×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dell Releases Ubuntu-Powered Cloud Servers

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the silver-lining dept.

Cloud 94

angry tapir writes "Dell has released two servers for the US market that have been customized to run Ubuntu-based cloud services. The company has outfitted its PowerEdge C2100 and C6100 servers with Canonical's Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud (UEC), an implementation of the Eucalyptus private cloud software that runs on the Ubuntu Server Edition operating system."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

94 comments

Awesome (-1, Troll)

Dishwasha (125561) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087172)

A POS linux distro for a POS computer company.

Re:Awesome (0, Flamebait)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087210)

Yeah. I was going to say that, but then I decided that my time would be better spent trolling an easier target.

Seriously? Ubuntu, cloud computing, and Dell. It's like they're actively trying to make me not give a shit.

Re:Awesome (-1, Redundant)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087242)

oops. That should be "harder", not "easier". I don't know what I was thinking.

Slashdot is so fucking useless. They can't even figure out how to implement an "edit your post" feature.

Re:Awesome (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087290)

oops. That should be "harder", not "easier". I don't know what I was thinking.

Slashdot is so fucking useless. They can't even figure out how to implement an "edit your post" feature.

You're so fucking useless. You can't even figure out how to implement a "proofread your goddamned post" and "the preview button is there for a reason" feature.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35088592)

I love that. In keeping with pure Open Source tradition, if it's not there, YouDon'tNeedItAnyway(TM)

Re:Awesome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35088918)

No, that's the Apple tradition.
The open-source tradition is: "If it's not there, WriteItYourself(TM)".

Re:Awesome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087384)

Slashdot is so fucking useless.

I love posts like these. Because it outlines the hypocrisy and utter disregard of a simple thing about people hating a website, and would rather whine about it instead of leaving.

Re:Awesome (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089160)

They can't even figure out how to implement an "edit your post" feature.

Yes they can, they choose not to. Read the FAQ. Slashdot doesn't want a memory hole feature, it wants people to be able to reply to posts without worrying that the contents of the post that they replied to will change by the time people read it.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089898)

The idea is that after half the internet calls you a dumbass for something a dumbass would do you can't go back and change your dumbass idea and say you're not a dumbass.

Dumbass.

Re:Awesome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087236)

A POS comment from a POS slashdot user.

A POS comment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087322)

Say what you will, Dell's in trouble. So they'll push OSS but only as long as Pappy Ballmer doesn't take Michael out to the wood shed for a good whuppin'. As for Ubuntu? Well, I don't run Linux, but if I did it sure as hell wouldn't be Ubuntu.

Re:A POS comment? (3, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087406)

The idea that Dell would push Linux in the server space is pretty old news really.

Contrary to popular Lemming opinion, Microsoft doesn't have the stranglehold in the server market that it has on desktops.

Re:A POS comment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087612)

And yet in less than a decade they went from nothing to around 40% of the server market. That is quite impressive.

Re:A POS comment? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35105926)

Like the other guy said: Microsoft has been trying to dominate the market for a long time. In the mid-90s they were touting NT as some sort of Unix killer.

Although strangely enough, commercial Unix manages to linger on. Microsoft and even Linux hasn't been able to completely kill it off.

Quite often, large companies have problems that are too big to be solved on Windows.

Failed (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087180)

There is much better option for the cloud servers and it is a Own Cloud http://owncloud.org/index.php/Main_Page [owncloud.org]

It is totally open source, free software, developed for single users, privat corporations and public use.
User is not tied to Canonical propietary and privat ecosystem.

ps. Ubuntu is not a operating system. Linux kernel in the Ubuntu is the operating system. Ubuntu is just a software system, one of the few hundreds of the Linux distributions. People has better futures when staying away from Canonicals products.

Re:Failed (0)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087226)

Linux kernel in the Ubuntu is the operating system.

Linux is just the kernel, a kernel is not an operating system.

Re:Failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087380)

Yea, yea, yea. Linux is just the kernel. Of course, you're right but who gives a rat's ass? To the public "Linux" is the OS, end of story. If you go to distrowatch it's just an endless boring parade of gnome desktops with the occasional xfce thrown in. You people have become boring, staid, ossified. Waiting for Canonical to tell you what to be. The guys at PARC would shit to see how homogeneous Linux has become.

Re:Failed (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090972)

Depends whose definition of operating system you are using. The GNU guys use a very wide definition including things like the compiler, shell, command line utils etc but that is far from the only definition.

