September 14, 2013 at 11:30 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item If we can do it, so can you
September 16, 2013 at 6:27 am
If you do your development in an environment where you own the hardware, software and infrastructure, are you really doing your development "in the cloud"? That used to be called a network. I am assuming that Microsoft is not intending to utilize cloud services from Amazon or Google, but rather use their own services. To me, that is a stretch of the term cloud.
They would however be uwing the same tools that are available to their customers.
September 16, 2013 at 6:34 am
If I deploy to any external, off premises third party cloud, it's not going to be Azure. Considering all the management and technical mistakes that have come out of Redmond the past couple of years, Microsoft is low on my choice of SaaS vendors.
September 16, 2013 at 7:22 am
For myself, I've been using a "personal" cloud at home (a couple Hyper-V Servers, load whatever OS and application I feel like playing with / learning) and find it to be perhaps one of the best ways to learn new tech.
SQL2012 Always On? Stand up a pair of Server2008s as VMs, follow the directions, and play with it. Log shipping? Ditto.
You don't *need* to use a "commercial" offering to use a "cloud" for development / testing / evaluation purposes. At my previous employer, we used VMs (all on-premise servers) for spinning up OSes to test our application on. Need to see how it works with WinXP? Load up a VM. Testing the application over a VPN? Spin up a pair of VMs on separate ISP lines (yes, they have / had multiple ISPs) plugged into the VPN routers we suggested and try it.
When people say "cloud" most automatically think of the big commercial offerings (Azure, Amazon, etc.) But it doesn't have to be. It can be a couple virtualization hosts living in your server room.
September 16, 2013 at 7:45 am
Scott Arendt (9/16/2013)
If you do your development in an environment where you own the hardware, software and infrastructure, are you really doing your development "in the cloud"? That used to be called a network. I am assuming that Microsoft is not intending to utilize cloud services from Amazon or Google, but rather use their own services. To me, that is a stretch of the term cloud.They would however be uwing the same tools that are available to their customers.
I guess, but they're using the same tools/infrastructure that they offer to the public. The cost is lower, but I'm not sure the way the developers work, or the responses they get, are going to be off from what we might get. In that sense, I'd think they are using a "cloud".
September 16, 2013 at 7:46 am
chrisn-585491 (9/16/2013)
If I deploy to any external, off premises third party cloud, it's not going to be Azure. Considering all the management and technical mistakes that have come out of Redmond the past couple of years, Microsoft is low on my choice of SaaS vendors.
This isn't about deployment, but rather development.
September 16, 2013 at 7:48 am
jasona.work (9/16/2013)
...When people say "cloud" most automatically think of the big commercial offerings (Azure, Amazon, etc.) But it doesn't have to be. It can be a couple virtualization hosts living in your server room.
Absolutely.
However the "cloud" should be divorcing the admin from the end user work. I use VMs as well, but I have to manage them, patch them, etc. It doesn't feel much like a cloud where I can request a new VM that's patched and ready to go with Winxxx and SQLXxx. Some of that may be me, but I suspect I'd have to admin this stuff somewhere.
I wish there were good tools to help with this. It certainly makes me consider using Azure for more stuff.
September 16, 2013 at 8:21 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (9/16/2013)
jasona.work (9/16/2013)
...When people say "cloud" most automatically think of the big commercial offerings (Azure, Amazon, etc.) But it doesn't have to be. It can be a couple virtualization hosts living in your server room.
Absolutely.
However the "cloud" should be divorcing the admin from the end user work. I use VMs as well, but I have to manage them, patch them, etc. It doesn't feel much like a cloud where I can request a new VM that's patched and ready to go with Winxxx and SQLXxx. Some of that may be me, but I suspect I'd have to admin this stuff somewhere.
I wish there were good tools to help with this. It certainly makes me consider using Azure for more stuff.
I think to get a cloud to that sort of level, you'd need to have a fairly specific separation of duties. You'd have your "Server Admins" who are responsible for the OS (patching, updates, etc,) your "Application Admins" who would be responsible for their specific application such as SQL. Possibly the AppAdmins would instruct the Server Admins to apply patches, etc, that would depend on whether or not the AAs would be given RDP.
Something like Azure, takes it to the extent where the AA is completely divorced from anything *except* managing their application. Patches are handled by the SA.
Most companies, you're going to end up with the AA also being the SA for the servers that their application lives on.
September 16, 2013 at 9:52 am
Two things
1. Cloud => Public and Private. Development in a could environment does not require you to develop off site. Currently I have two development environments one locally on this machine and a second that is a virtual server on our private cloud. This works great and was started to insure that the research I do does is isolated on a server environment that will not corrupt or otherwise destroy my local environment. It works great, and there are advantages.
2. Development in the could on a server OS better shows how the code will operate in a production environment. On the workstation I have Windows 7 and IIS etc all set and ready. I can develop web services, web applications, batch, scripts etc all locally or optionally on the virtual running the server OS. Running in the server environment allows me to monitor and determine some level of optimization in the environment the code will actually run under. This is a advantage for the most part.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
September 16, 2013 at 3:20 pm
This isn't about deployment, but rather development.
Doesn't make a difference. As a developer/admin and the guy who has to help work on the IT budget, it's the same.
Keep and deploy development/production systems/VMs and clouds internal and where we can migrate from Microsoft we will, if it makes sense. (Basically there's an growing internal lack of trust with Redmond and the CFO is irked with the growing license costs. )
(I do some OSS development on "The Cloud", but it's not line of business specific.)
September 16, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Does anyone remember the Stream of Consciousness or the SG1: Revisions episodes?
I may be paranoid, but I don't trust the cloud at all.
My electric bill, which I pay a $100 per pay period, regardless of how much I owe. It builds up in the summer and goes down in winter. My prior bill had me $500 in the hole, plus late charges. My latest bill had about $600 in credits over a bunch of months.
They screwed up and refused to acknowledge their error. Think of the logic of a computer system. I'm an outlier, not a part of the system, so I am now excluded.
Then add in that I have a choice to use an aircard or satellite system at home. My aircard is saying that my signal strength is low, after over 15 months. Going to a satellite system will double my costs. And I still have to trust that the cloud wasn't changed when I wasn't looking.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
September 17, 2013 at 6:29 am
I may be paranoid, but I don't trust the cloud at all.
Let's look at the issues.
1) Security: With the revelations about the NSA and corporations, plus the fact that many of the encryption standards may be compromised and much of the hardware/software is probably backdoored, do you trust anyone else with your data?
2) Uptime: If the SaaS goes down you are down and have no control of when it's up.
3) Billing and license costs. The cloud may be good if you do need to spin up large machines for specific season or jobs, but you still are paying for it. If you can't afford the expense of admins, you are at the services mercy to admin for you. If you are locked in to a specific service/configuration what happens when the Redmond license fairies give the gift of higher prices?
4) Goodwill of who's in control of your cloud. If the cloud provider decides to migrate or deprecate the software you need, what's your recourse? If you need to run additional software and they don't allow it, what's your recourse? If they are bought or decide to quit hosting the service, what's your recourse? Do they manage backups properly? Do you have enough bandwidth to back it up or load large data? Can you easily migrate?
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply