Update on the Cloud Demonstration
Project
Khalil Yazdi and Steven Wallace
Spring Member Meeting
BACKGROUND
2 – 5/27/11
•
Project Par4cipants
Eleven Universi1es: Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, George Mason, Indiana University, Penn State, Stanford University, UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin
•
Objec4ve
A technical and business model for the provisioning of mul1-‐vendor cloud services leveraging the Internet2 Network and InCommon Federated Authen1ca1on and encouraging of an interoperable marketplace for services where individual
ins1tu1ons might procure services from a wide range of cloud services providers.
•
Ini4al Outreach
Solicita1on in the Fall of 2010 was sent to over 40 vendors (primarily Internet2 corporate members)
Mo4va4on
•
Capacity on Demand
Commercial cloud infrastructure services a major step toward a cost-‐effec1ve, u1lity compu1ng resources on demand much like the electrical power grid
•
Large-‐scale adop4on hampered by price, performance and portability
• Can we leverage Internet2 resources, ability to aggregate demand to lower costs? • Can we work with vendors to meet performance, usability and security requirements? • Can we work collabora1vely to develop sustainable solu1ons that support the migra1on
of mission-‐cri1cal services to the cloud?
•
Approach:
• Establish partnerships with those interested in a developing a mul1-‐vendor cloud • Explore alterna1ve specifica1ons, interoperability requirements, user and program
interfaces, service level defini1ons, business services and pricing models
Objec4ves
•
To be]er understand the management challenges for both service providers
and ins1tu1onal users
•
Address known challenges and hopefully lead to the iden1fica1on of new
challenges
•
The scope of known issues includes:
1)
Integra1on of ins1tu1onal “private” clouds to mul1ple cloud
services providers;
2)
Management of security, privacy, data replica1on and protec1on;
3)
Systems monitoring and audi1ng requirements under mul1-‐tenancy
and with mul1ple vendors and services loca1ons;
4)
Business con1nuity exposure and mi1ga1on challenges;
5)
Service-‐level-‐agreements to ensure the portability of services; and
6)
Technical specifica1ons, requirements and recommended technical
architectures.
Opportuni4es
5 – 5/27/11
•
High level of interest
•
Many ins1tu1ons interested
•
Many providers interested
•
Many ways to connect and provision services
•
Broad Scope of Interest
•
Infrastructure (with HPC as a special case)
•
Pla[orm
•
Applica1ons
•
And where do you put VOIP, Virtual Desktop,
Virtual Compu1ng Labs, Drop-‐boxes and content
repositories, large-‐scale archiving, etc…
LESSONS LEARNED
6 – 5/27/11
What we learned about Cloud Services
•
Cloud standards will remain proprietary for some 1me to come
• Focus should be on interoperability • Over 40 different standards groups
• NIST is working on describing use cases that test func1onality and abstract from “standards” per-‐se
•
Provisioning to IaaS requirements
• Depends cri1cally on PaaS and SaaS offerings • Can only be coarsely tuned at this point
•
EVERYONE wants some form of cloud services yesterday
• NO ONE is sure how to get there – but everyone is trying something • Not something we can figure out on paper
• Broad agreement that we need to figure it out in prac3ce
LESSONS LEARNED
7 – 5/27/11
What we learned about Cloud Providers
•
Lots of interest, many flavors
• Each vendor has approached the cloud from a slightly different perspec1ve • There are many “public cloud” providers and “private cloud” builders
•
“Community cloud” is easily said and widely accepted, but…
• No one has a business and provisioning model to support a mul1-‐ enterprise, mul1-‐vendor cloud
• More like building a marketplace for cloud than a point solu1on • Lots and lots of challenging ques1ons
•
Infrastructure-‐as-‐a-‐Service is an important star1ng point, but
• Understanding future growth depends on emerging needs for PaaS and SaaS offerings
•
We will get “there” in fits and starts
• Faster than we expected for some things • Slower than expected for others
Models that have Emerged
8 – 5/27/11
•
Leveraging the Internet2 Network, federated authen1ca1on
•
Four poten1al roles for Internet2
•
Contract Intermedia1on (master contracts)
•
Demand aggrega1on (pre-‐commitments to volume)
