yep - even speeding up the rate of deployment to live servers for testing would be an unreal reason to allow dedicated clouds to be available. currently there are BIG issues with the fact that the development enviro != the platform environment and this would help fix this.
Hi Mike, as the other guys say, the big benefits for this are:
- allowing end consumers to be able to have their data/services hosted with a partner they trust/prefer (this is particularly important to the finance, health and insurance sectors).
- allowing app owners to start small and local, while having the ability to scale and/or move to the Microsoft datacenters with minimal effort/redevelopment.
I'd also like to add that connectivity is a significant issue/hurdle for many cloud/remote services ... more
Hi Mike, as the other guys say, the big benefits for this are:
- allowing end consumers to be able to have their data/services hosted with a partner they trust/prefer (this is particularly important to the finance, health and insurance sectors).
- allowing app owners to start small and local, while having the ability to scale and/or move to the Microsoft datacenters with minimal effort/redevelopment.
I'd also like to add that connectivity is a significant issue/hurdle for many cloud/remote services - with regards to reliability and bandwidth. Here in New Zealand both of these are high risks for any remote services - particularly those offshore. Local datacenters overcome this.
folks, I have created a new request "An appliance based private cloud for enterprises that dont trust public cloud" that is kinda similar to this, except it has a how-to along with the request. Feel free to comment on that as well.
I don't understand why you would want to have a "cloud" locally. Besides if you want to have Azure local then nothing stops you today. Windows Server comes with message queuing, there is SQL Server as a product and you can already download the AppFabric as a product. What else do you want? besides headaches?
I agree with vidalsasoon, hosting the cloud on your own data center totally defeats the purpose of the cloud. I could see how you might want this type of architecture on your datacenter to allow you to scale up easily when demand increases, but even then scaling up would mean investing in new hardware which is what metered services like this are designed to avoid.
This thread is also an enabler for a multi-tier development stack. My current customer is not happy with having to put the entire dev stack (and thus pay for it) on the production cloud. They really want to be able to self-host, on-premise host, a "mini-cloud" on their own hardware through the SDLC up to production. They they would deploy to actual cloud for production.
And, using the VS emulator is just not really an option for anything above an individual developer.
This thread is also an enabler for a multi-tier development stack. My current customer is not happy with having to put the entire dev stack (and thus pay for it) on the production cloud. They really want to be able to self-host, on-premise host, a "mini-cloud" on their own hardware through the SDLC up to production. They they would deploy to actual cloud for production.
And, using the VS emulator is just not really an option for anything above an individual developer.
Their common dev stack:
- Dev Integration Testing
- QA
- UAT
- Training
I agree with Shane, some companies will not allow their data to be stored outside of their datacenters. I know the point about Azure is Microsoft running the datacenter, but companies should have the ability to install Azure services on their own servers, for development and for production.
In our case, we have customers that are VERY sensitive to thier data being anywhere but in our datacenters. Being able to host Windows Azure On-Premise would give us our own cloud but keep our customers happy knowing that thier data is only being handled by the people they are in contract with. I would really love to move forward with Windows Azure but the fact that it's hosted by Microsoft is stopping the whole process with upper management.
Mike, investing on a Cloud enabled application is certainly a cost that you have to pay upfront for something that you still dont know if you are confortable enough (or even make sense) to out-source "on the cloud" yet. On the other hand, having an "Azure" environment on premise with my limited IT capacity that can be federated and/or migrated to the Microsoft Datacenters because I either need global reach or its scalability would be a selling point to even the most computer illiterat... more
Mike, investing on a Cloud enabled application is certainly a cost that you have to pay upfront for something that you still dont know if you are confortable enough (or even make sense) to out-source "on the cloud" yet. On the other hand, having an "Azure" environment on premise with my limited IT capacity that can be federated and/or migrated to the Microsoft Datacenters because I either need global reach or its scalability would be a selling point to even the most computer illiterate decision maker.
So it is both a technical issue and a business issue.
Technical:
- Spike handling,
- Consistent development environment,
- Not enough on-premise hardware in house
Business issues:
- I don't want to have that much hardware in-house and still be able to perform some of the work in-house with my own spare cycles/hardware.
- I don't think I can convince my CEO/CIO to invest in something they can only run in the providers data center and not in-house. (certainly some of the tech that you are providing is useful not only in cloud environments).
Thanks Rob and Mamby, appreciate your comments here. So for you guys, this is primarily about ensuring the local development environment provides a consistent experience with what will happen in the cloud?
Other motivations for suggesting this? Anyone's motivation for suggesting it to actually run (in Ron's words) "big multi server complicated fabric thing" on their own premises as opposed to running it in one of Microsoft's datacenters?
Thanks for helping me undertand your needs here - Mike
This doesnt have to be a big multi server complicated fabric thing. A single server, production ready version of dev fabric called "Windows Azure Server 2010" would be fine.
We'd have a single consistent architecture for developing new apps with the flexibility to deploy them locally or in the cloud.
Frederick Thompson
yep - even speeding up the rate of deployment to live servers for testing would be an unreal reason to allow dedicated clouds to be available. currently there are BIG issues with the fact that the development enviro != the platform environment and this would help fix this.
