Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Cloud Computing Is Retarded: Or, The Pendulum Swings Back

Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
edited March 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Let me begin with a brief history lesson.

A long time ago, before this crazy interwubs thing caught on, there were these things called BBSes and Mainframes. A client would connect his computer (whether it be a actual dumb terminal or just acted like one) to an offsite server and do his work on said offsite computer. For a lot of reasons, this blew.

Then, Al Gore, toiling endlessly in his secret lab with Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, created the internet and gave it to us. Combined with faster and faster computers, the standard dumb terminal model for computer networking died out. Now, personal computers were fast enough and good enough do their own work and used the internet to communicate between personal computers, decentralising data. It made things more equal, more egalitarian.

Now, some fuckwits somewhere decided that "Hey! Let's resurrect this ancient computing model that died out for good reason! Why? Why because we can slap a clever buzzword on it and convince the braindead sheep that this is new and awesome, when it is actually bullshit that will die out soon enough."

In my opinion, the whole concept of "Cloud" computing is antithetical to the direction the internet should be taking. The natural direction that we should be working towards is further blurring the line between server and client. Instead, we're taking a huge fucking step backwards.

Do you guys think there is a compelling reason to return to this "cloud computing" nonsense?

Premier kakos on
SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
«13

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I think there's an argument to be made similar to the argument for hydrogen- or electric-powered cars: you're centralizing processing power. So, when you make an upgrade, you just need to upgrade one computer to upgrade thousands of people. I think it really depends upon how it's executed.

  • chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    It can be very cost effective on a small scale. A big nasty server and 25 little client boxes is cheaper then one mediocre server and 25 medicore normal computers. Plus managing the client machines is incredibly easy. One brakes? Drop in a new one with no interruption.

    As far as true 'cloud' computing, though, would it's effectiveness hinge quite a bit on available bandwidth?

    The list never changes: http://www.infinitebacklog.com
    Chamberlain.jpg
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I think I may be missing your idea of what cloud computing is, really.

    The idea isn't to go back to mainframes, the idea is variable amounts of processing power needed at various points. From wherever.

    I crunch a lot of data. It comes in random (as in completely random, determined by customers I have no real control over) chunks. My options here are either:

    A) possess enough computing power to process every customer's information at once, even if this never actually happens

    B) possess enough computing power to process my average workload x2 or what have you for growth and buffer, and a cloud system behind it.

    It's far more affordable for me to offload those sudden immense spikes of data processing to a third party who spins up my preformed VMs on demand and gives me sudden capacity without the expense of having another two rows of systems sitting hot on my datacenter floor and not doing anything.

    Cloud computing as it is right now is more an extension of the logic of VMs: trying to get away from our old problem of the entire datacenter running at 3% capacity for most of it's life.


    edit: hrm, what you all seem to be talking about are thin clients, which isn't how I've seen any major cloud computing services used yet. Thin clients make sense on a small scale or for simple apps (hospitals don't need Outlook on every patient's bedside, they need something small with access to CHCS or whathaveyou)

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    There's also the fact that a dumb terminal is way easier to maintain than a PC. If all you're using it for is Office and surfing the internet, a mainframe may be the better choice, especially if you don't know what the fuck you're doing. Like, I don't picture cloud computing ever being good for me (though I don't discount the possibility entirely), but it might be great for my parents.

  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited March 2009
    Aren't they also thinking of using the unused radio frequencies to create faster, and free, internet? I thought that was the future progression?

    I know not of this heretical "cloud" computing though, and it sounds retarded.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Mainframes never really died out as a logical structure, either. You've almost always done corporate work on central systems. We have a perforce server that is the code repo, we've got the build servers that do the compiles, you've got the exchange server storing your email. It makes no logical sense to do all this shit on your desktop all the time. The only thing that changed was you don't remotely log in to some random uni's mainframe to kick off a data crunch experiment. You still kick your animation project to a render farm for high end tasks, though. It's just the company owns it now.

    I'm not seeing how client/server communication ever died off, dumb terminals just died. And those have stayed mostly dead. OnLIVE is off the top of my head the only crew trying to bring back the dumb terminal in any major way.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    I know not of this heretical "cloud" computing though, and it sounds retarded.

    I think we need to sit down and define it. Cloud architecture isn't dumb terminal + big central server. At all. BitTorrent is an example of a cloud computing setup. So is SETI@Home. It's not "insert massive server here", it's "closer client/server relationships." Google Apps is technically cloud computing as well (on a SaaS level) as you're using their cloud to store you data and host the application. It's still not a dumb terminal for your system, it's just a platform and installation agnostic approach to data access. Also shockingly unpopular.

