Skip to main content

The Cloud – Outsourcing Moved up the Stack

Why is outsourcing to ‘the cloud’ any different than what we’ve been doing for years?
The answer: It isn’t.
We’ve been outsourcing critical infrastructure to cloud providers for decades. This isn’t a new paradigm, it’s not a huge change in the way we are deploying technology. It’s pretty much the same thing we’ve always been doing. It’s just moved up the technology stack.
We’ve been outsourcing layer 1 forever (WAN circuits), layer 2 for a couple decades (frame relay, ATM, MPLS), and sometimes even layer 3 (IP routing, VPNs’) to cloud providers. Now we have something new – outsourcing layers 4 through 7 to a cloud provider.
Osi-model - via WikipediaSo we are scratching our heads trying to figure out what this ‘new’ cloud should look like, how to fit our apps into a cloud and what the cloud means[1] for security, availability and performance. Heck we’re not even sure how to patch the cloud[2], or even who is responsible for patching a cloud.
I’ll argue that outsourcing CPU, database or storage to a server/application cloud isn’t fundamentally different than outsourcing transport to an MPLS cloud, as practically everyone with a large footprint is already doing. In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider.
What would happen if we took a look at the parts of our infrastructure that are already outsourced to a cloud provider and see if we can apply lessons learned from layers 1 through 3 to the rest of the stack.

Lesson 1: The provider matters. We use both expensive Tier 1 providers and cheap local transport providers for a reason. We have expectations of our providers and we have SLA’s that cover among other things, availability, management, reporting, monitoring, incident handling and contract dispute resolution. When a provider fails to live up to SLA’s, we find another provider (See Lesson 3). If we’ve picked the right provider, we don’t worry about their patch process. They have an obligation to maintain a secure, available, reliable service, and when they don’t, we have means to redress the issue.

Lesson 2: Design for failure. We provision multiple Tier 1 ISP’s to multiple network cores for a reason. The core is spread out over 4 sites in two cities for a reason. We have multiple providers, multiple paths of 10 Gig’s between the cores for a reason. We use two local providers to each hub for a reason. The reason is – guess what – sh!t happens!. But we know that if we do it correctly, we can loose a 10 Gig connection to a Tier 1 and nobody will know, because we designed for failure. And when we decide to cut costs and use a low cost provider or skimp on redundancy, we accept the increased risk of failure, and presumably have a plan for dealing with it.

Lesson 3: Deploy a standard technology. We don’t care if our MPLS providers use Juniper, Cisco or Extreme for layer 2 transport, because it doesn’t matter. We don’t deploy vendor specific technology, we deploy standardized interoperable technology. We all agree on what a GigE handoff with jumbo MTU’s and single mode long reach lasers looks like. It’s the same everywhere. We can bring in a new ISP or backbone transport provider, run the new one in parallel to the old, seamlessly cut over to the new, and not even tell our customers.

What parallels can we draw as we move the cloud up the stack?
  • My provider doesn’t prioritize my traffic (CPU, memory, disk I/O): Pay them for QoS. Priority bits (CPU cycles, I/O’s) cost more that ‘best effort’ bits (CPU cycles, I/O’s). They always have and always will.
  • My provider doesn’t provide reliable transport (CPU, Memory, Operating Systems, App Servers, Databases): Get a Tier 1 network provider (cloud provider), or get two network providers (cloud providers) and run them in parallel.
  • My provider might not have enough capacity: Contract for burst network (CPU, I/O) capacity. Contract and pay for the ability to determine which bits(apps) get dropped when oversubscribed. Monitor trends and anticipate growth and load, and add capacity proactively.
  • My provider might go bankrupt or have catastrophic failure of some sort: You’ve got a plan for that, right? They call it a backup network provider (cloud host). And your app is platform and technology neutral so you can seamlessly move your app to the new provider, right?
  • My provider might not have a secure network (Operating System, Database): Well, you’ll just have to encrypt your traffic (database) and harden you edge devices (applications) against the possibility that the provider isn’t secure.
Instead of looking back at what we are already doing and learning from what we’ve already done, we are acting like this is something totally new.  It isn’t totally new.
It’s just moved up the stack.
The real question: Can the new top of stack cloud providers match the security, availability and reliability of the old layer 1-2-3 providers?


[1]Techbuddha, Cloud Computing, the Good, The Bad, and the Cloudy, Williams
[2] Rational Survivability, Patching The Cloud?, Hoff

Comments

  1. Outsourcing is a serious business, indeed. So, this is also the reason why many companies are doing their best to build their business structure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a great post. Thanks for the info, I have often wondered how the internet became the cloud and what was different. I have some grasp of that now. Thanks for the post.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

“imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance” --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup is necessary, b…

Ad-Hoc Verses Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to …

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:
In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. The…