4 ms·

Any infrastructure that is of a size needing this will already have in-house tooling (Google/FB/Amazon/etc) and everybody else should be using public clouds any

by flyt 12y ago

Any infrastructure that is of a size needing this will already have in-house tooling (Google/FB/Amazon/etc) and everybody else should be using public clouds anyway. Ubuntu is grasping for relevance.

iamsalman 12y ago
Enterprises are going for a hybrid Cloud model with private in-house Cloud housing critical business data and public Cloud for CRM etc. Even for a decent 30-50 server Cloud, this would prove very relevant, though not that lucrative as a business for Canonical.
iamsalman 12y ago
For scenarios where I want to use GPUs to power a large simulation or AI workload (example: deep learning) where compute performance is prime. Amazon, MS & Google don't offer bare metal running GPUs. This is where MAAS would be relevant though I'm not sure if the it supports NVIDIA/AMD GPU drivers and DMA yet...
- teepo 12y ago
  You could do that on SoftLayer with monthly GPU servers. There's not an hourly option yet though.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kikoreis 12y ago
That comment is a bit harsh; I'm sure Ubuntu is pretty relevant regardless of MAAS. For instance, it's the #1 OS deployed as cloud guests anywhere, and it's the #3 desktop OS in the world. But you do raise an interesting point, which is that all the MDCs have their own homegrown infrastructure (which incidentally they will tell you they love to hate, or vice versa). That is definitely true, and they are not MAAS target customers. But it's also true that they are not the only places where you will encounter large deployments of servers, and if you believe that at least a segment of the server market will go towards more/many nodes (a.k.a hyperscale), then having something to reliably deploy and manage a bare-metal cluster is definitely essential.
NateDad 12y ago
Wow, no. There's a ton of people that could use MaaS. People use the big public clouds because they're easy. With MaaS you can build your own cloud almost as easily, and skip the Amazon tax. It's great for big companies that want total control, it's great for any company that doesn't want their sensitive data in someone else's server room (there are a lot of these in finance and enterprise), and small companies that want the flexibility of the cloud without the huge monthly bills.
- ams6110 12y ago
  You're right, but honestly a lot of those enterprise rationalizations about their "sensitive" data are just defending headcounts and turf. Google and Amazon probably do a better job securing data than 90% of enterprise sysadmins.
  - NateDad 12y ago
    I know that, and you know that, but do they? In my experience, no. And also, does the SEC know that? Possibly not. There's a lot of laws about this stuff where if you screw it up, people can go to actual prison.

by flyt 12y ago

Any infrastructure that is of a size needing this will already have in-house tooling (Google/FB/Amazon/etc) and everybody else should be using public clouds anyway. Ubuntu is grasping for relevance.

iamsalman 12y ago

Enterprises are going for a hybrid Cloud model with private in-house Cloud housing critical business data and public Cloud for CRM etc. Even for a decent 30-50 server Cloud, this would prove very relevant, though not that lucrative as a business for Canonical.

iamsalman 12y ago

For scenarios where I want to use GPUs to power a large simulation or AI workload (example: deep learning) where compute performance is prime. Amazon, MS & Google don't offer bare metal running GPUs. This is where MAAS would be relevant though I'm not sure if the it supports NVIDIA/AMD GPU drivers and DMA yet...

teepo 12y ago
You could do that on SoftLayer with monthly GPU servers. There's not an hourly option yet though.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kikoreis 12y ago

That comment is a bit harsh; I'm sure Ubuntu is pretty relevant regardless of MAAS. For instance, it's the #1 OS deployed as cloud guests anywhere, and it's the #3 desktop OS in the world. But you do raise an interesting point, which is that all the MDCs have their own homegrown infrastructure (which incidentally they will tell you they love to hate, or vice versa). That is definitely true, and they are not MAAS target customers. But it's also true that they are not the only places where you will encounter large deployments of servers, and if you believe that at least a segment of the server market will go towards more/many nodes (a.k.a hyperscale), then having something to reliably deploy and manage a bare-metal cluster is definitely essential.

NateDad 12y ago

Wow, no. There's a ton of people that could use MaaS. People use the big public clouds because they're easy. With MaaS you can build your own cloud almost as easily, and skip the Amazon tax. It's great for big companies that want total control, it's great for any company that doesn't want their sensitive data in someone else's server room (there are a lot of these in finance and enterprise), and small companies that want the flexibility of the cloud without the huge monthly bills.

ams6110 12y ago
You're right, but honestly a lot of those enterprise rationalizations about their "sensitive" data are just defending headcounts and turf. Google and Amazon probably do a better job securing data than 90% of enterprise sysadmins.
- NateDad 12y ago
  I know that, and you know that, but do they? In my experience, no. And also, does the SEC know that? Possibly not. There's a lot of laws about this stuff where if you screw it up, people can go to actual prison.