•
Value-‐added reseller (provisioning and procurement services)
•
Direct services provider (provisioning services)
•
Roles are not mutually exclusive
•
Cloud providers are not the same
•
Tend toward different types of partnerships with Internet2
•
For some corporate partners, role is in op1mizing network
The Internet2 Value Proposi4on
9 – 5/27/11
Access to cloud services through a trusted network managed to community requirements Use of the Internet2 R&E network and using
InCommon – lowering costs of transport, controlling costs of data transfers
Accessing cloud services through the Internet2 Network provides value:
1) Unparalleled performance
2) Can be op1mized to support diverse use cases
3) Can be op1mized to maximize security and data privacy in transit 4) Uniquely supports collabora1ons world-‐wide
U4lizing InCommon authen4ca4on to access cloud services provides value:
1) Uniquely recognizes individuals without loss of ins1tu1onal affilia1on 2) Allows greater individual autonomy to access services
3) Allows the provisioning and licensing of services directly to individuals while respec1ng ins1tu1onal obliga1ons rela1ve to that use
4) Provides a market mechanism that support the authorized use of services without requiring direct ins1tu1onal involvement in services acquisi1on
10 – 5/27/11
Access to cloud services via a trusted
network to community requirements transport, controlling costs of data transfers Use of the network, lowering costs of Internet2 master agreement, universi1es &
users purchase from vendor directly lower prices based on pre-‐commitments to
volume on behalf of the membership Internet2 contract holder with vendor (as
reseller), intermediates transac1ons
Internet2 partners with vendors to support Internet2 branded services, both technical and business services provisioning and end-‐
user support Access to defined services without need
for addi1onal contrac1ng
Lowering costs of storage and compute through volume discounts
Transparent access to defined services
Services through trusted en1ty accountable for maintenance and enhancement of services, support for
pla[orm and applica1on services
Delivering Capacity-‐on-‐Demand
Leverage network and federated
authen1ca1on Contract intermedia1on Demand aggrega1on
Value-‐added resale of services
Direct provisioning of services
Value-‐added
Opportunity and Challenges
11 – 5/27/11
Willingness to connect services to the network, to using InCommon and working to lower or eliminate data
transfer charges
Costs associated with establishing connec1ons, some fixed, some variable
-‐-‐ data transfer charges are shiped to connec1on based costs
Single contrac1ng agent lowers costs (opportunity to discount services)
Par1cipa1on agreements may need modifica1on. Overhead for contract
management 30%-‐60% discoun1ng possible with
pre-‐commitment to IaaS services expected demand levels difficult Obtaining reliable es1mates of Single billing lowers costs (opportunity
to discount services) Internet2 incurs overhead costs Requires pre-‐commitment and “White labeled” services, business
opera1ons and user support. Opportunity to shape offerings, other
valued services and support for R&E
Requires pre-‐commitment to volumes, con1nuing engagement on services and
Internet2 incurs overhead costs
Use of Internet2 Network and InCommon Federa1on Contract intermedia1on Demand aggrega1on Value-‐added resale of services Direct provisioning of services Interest? Challenges Value-‐added Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Opportunity
Technical Challenges
12 – 5/27/11
•
Op1ons for providing connec1vity
• Alterna1ve models for extending university DC networks to a remote cloud • Need to ensure mul1ple paths to services
• Use cases will drive the decision on connec1on paths
•
Interoperable and integrated clouds
• Transparent extension of campus cloud services to an external cloud
Extending university VMware environments to include community cloud services
• Replica1ng/extending local policies (e.g., security, privacy, compliance)
• Extending local iden1ty management – understanding the roles of Shibboleth/ InCommon in suppor1ng ubiquitous authen1ca1on
•
Other challenges
• Data storage, protec1on and availability requirements • How ready are we for
‘True’ HPC in the cloud?
Moving Forward
13 – 5/27/11