Re:Failed (2, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087300)

The UEC combination has gotten decent ratings if you want to put your anti-Canonical prejudices aside. Dell hardware ain't all that bad these days.... the combo is a damn sight cheaper than buying a fat HP box with VMware on it..... and you get to reuse some of your code on AWS.

Yes, there are clean, virginal, can-wear-white-at-the-wedding implementations, too. This one uses kvm, if memory serves, and beats threading the whole thing together yourself.

Re:Failed (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087458)

If you were seriously in the enterprise you'd know that the added cost of a HP over a Dell is well justified. When you need to keep things running on this level there is no time to pinch pennies.

HP may be the fair to midrange PC on the Best Buy shelf but in the enterprise it kicks the crap out of anyone else. This includes their business desktops.

Re:Failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087506)

Own Cloud? Meh; I prefer Pwn Cl0ud!

Also, assdouches who can't spell private and don't know the difference between a system and a kernel should be shot; you give honest Ubuntu-loathers a bad name.

Re:Failed (1)

tomz16 (992375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087584)

Wow... this just seriously went way over your head if you are suggesting "ownCloud" as a superior replacement for UEC. I read the description for "ownCloud" and it's some kind of central file storage/sharing software. Not even the same type of product as UEC/Eucalyptus.

The difference :

- You would use ownCloud to share the latest Justin Bieber mp3s with your peeps.

- You would use UEC to build out a corporate cloud computing solution comparable/compatible with Amazon EC2 that you would then use to make bags full of money with which to buy a bigger yacht.

Re:Failed (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087634)

" People has better futures when staying away from Canonicals products."

And finishing high school helps too.

Re:Failed (0)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087860)

I guess it's fun to be a Stallman fanboi, but he'll never love you back if you don't get the details right.

I submitted this with a better summary. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087190)

Dell blah blah blah Ubuntu blah blah blah cloud blah blah blah enterprise blah blah blah three letter acronym blah blah blah server edition blah blah blah

Re:I submitted this with a better summary. (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35088044)

Yes, your summary was too clearly written and too informative. The slashdot editor fixed it for you.

By customized... (3, Funny)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087238)

...they mean they pre-loaded Ubuntu UEC on them, wow!

Re:By customized... (1)

martenmickos (467191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087600)

yep, including the Eucalyptus open source cloud platform

Re:By customized... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087788)

yep, including the Eucalyptus open source cloud platform

Eucalyptus is part of Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud. (a component, not a subproject, that is)

Re:By customized... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35088046)

Anyway, now MS is angry and giving some hard time for Dell for just thinking of choices.

Good luck with that (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087262)

We purchased 16 C2100s in August. If you like being a Dell beta tester, have at it. The LSI RAID controllers they have in these things are, for a lack of a better word, complete crap. Technically, it's probably the drivers ... but until they have a working driver for linux that doesn't lose its mind and reset the card randomly (thus making your volumes disappear for a minute or two), I suggest staying away. Far away.

(Posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

Re:Good luck with that (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087312)

I'm fairly sure that that sort of behavior is why they call them "PowerEdge Enhanced" Raid Controllers...

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087466)

PERC = Poweredge Expandable RAID Controller

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087352)

It's a standard LSI 9260-8i card. No Dell modifications.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087542)

Somebody, please somebody, give me comparable systems to the old Micron days of yore. It was Micron on the desktop, Compaq on the server side. Well respected names in those times. Now one doesn't exist, and the other, well I wish it didn't.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089936)

So true.

I had bought a Pentium 90 (that would make it almost 20 years old) Micron back in the day. If it wasn't for the fact that the tech is too slow for today's standards, I'd still be running it.

Micron? (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093326)

Micron a well respected name? Dell, at the time, had a better less expensive product that was supported by the best tech support in the business. Times have changed however.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087682)

We purchased 16 C2100s in August. If you like being a Dell beta tester, have at it. The LSI RAID controllers they have in these things are, for a lack of a better word, complete crap. Technically, it's probably the drivers ... but until they have a working driver for linux that doesn't lose its mind and reset the card randomly (thus making your volumes disappear for a minute or two), I suggest staying away. Far away.

(Posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

Bypass the shit sas expander... we had the same problems... don't even want to comment on our DOA rate... crazy.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087694)

Ubuntu itself is a terrible server, why not use Debian instead? Or is it only me that cannot find the Ubuntu 'Stable' Repo for running things like NGINX? Nevermind Ubuntu for servers, just use Debian; and you're probably actually supporting Ubuntu when you do too.