    The idea behind google apps wasn't "replace your desktop with a brick", it was "access your documents from anywhere" and collaborative editing.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    "Cloud" is supposed to apply for everything from thin clients to remote storage and frankly, it's a fucking ugly term.
    Client-server and on demand processing certainly have it's place, it's just not in every home, for every application.
    I remember we had a thread on the same subject while ago as RMS had dropped a huge rant "Cloud == Evil".

    Edit:
    Cloud architecture isn't dumb terminal + big central server. At all. BitTorrent is an example of a cloud computing setup.

    Yes, it's a dumb as fuck general term encompassing a zillion different technologies with pretty specific names. Every journalist would swallow it as hot bread.

  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    It's definitely and overly broad marketing term at this point. I actually had to go read up on what all it encompasses after reading this thread just to make sure I wasn't misusing the term.

    Thin clients have their place, but barely in your home as a computing solution (great as things like a cable box and whatnot)

  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    SETI@HOME or any of the BOINC programs is cloud computing. and it is great. Allows distributed data processing of massive amounts of data.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2009
    JebusUD wrote: »
    SETI@HOME or any of the BOINC programs is cloud computing. and it is great. Allows distributed data processing of massive amounts of data.

    SETI@Home isn't cloud computing, which is exactly the problem. SETI@Home and distributed processing is what we should be moving to, whereas "cloud computing" is a movement towards taking any processing off of your box and putting it on a centralised server somewhere.

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited March 2009
    JebusUD wrote: »
    SETI@HOME or any of the BOINC programs is cloud computing. and it is great. Allows distributed data processing of massive amounts of data.

    SETI@Home isn't cloud computing, which is exactly the problem. SETI@Home and distributed processing is what we should be moving to, whereas "cloud computing" is a movement towards taking any processing off of your box and putting it on a centralised server somewhere.

    Personally I don't really trust anyone that wants to hold my files for me somewhere and think that there's no chance that they'll loose any information or create fuck ups somewhere down the line.

  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    JebusUD wrote: »
    SETI@HOME or any of the BOINC programs is cloud computing. and it is great. Allows distributed data processing of massive amounts of data.

    SETI@Home isn't cloud computing, which is exactly the problem. SETI@Home and distributed processing is what we should be moving to, whereas "cloud computing" is a movement towards taking any processing off of your box and putting it on a centralised server somewhere.
    Some successful cloud architectures have little or no centralised infrastructure or billing systems whatsoever, including peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent and Skype and volunteer computing like SETI@home

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    SETI@HOME or any of the BOINC programs is cloud computing. and it is great. Allows distributed data processing of massive amounts of data.
    SETI@Home isn't cloud computing, which is exactly the problem. SETI@Home and distributed processing is what we should be moving to, whereas "cloud computing" is a movement towards taking any processing off of your box and putting it on a centralised server somewhere.
    Personally I don't really trust anyone that wants to hold my files for me somewhere and think that there's no chance that they'll loose any information or create fuck ups somewhere down the line.
    There's a chance you'll lose information or create fuckups down the line even when you're keeping your stuff on your own computer.

  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited March 2009
    SETI@Home, BitTorrent, etc. are fucking grid computing, not cloud computing. You know, maybe my big problem with cloud computing is that it is just a bullshit marketing buzzword that has no actual meaning and is being used by a lot of companies to implement more dumb terminal/mainframe type architectures. Oh, and BTW, Google apps are very much a dumb terminal/mainframe type architecture. The only thing your computer does is act as a display for shit that is happening on Google's servers.

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited March 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    SETI@HOME or any of the BOINC programs is cloud computing. and it is great. Allows distributed data processing of massive amounts of data.
    SETI@Home isn't cloud computing, which is exactly the problem. SETI@Home and distributed processing is what we should be moving to, whereas "cloud computing" is a movement towards taking any processing off of your box and putting it on a centralised server somewhere.
    Personally I don't really trust anyone that wants to hold my files for me somewhere and think that there's no chance that they'll loose any information or create fuck ups somewhere down the line.
    There's a chance you'll lose information or create fuckups down the line even when you're keeping your stuff on your own computer.
    True, but at least then I'm the one making the fuck up.

    Edit: Well, unless it's a power failure or something like that, but at least then I know what's happened to my work.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    SETI@HOME or any of the BOINC programs is cloud computing. and it is great. Allows distributed data processing of massive amounts of data.
    SETI@Home isn't cloud computing, which is exactly the problem. SETI@Home and distributed processing is what we should be moving to, whereas "cloud computing" is a movement towards taking any processing off of your box and putting it on a centralised server somewhere.
    Personally I don't really trust anyone that wants to hold my files for me somewhere and think that there's no chance that they'll loose any information or create fuck ups somewhere down the line.
    There's a chance you'll lose information or create fuckups down the line even when you're keeping your stuff on your own computer.

