Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
IBM

IBM Opens New Cloud Computing Laboratory 66

Posted by samzenpus
from the head-in-the-clouds dept.
Rob writes "InfoGrok is reporting that IBM is in the process of opening a new cloud computing laboratory, based out of Singapore. The new lab's primary aim is to help business, government, and research institutions to design, adopt, and reap benefits of cloud technologies. The lab will help IBM's clients deploy first-of-a-kind solutions that increase business responsiveness and performance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Opens New Cloud Computing Laboratory

Comments Filter:
  • Re:cue the naysayers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashd o t .org> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @10:49PM (#32107824)

    You are employing a logical fallacy. The results of a previous event do not say anything about how this one will turn out.

    By the way: Using Facebook is still an epic failure in all regards, and still makes you into nothing more than a human battery from Matrix. A product. Cattle. And a fucking subhuman to me.

    Also: GUI his what? How old are you? Your whole is of “examples” is filled with things where you act like they are obviously true, while they are just using straw-men or are completely false.

    Go back to your pot cave, idiot!

  • Re:cue the naysayers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eln (21727) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @11:02PM (#32107898) Homepage
    You seem to present a false dichotomy between endless pessimism (the naysayers) and boundless optimism (investing in whatever the naysayers say won't work). I prefer a more pragmatic approach.

    The simple fact is that "cloud computing," as defined by those people selling space on clouds to external clients, is nothing more than a logical evolution of "software as a service". It is, at its core, technology outsourcing. While the term "cloud" connotes an amorphous blob through which data can move freely, the actual mechanics of a cloud are unimportant to the end user. I could be running a "cloud", by this definition, on a big server farm with virtual servers migrating between hardware devices as needed, totally transparent to the user. Or, I could be putting each client on his own dedicated piece of hardware and not including virtualization at all. Either one of these could be called a "cloud" as far as the client is concerned. The whole point of an external cloud is the client doesn't know or care what the underlying technology is or how it works.

    The more interesting definition of cloud, to me, is the internal cloud. By this definition, the cloud is explicitly a collection of servers that host multiple virtual machines, which can be moved essentially at will (and even automatically with no input from the operator) as individual virtual machines require more or fewer resources. This type of cloud has also commonly been called a "grid", although grid is another one of those terms with several not-very-well-understood meanings. In this kind of cloud, you optimize the use of compute power while (in theory) reducing administrative overhead. Of course, this depends on a lot of technology that's fairly new and requires a great deal of automation and excellent management software in order to actually make administration easier, and most implementations so far tend to increase, rather than decrease, administration costs. Even so, this type of solution can save a lot of money in terms of hardware, space, and power required to support the IT needs of a business.

    I've been deeply involved in developing and implementing internal clouds for a couple of years now, and the technology really does hold a lot of promise. I'm not sold at all on the external Amazon-style clouds as the future of computing, but the "blob of virtual machines" internal cloud seems to hold a lot of promise, especially in larger data center environments.
  • Re:cue the naysayers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bennomatic (691188) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @11:22PM (#32107982) Homepage
    I like your post, and while I think your preferred definition is on the right track, it's a bit too narrow for me.

    To me, one of the best current examples of cloud infrastructure is Google's AppEngine. Not only do I know nothing about the underlying hardware, I also know nothing about virtualization, operating system or anything else. All I know is that I've got an API that defines how I can access it externally, how I can program it (Python or Java) and how I can store data. I don't have to worry about anything; it just works.

    My application is immediately available throughout the Google infrastructure, and as long as I'm willing to pay for it, it doesn't matter whether I get one hit an hour or 10 million.

    "Cloud" could certainly encompass virtualization farms as you've described, but I see it as even one layer more abstract.
  • We had this LONG before the internet ( as we know it ) came into being.

    Back then it was called dial up time share or (DUTS).

    There is a guy that has a tiny warehouse space and inside it lives an HP-3000 that is as maxed out as he could get it when he purchased it used from Stanford University. Instead of Dial up you connect to it over the net and it runs legacy applications that are still considered to be quite valuable. He makes himself enough money to pay for the bandwidth, the space and the electric bill AND all his hobbies since he retired from, you guessed it, HP.

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @11:28PM (#32108014) Journal
    Palmisano and Loughridge are gutting that company. It is time for American Feds to cut their losses and kill all contracts with this worthless company.
  • Re:Singapore (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, 2010 @12:23AM (#32108290)

    Cloud computing isn't the fad it was before. It has matured into a tool now that businesses can take advantage of, or just pass by if they so choose.

    Businesses are slowly becoming aware that cloud computing isn't the sure thing it was. This seems to happen every decade. In the 1970s, we had dumb terminals. In the 1980s, we had X stations. The 1990s called, wanted their JavaStations back. And cloud computing is just the same, except it works on a higher level where the dumb/thin clients provide the OS, and the servers the apps and the storage.

    Of course, businesses look into it, some find it fits their needs. Others end up going back to packing their own parachutes, keeping their E-mail on their own servers, and their data inhouse, as opposed to storing it offsite [1].

    [1]: Storing it offsite means that even with the best SLA and security guarantees, there is always the guy with the Post-It note who can cajole the cloud provider into divulging stored information about a company or data stored. Data stored in house would require a lot more social engineering (or maybe perhaps an honest to God order from a judge as opposed to a request) for it to be seized.

  • by tlambert (566799) on Thursday May 06, 2010 @12:55AM (#32108428)

    It's interesting that it's some place specific...

    After all, it's a cloud; if they buy into the theory behind it, shouldn't it be possible to deploy the machines pretty much one per datacenter everywhere IBM operates data centers, and build the cloud up that way? Wouldn't the lab be anywhere there was an Internet connection?

    -- Terry

Save gas, don't use the shell.

Working...