Re:Good luck with that (3, Interesting)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087990)

paid support with canonical? Debian isn't a corporate entity like red hat.
Another reason being adoption of ubuntu having a desktop mindshare (Of % of linux desktops) so it's a single platform to support for workstation and server - for dell techs

Re:Good luck with that (2)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35088334)

Or is it only me that cannot find the Ubuntu 'Stable' Repo for running things like NGINX?

How to install nginx on debian: apt-get install nginx [debian.org]

How to install nginx on ubuntu: apt-get install nginx [ubuntu.com]

So yes, it is only you.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35088984)

There's a difference between installation using apt-get and actually serving pages with a full configuration that might include stuff like memcache, drupal, mariadb, in a professionally hosted environment, serving multiple domains. Gimme a break. There's a reason Debian calls its stable repo stable.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

binxbonx (1002571) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089234)

There's a difference between installation using apt-get and actually serving pages with a full configuration that might include stuff like memcache, drupal, mariadb, in a professionally hosted environment, serving multiple domains. Gimme a break. There's a reason Debian calls its stable repo stable.

Bullshit. We run ubuntu 10.04 on all our servers. Currently we have 20 servers and will increase that number the coming months. Ubuntu has served us very well. I used to run Debian which is almost the same and also a very nice system. So what do you mean? If you run apt-get install nginx on Debian you just get a full config for memcache, drupal, mariadb with that? You actually have to configure those things yourself regardless. We use chef - http://wiki.opscode.com/display/chef/Home [opscode.com] - for that. We run things such as redis, mysql, riak and rabbitmq. Apart from our servers we also run small devices in different parts of the world - they run Ubuntu 9.04, been running flawlessly for months (over a year in one case). Ubuntu and Debian are both great - but don't bash Ubuntu just 'cause you don't know any better, thankyouverymuch! And yeah, it's only you.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35090274)

Glad everything is working out for you.

Here's a comment from someone more in-line with the work I do, from an expert supporting my server configuration:

"Re: your issue - it looks weird and I must admit I'm already tired supporting Ubuntu. 95% of all issues were related to some weird package updates they (Canonical) decided to introduce over last months. At the same time there was just one and simple issue in Debian Lenny, related to broken git package. My general advice is: avoid Ubuntu at all costs! They are simply crazy and I would never use Ubuntu on any server."

https://github.com/omega8cc/nginx-for-drupal/issues/issue/166#issue/166/comment/652144 [github.com]

Re:Good luck with that (0)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35101566)

Here's a comment from someone more in-line with the work I do

And here's a comment from me: "what a load of balls".

If we're going to start taking anecdotes as evidence, then I can prove that every OS sucks, and we're back to square one :-P

Re:Good luck with that (2)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35091176)

The closest equivilent to debian stable on the ubuntu side of the fence would be the LTS releases. They have longer support lifecycles than debian stable and a similar release rate. Sounds good on paper particulally the fact that you get plenty of time to plan your upgrades (unlike debian which releases unpredictably and then gives you only about a year to plan and execute your upgrade)

The downside is the QA. Ubuntu have a largely fixed release cycle (they prioritize releasing on time over releasing right). They produce their LTS releases out of their standard 6 months development cycle (which means they are left with little time to get things stabalised and work the bugs out). They don't have the testing/unstable split that debian do. They also explicitly don't care about the packages in "universe" whereas debian at least in principle care about everything. Debian tend to spend a LONG time stablising and polishing before they release.

Re:Good luck with that (4, Funny)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087758)

(Posting anonymously for obvious reasons)

Yeah, I'd be pretty embarrassed if I had ever bought anything from Dell meself.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35088026)

I tried to purchase a couple of them in September but I couldn't even get a quote from Dell's representatives (neither the basic Dell service or the company's account rep.). I gave up hope with them.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35088834)

You know what they say, "Buy a Dell and you get. . . . a Dell"

I'm stuck with a Dell laptop for work and it is brand new and the biggest piece of crap (in all fairness it's the combination of mediocre Dell and mediocre Winblows).

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089296)

At least you could tell "Steve" he's a "Dude" for selling you a Dell.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089438)

Since you're not buying those servers and instead just using them for computing people who use this service wouldn't have to care about such things. That's dell's admin's problems.