    Open vs Closed system and different levels of access to information you actually own.
    I'd think everybody should weight that down for himself before deciding if he wishes to use "cloud" services.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    SETI@Home, BitTorrent, etc. are fucking grid computing, not cloud computing. You know, maybe my big problem with cloud computing is that it is just a bullshit marketing buzzword that has no actual meaning and is being used by a lot of companies to implement more dumb terminal/mainframe type architectures. Oh, and BTW, Google apps are very much a dumb terminal/mainframe type architecture. The only thing your computer does is act as a display for shit that is happening on Google's servers.

    Google apps are a cost effective solution for a lot of companies without much technological expertise.

  • Greg USNGreg USN Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Let me begin with a brief history lesson.

    A long time ago, before this crazy interwubs thing caught on, there were these things called BBSes and Mainframes. A client would connect his computer (whether it be a actual dumb terminal or just acted like one) to an offsite server and do his work on said offsite computer. For a lot of reasons, this blew.

    Then, Al Gore, toiling endlessly in his secret lab with Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, created the internet and gave it to us. Combined with faster and faster computers, the standard dumb terminal model for computer networking died out. Now, personal computers were fast enough and good enough do their own work and used the internet to communicate between personal computers, decentralising data. It made things more equal, more egalitarian.

    Now, some fuckwits somewhere decided that "Hey! Let's resurrect this ancient computing model that died out for good reason! Why? Why because we can slap a clever buzzword on it and convince the braindead sheep that this is new and awesome, when it is actually bullshit that will die out soon enough."

    In my opinion, the whole concept of "Cloud" computing is antithetical to the direction the internet should be taking. The natural direction that we should be working towards is further blurring the line between server and client. Instead, we're taking a huge fucking step backwards.

    Do you guys think there is a compelling reason to return to this "cloud computing" nonsense?


    I think you have neglected that data moves down the magic pipes a little faster this days.

    FFXIV Petra Ironheart
    Clockwork Mog the smaller, quieter Penny-Arcade free company on Sargatanas. Recruiting 21+ members. PM for details
    Join Raidcall 7779399 (open to all that want to chat!)
    http://clockworkmog.guildlaunch.com/
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    so what are we arguing? that computing power/storage/whatever should all be at your computer and not from someone elses server?

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    zeeny wrote: »
    SETI@Home, BitTorrent, etc. are fucking grid computing, not cloud computing. You know, maybe my big problem with cloud computing is that it is just a bullshit marketing buzzword that has no actual meaning and is being used by a lot of companies to implement more dumb terminal/mainframe type architectures. Oh, and BTW, Google apps are very much a dumb terminal/mainframe type architecture. The only thing your computer does is act as a display for shit that is happening on Google's servers.

    Google apps are a cost effective solution for a lot of companies without much technological expertise.

    As well as for people who don't want to have to lug their computer around/files won't fit on a flash drive in their pocket.

    Netbooks are cloud computing in the sense he means it. Dumb terminal with server processing giving you the service and programs that you need. I'm not seeing the downside here, except that you sometimes need a more 'smart' terminal to run certain programs. The fact that I can basically walk up to a random computer and plug in my username/password and it essentially becomes the same as my home PC is rather spectacular as far as I'm concerned.

    tea-1.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I don't like cloud computing the way it's currently implemented with things like Google apps and the like. My current annoyance with it is that there seems to be a general disregard for "what if I'm not able to get on the internet?" which is rare but happens. In that case, even though all my data was available possibly seconds ago it is suddenly unreachable.

    Basically, I don't think enough people write apps which work on the model of keeping multiple replicated and synchronized copies of data across computers you work on.

    The Company: The CYOA game that anybody can join at any time - running now!
  • TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Especially with the Gdrive, this seems to be the direction google thinks things are going. Maybe it's just another step while we wait for the smaller technologies to catch back up?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I don't like cloud computing the way it's currently implemented with things like Google apps and the like. My current annoyance with it is that there seems to be a general disregard for "what if I'm not able to get on the internet?" which is rare but happens. In that case, even though all my data was available possibly seconds ago it is suddenly unreachable.

    Basically, I don't think enough people write apps which work on the model of keeping multiple replicated and synchronized copies of data across computers you work on.

