really random? Your private electricity example is probably a good example. Most datacenters and companies that rely on power pull it from multiple grids and actually do have a way to generate their own private power. The same will probably hold true for IaaS at some point. It will be something people grow to trust but if you want that last 0.1% you are going to have to do it yourself.
thibaut_barrere 16y ago
I believe one very important reason is: don't put your data on another network unless you really need it, because it always comes at a cost. For instance that is part of the french navy policy (separate networks). You find it funny, until it saves your ass :) Sidepoint: weither you believe it's FUD or not, it's a matter of fact that there is a real market here. A lot of medium to large companies are actually totally reluctant to put anything in the cloud. That's part of why you see github:fi, or the hoptoad firewalled version, or the ubuntu private cloud offer. Another sidepoint: working with vaguely sensitive data at home on an encrypted disk is OK for me, but putting it into an EC2 instance: I would get fired and/or sued (not FUD here, I've been warned!).
bmelton 16y ago
It's only FUD if you don't consider physical security at all important. When you're working with VERY sensitive data (the kind that mishandling could literally get you arrested for), you seek to secure it in every way possible. Perhaps ironically, a white-listed firewall rule for a cluster of EC2 instances is probably more secure than most government networks, but putting it anywhere that compromises physical security is just as bad.
- rakkhi 16y ago
  Its not that I don't consider physical security as important - I just do not think that the physical security provided by your private data centre is any better than what Amazon provides. The economies of scale and the motivation to avoid a massive security incident that affects all their customers is just greater than what you have with internal IT. But of course do a risk assessment, maybe military data should not be on any sort of cloud. But I know internal government and military security is actually pretty poor - funnily enough generals care more making sure their comms work to their soldiers than whether it is encrypted - sound kind of like a business eh? Either way I predict that within 5 years, private clouds will be a thing of the past
  - eitally 16y ago
    Except that you can physically segregate it from the public network... or even the majority of your internal LAN/WAN. Private clouds will only continue to gain momentum in the enterprise, especially as they become easier to deploy & manage.
    - rakkhi 16y ago
      The difference between can and do I have never worked in a company that physically segregated their internal network to one connected to the internet - and I have worked in Fortune 50 banks, credit card processors and online businesses. Like I said military maybe different but I know colleagues that work for the government and you should hear about how their security actually is vs. the perception (much like banks) It is hard enough to get companies to segment their network into high value services vs the office network. The practical difficulty and cost of giving end users two machines connected to two different networks is just not worth the benefit gained. Especially considering you can achieve a level of risk that is acceptable to the board and executive management with logical controls private clouds are just a waste of money.

Spoutingshite 16y ago

This is built on Eucalyptus (www.eucalyptus.com) the open source cloud application.

mark_l_watson 16y ago

This only seems like a good idea for larger organizations. The idea would be to share a pool of server resources among many working groups with assumptions: 1. server utilization on average would be good 2. seldom have the situation where everyone wants to do large runs at once At CompassLabs we use Elastic MapReduce: great because we can use a large number of servers for a few hours, and the price is right. On the other hand, large companies like Yahoo run their own large Hadoop clusters (just as an example) So, this seems like a good idea only for large organizations.

ptn 16y ago

A bit off-topic: that page looks awful.

hiteshiitk 16y ago
Really painful for eyes too.