Gaging by the amount of bullshit from AC trolls in these comments I think i'll reserve my judgement until someone has actually tried it out before bad mouthing it. I do have to kind of wonder why there is so much hate by ACs in these comments. The astro turfing is high today.

Re:Good luck with that (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35090418)

We use a pile of the C1100 servers, and the problem is not with the LSI controllers. It's with Dells brilliant SAS expander board that sits between the LSI and the disk backplane. We have had the same issues and have bypassed the board. The board also controls the fan speed, so you cannot disable it all together, but you can bypass its sata/sas expander.

Re:Good luck with that (2)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35091138)

We have a couple dozen also. We're running Hadoop which means the RAID controllers are not needed. Would have been VERY NICE if Dell had told us we could have purchased these servers without them (apparently it IS an option).

On the plus side, 12 RAID 0 drives works very fast in our cluster :-)

Running Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. Haven't had a drive disappear yet and we've had them for several months working 24x7

Re:Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35104546)

So far as I know LSI does not test, certify, or support any Linux OS other than Red Hat or Suse Enterprise. That could explain a lot.

Plenty of Linux integrators already (1)

bucketoftruth (583696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087418)

Why buy Linux from a traditionally Windows-only integrator with little Linux experience? There's plenty of very skilled Linux hardware integrators out there. I'm a shill for my favorite, Silicon Mechanics [siliconmechanics.com].

Re:Plenty of Linux integrators already (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087480)

My company buys a ton of Dell servers, all with RHEL. Dell has a large library of linux drivers for their hardware, if you're using RHEL.

I'm not saying Dell is great at linux, but they do support it.

Re:Plenty of Linux integrators already (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089598)

Well yes... but supporting RHEL is not supporting Linux, just as supporting Ubuntu isn't supporting Linux.
It's kind of like saying a company supports Mac. What version... OS9, OS/X Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard?

So to put in a nutshell, they're a RHEL shop.

Re:Plenty of Linux integrators already (2)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093442)

Well yes... but supporting RHEL is not supporting Linux, just as supporting Ubuntu isn't supporting Linux. It's kind of like saying a company supports Mac. What version... OS9, OS/X Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard?

So to put in a nutshell, they're a RHEL shop.

Which is fine and dandy if you stick to RHEL (and for many shops, it's just a matter of sticking to a single distro.) See, the original question was as follows:

Why buy Linux from a traditionally Windows-only integrator with little Linux experience?

That question itself makes no much sense since 1) there are many distros of Linux, each with its own idiosyncracies, and 2) Dell is not a Windows-only integrator given that they also do integration work with RHEL, a well-known Linux distro (and ergo pointing to the claim of Dell having little Linux experience (they do through RHEL) a fallacy.

The post made by the AC (the one you were replying to) then makes a lot of sense ("No, Dell is not a Windows-only integrator, and they have a lot more than 'little' experience on Linux via RHEL"), more sense that the post it replies to. That is, AC's post points to the fallacy of the post that preceeded it.

So, given that RHEL is a well-known distro, one that is also of widespread use, it is then quite acceptable to say that Dell (or whoever) is a Linux integrator. The opposite of this would inevitably and logically imply and demand a definition of "Linux integration" to cover every single major Linux distribution at best (and to cover every single Linux distribution independent of obscurity or adoption at worse). It makes no sense, and it is a definition that has no practical value beyond the strong distro predilection of people, not companies or needs.

A company wants servers to run on Linux with some type of integration support. Be it Ubuntu or RH, it is of small relevance as the decisions to go with Dell or whoever are more in terms of volume, price and other factors beyond the name of the distro. So, in that backdrop, saying that Dell is a Linux-distro is a legitimate statement.

Mind you that I don't care much about Dell and their equipment TBH.

Re:Plenty of Linux integrators already (1)

atomic-penguin (100835) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087482)

Dell has never been a Windows-only integrator as you put it. They've embraced http://linux.dell.com [slashdot.org] on PowerEdge servers, for quite some time.

Re:Plenty of Linux integrators already (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089764)

Microsoft has been embracing Linux for over a decade now as well - They're obviously open-source friendly and showing their worth as a team player
http://www.mslinux.org/ [mslinux.org]

non sequitur (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35093576)

Microsoft has been embracing Linux for over a decade now as well - They're obviously open-source friendly and showing their worth as a team player http://www.mslinux.org/ [mslinux.org]

Non sequitur. The argument that Dell being or not being a Linux-integrator (or a Windows-only integrator) is logically independent of MS position (and ulterior motives, whichever they might be) with respect to Linux and/or open source.