Tim Huffam
Hi Mike, as the other guys say, the big benefits for this are:
- allowing end consumers to be able to have their data/services hosted with a partner they trust/prefer (this is particularly important to the finance, health and insurance sectors).
- allowing app owners to start small and local, while having the ability to scale and/or move to the Microsoft datacenters with minimal effort/redevelopment.
I'd also like to add that connectivity is a significant issue/hurdle for many cloud/remote services ... more
Hi Mike, as the other guys say, the big benefits for this are:
- allowing end consumers to be able to have their data/services hosted with a partner they trust/prefer (this is particularly important to the finance, health and insurance sectors).
- allowing app owners to start small and local, while having the ability to scale and/or move to the Microsoft datacenters with minimal effort/redevelopment.
I'd also like to add that connectivity is a significant issue/hurdle for many cloud/remote services - with regards to reliability and bandwidth. Here in New Zealand both of these are high risks for any remote services - particularly those offshore. Local datacenters overcome this.
Gajapathi
folks, I have created a new request "An appliance based private cloud for enterprises that dont trust public cloud" that is kinda similar to this, except it has a how-to along with the request. Feel free to comment on that as well.
Wouter van Eck
I don't understand why you would want to have a "cloud" locally. Besides if you want to have Azure local then nothing stops you today. Windows Server comes with message queuing, there is SQL Server as a product and you can already download the AppFabric as a product. What else do you want? besides headaches?
stevemunday
I agree with vidalsasoon, hosting the cloud on your own data center totally defeats the purpose of the cloud. I could see how you might want this type of architecture on your datacenter to allow you to scale up easily when demand increases, but even then scaling up would mean investing in new hardware which is what metered services like this are designed to avoid.
vidalsasoon
Doesn't hosting your own "cloud" defeat the purpose? there will be no smooth scalability if hosted from your home...
Robert Shurtleff
This thread is also an enabler for a multi-tier development stack. My current customer is not happy with having to put the entire dev stack (and thus pay for it) on the production cloud. They really want to be able to self-host, on-premise host, a "mini-cloud" on their own hardware through the SDLC up to production. They they would deploy to actual cloud for production.
And, using the VS emulator is just not really an option for anything above an individual developer.
Their common dev ... more
This thread is also an enabler for a multi-tier development stack. My current customer is not happy with having to put the entire dev stack (and thus pay for it) on the production cloud. They really want to be able to self-host, on-premise host, a "mini-cloud" on their own hardware through the SDLC up to production. They they would deploy to actual cloud for production.
And, using the VS emulator is just not really an option for anything above an individual developer.
Their common dev stack:
- Dev Integration Testing
- QA
- UAT
- Training
David Burrell
I agree with Shane, some companies will not allow their data to be stored outside of their datacenters. I know the point about Azure is Microsoft running the datacenter, but companies should have the ability to install Azure services on their own servers, for development and for production.
Shane
In our case, we have customers that are VERY sensitive to thier data being anywhere but in our datacenters. Being able to host Windows Azure On-Premise would give us our own cloud but keep our customers happy knowing that thier data is only being handled by the people they are in contract with. I would really love to move forward with Windows Azure but the fact that it's hosted by Microsoft is stopping the whole process with upper management.
Federico Lois
Mike, investing on a Cloud enabled application is certainly a cost that you have to pay upfront for something that you still dont know if you are confortable enough (or even make sense) to out-source "on the cloud" yet. On the other hand, having an "Azure" environment on premise with my limited IT capacity that can be federated and/or migrated to the Microsoft Datacenters because I either need global reach or its scalability would be a selling point to even the most computer illiterat... more
Mike, investing on a Cloud enabled application is certainly a cost that you have to pay upfront for something that you still dont know if you are confortable enough (or even make sense) to out-source "on the cloud" yet. On the other hand, having an "Azure" environment on premise with my limited IT capacity that can be federated and/or migrated to the Microsoft Datacenters because I either need global reach or its scalability would be a selling point to even the most computer illiterate decision maker.
So it is both a technical issue and a business issue.
Technical:
- Spike handling,
- Consistent development environment,
- Not enough on-premise hardware in house
Business issues:
- I don't want to have that much hardware in-house and still be able to perform some of the work in-house with my own spare cycles/hardware.
- I don't think I can convince my CEO/CIO to invest in something they can only run in the providers data center and not in-house. (certainly some of the tech that you are providing is useful not only in cloud environments).
Mike Wickstrand
Thanks Rob and Mamby, appreciate your comments here. So for you guys, this is primarily about ensuring the local development environment provides a consistent experience with what will happen in the cloud?
Other motivations for suggesting this? Anyone's motivation for suggesting it to actually run (in Ron's words) "big multi server complicated fabric thing" on their own premises as opposed to running it in one of Microsoft's datacenters?
Thanks for helping me undertand your needs here - Mike
RobBlackwell
This doesnt have to be a big multi server complicated fabric thing. A single server, production ready version of dev fabric called "Windows Azure Server 2010" would be fine.
We'd have a single consistent architecture for developing new apps with the flexibility to deploy them locally or in the cloud.
mamby
yeah +1