In fact, the truth or falsehood of one company X using and providing services based technologies Y is based solely on one yes/no question and nothing else: does company X provides services based on Y? Their position, promotions and motivations (ideological or economical) are of no consequence to true/false value of that question.

Besides, the original question and statement centered about whether Dell had experience doing integration with Linux, not about its allegiance to open source (and the former does not depend on the later independently of what the FOSS chickenhawks would like to sing). If that had been the topic under discussion, then maybe your post might have had some logic. But it wasn't.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these..oh wait..Dell? (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35087524)

Never mind. The downtime from having multiple, random nodes in the cloud burn out at regular intervals isn't worth it.

Call me when Canonical gets a real company to back this setup.

Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these..oh wait..De (1)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 3 years ago | (#35094834)

Maybe you don't get the point of cloud computing. It's not new technology that allows you to do things never done before. It's cheap technology that allows you to do what you can already do, but cheaper, and with the ability to grow cheaply. Even the most expensive hardware can fail, so if you really need uptime, you buy two (at least) of anything and configure failover and load balancing, etc. "Cloud" computing is simply the idea of doing this at a large scale so you can bring more equipment online and move things around quickly, easily and cheaply. The real question is not whether or not nodes fail, but whether or not nodes are cheap enough that you've got plenty of extras on hand so you don't have to much care when they do. (And, of course, whether or not the cloud platform makes the failover setup quick and easy and reliable, but that's UEC's problem, not Dell's).

Of course, I've never though of Dell's as particularly cheap (though cheaper than IBM and Sun). But for the record, I work with hundreds of dell server and workstation machines running Debian and Red Had they mostly work just fine, LSI raid and all.

Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these..oh wait..De (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35099276)

Remind me the next time I neglect to put a gigantic [FoghornLeghorn]That's a joke son...[/FoghornLeghorn] humor tag in there.

I claim the term "dellbuntu" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087558)

Just a thought, would be interested to try os-x if I could get it pre-loaded on a dell.

Re:I claim the term "dellbuntu" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087724)

I bet you'd also be interested to try some pussy if it was on a fat ugly whore with hairy legs and a prolapsed rectum.

Re:I claim the term "dellbuntu" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35088096)

I bet you'd also be interested to try some pussy if it was on a fat ugly whore with hairy legs and a prolapsed rectum.

Aww c'mon now... You know how mad your dad gets when you try to set your mom up on a date with someone from /.

Not to fear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087734)

The Dell Dock bar for Ubuntu is in the making! Energy saving, resource scheduling and process priority is now a thing of the past. Combine it with Intel Turbo Boost for best results.

Re:Not to fear... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092990)

When I was installing plain-jane Ubuntu over the crapware-ridden default Ubuntu install on my sister's Dell netbook a few years back, I noticed that there was a Dell Dock bar for it.

No OS is safe from Dell Dock.

Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35087800)

One of the selling points of the cloud is the ability to spin up new server instances whenever they're needed. So why then would anyone need to buy a bunch of approximately equivalent servers for local development/testing/staging when all they have to do is set up a new environment in the cloud? Seems like a product designed for people who fundamentally misunderstand the whole paradigm.

Re:Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35088588)

You're missing the part of the paradigm in which there are organizations that provide cloud services. These servers are for cloud service providers.

Re:Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089684)

Actually the original reason "cloud" computing came about is to abstract the computing power into a "cloud".
The whole outsourcing mentality came about much later.

Re:Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

FoolishOwl (1698506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35100808)

As in, distributed computing? That surprises me a bit, as I'd begun to think of them as almost counterposed concepts.

Re:Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089020)

One of the selling points of the cloud is the ability to spin up new server instances whenever they're needed. So why then would anyone need to buy a bunch of approximately equivalent servers for local development/testing/staging when all they have to do is set up a new environment in the cloud? Seems like a product designed for people who fundamentally misunderstand the whole paradigm.

Or..., for those who do business in the real world and "understand" that things like security and compliance regulations sometimes make the public cloud a bad fit. Not that this johnny-come-lately to the "cloud" buzz-word party has much else to recommend it but, just sayin'.

Re:Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

Maniacal (12626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35091448)

Working within and using the cloud is a whole new way of looking at servers and, at least for my company, works well internally as well. For us, the cloud has great potential and use for DEV and QA environments, serving static content, and for quickly and easily provisioning additional capacity. We keep our data in house. No proprietary data is in the cloud, just the front end for delivering it.

When it comes to cloud we think of servers as applicances. We hardly ever fix them. If they break we throw them away and turn up another. As I said above, no data is stored on them. We also built "factory reset" into our automation that allows us to return servers to how they were configured when we first built them as a means to control drift (which is minimal since noone ever logs into the servers).

This automation and tool set are now transitioning to our internal data center. We are building out a "cloud" infrastructure that will allow us to treat internal servers as appliances as well. That way, we have a choice between public and private cloud when provisioning servers (lower cost/security vs. higher cost/security).

I know cloud is a buzz word for the consultants and marketers but Sys Admins (and developers as well) need to look beyond that and see the potential.

Re:Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

mystik (38627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35089096)

One use case (and why amazon isn't all over this is beyond me) is to keep a big enough private 'cloud' for your system's base capacity. When you need extra capacity in a hurry you simply tell your management system to also add nodes from a 3rd party 'cloud', and your infrastructure is tested, and ready to go there. You can then grow your private cloud at your leisure.

Re:Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35091604)

Amazon isn't all over this because expanding your cloud is worth it when you're actually paying your service provider, and not worth it when you're rarely overrunning your capacity and not paying them but 5 bucks a month. Amazon doesn't want to support a business case that effectively goes "hey, we owe you money this month; don't worry, we won't next month."

Re:Local cloud servers? Really?! (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35091524)

Basically that is the 'cloud-enhanced' hosting model. Pretty much the same as hosting before cloud was a buzzword, but with a certain expectation of no people interacting with people to do something (and therefore low latency to get what you need done without knowing the details).

The same principals can apply to how an organization deploys internal resources. Instead of opening a ticket that an admin has to read and immediately react to (often times that latency representing an outage), you implement a strategy where self-service is viable *most* of the time. The admins do what is needed behind the scenes without having to pay *too* close attention to the specifics of the users and what they are doing and similarly, the end-user requests and sees their resource stay up or reboot without calling an admin to say that RAID controller X kicked the bucket or that DIMM 7 had an uncorrectable ECC error, or that a power supply shot itself in the head. This lets a large, internal IT organization act pretty much just like a cloud provider in terms of cost. When you rent capacity from Amazon, *you* have to foot Amazon's operational cost plus margin. When you only need a fraction of a server (individuals, or small/medium business with modest compute needs), this makes a whole lot of sense. If you can keep hundreds of servers fully utilized constantly, Amazon's pricing structure will be far more than insourcing the needs (*iff* done correctly, which is a big iff).

Clouds require servers that are local to someone (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092338)

One of the selling points of the cloud is the ability to spin up new server instances whenever they're needed. So why then would anyone need to buy a bunch of approximately equivalent servers for local development/testing/staging when all they have to do is set up a new environment in the cloud? Seems like a product designed for people who fundamentally misunderstand the whole paradigm.

Maybe you don't understand how the paradigm is actually concretely implemented. Servers remotely hosted in the cloud aren't magic, somewhere, there is an actual data center, with actual servers, running software that provides the "cloud" features.

Some enterprises with many functions want to have the benefits of the cloud (e.g., dynamic provisioning of resources among the various applications the enterprise is running), but prefer in-house hosting.

Some operations, additionally, want to actually host cloud services for their clients.

Either of these operations need to have actual servers in-house, running software that provides the "cloud" features.

This is the market for local cloud servers.

kvm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35089910)

We decided to go with proxmox after seeing how many problems there were with kvm on 10.04 that were not being taken seriously, such as disk image corruption. Maybe that has changed?

put 'cloud' in it (1)

toxonix (1793960) | more than 3 years ago | (#35092242)

FTA: "Organizations could use the servers to test the applications locally before uploading them to Amazon's paid service. The servers have a preconfigured testing and development environment. Eucalyptus duplicates the AWS APIs (application programming interfaces)." At first, I was like, They're just selling the PowerEdge server + cloud buzzword. However, a local Dev and QA environment for AWS is nice, especially if its already configured to behaving like AWS. One problem with running stuff on AWS is troubleshooting and reproducing performance problems.

/.'ed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35094942)

Should have sold some space to computer world.

slashdotted doh!

Cloud Computing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35100868)

It's still a freakin server in a freakin room serving you freakin data! If cloud computing was exactly what they say it is, god would be downloading porn faster than the rest of us! boom!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...