    I'd certainly agree that there is massive room for improvement, but this is basically new and unrefined. What geocities is to modern web pages. The philosophy behind it and where computing is headed is something that I find appealing though. And if we finally get the damn broadcast broadband created not being able to get online won't really be an issue outside of natural disasters/falling power lines. Which also screws you on a normal desktop anyway.

    tea-1.jpg
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I haven't really paid much attention to the "cloud computing" fad, though I've used some stuff that's probably part of it. Off the wall guess based on how fads go is that it useful for certain things and in certain contexts, will be overhyped and overdeployed beyond where it is useful as people buy into the buzz, then eventually recede back into mostly being used in the niches that it is good for once it is no longer "cool".

    Sometimes it is nice to be able to have a text file or spreadsheet where you can just go to a webpage and muck around with it and share it with whoever, but sometimes you want a local copy or at least a place where it is specified. And sometimes you just want a straight up database. It just depends on what you are doing.

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    While I may be confused about the intent of your post due to maybe sarcasm, I'd like to point out that (and I wish I could find a link for this, but ironically Google searches bring me nothing) a few years ago, a Google data center, built to house information from people's gmail and calendar apps, burned to the fucking ground, and not one single client experienced an interruption in service or a loss of data.

    So yeah, I'd say cloud servers mixed with centralized mainframes are actually a pretty good idea.

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Also cloud computing is helping cure cancer.

    So there's that.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    While I may be confused about the intent of your post due to maybe sarcasm, I'd like to point out that (and I wish I could find a link for this, but ironically Google searches bring me nothing) a few years ago, a Google data center, built to house information from people's gmail and calendar apps, burned to the fucking ground, and not one single client experienced an interruption in service or a loss of data.

    So yeah, I'd say cloud servers mixed with centralized mainframes are actually a pretty good idea.

    Google is censoring negative publicity! Cabal!

    tea-1.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    I don't like cloud computing the way it's currently implemented with things like Google apps and the like. My current annoyance with it is that there seems to be a general disregard for "what if I'm not able to get on the internet?" which is rare but happens. In that case, even though all my data was available possibly seconds ago it is suddenly unreachable.

    Basically, I don't think enough people write apps which work on the model of keeping multiple replicated and synchronized copies of data across computers you work on.

    I'd certainly agree that there is massive room for improvement, but this is basically new and unrefined. What geocities is to modern web pages. The philosophy behind it and where computing is headed is something that I find appealing though. And if we finally get the damn broadcast broadband created not being able to get online won't really be an issue outside of natural disasters/falling power lines. Which also screws you on a normal desktop anyway.
    Eh - that's the thing - it's waiting on a level of internet access and speed which is unlikely to happen. I mean, Gdrive and others a poor substitute for the fact that it's retardedly difficult to setup a reliable scheme to keep all your files in sync across multiple computers, so people instead just elect to use only one-set stored somewhere common or use Gdrive as the center of a star-topology setup.

    No one writes software which really allows multiple edits to be merged easily (or provides a common interface for it - say, a program_name.exe /merge file1 file2 ability - which would work for things like unison) and there are no sync programs which make it particularly easy to have an automated and rigorous backup (I mean, I'd be content to run something which intercepted file calls and tracked edits so it always knew what state it was in, and then synced when it could up to a certain size).

    The Company: The CYOA game that anybody can join at any time - running now!
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    ...Can't you download the stuff on google apps to your computer?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    I don't like cloud computing the way it's currently implemented with things like Google apps and the like. My current annoyance with it is that there seems to be a general disregard for "what if I'm not able to get on the internet?" which is rare but happens. In that case, even though all my data was available possibly seconds ago it is suddenly unreachable.

    Basically, I don't think enough people write apps which work on the model of keeping multiple replicated and synchronized copies of data across computers you work on.

    I'd certainly agree that there is massive room for improvement, but this is basically new and unrefined. What geocities is to modern web pages. The philosophy behind it and where computing is headed is something that I find appealing though. And if we finally get the damn broadcast broadband created not being able to get online won't really be an issue outside of natural disasters/falling power lines. Which also screws you on a normal desktop anyway.
    Eh - that's the thing - it's waiting on a level of internet access and speed which is unlikely to happen.

    Not really. Most urban areas (meaning a majority of the population) basically have omnipresent high speed internet access. Either via a wall jack and a cable company or wi-fi bleeding outwards from coffee shops and/or neighbors. In order to make sure that it is truly ubiquitous and available to anyone in the same way that electricity is we're a good ways off, but not terribly far and policy is heading in that direction. It would be nice if you could sync things up at home without a centralized Google platform as well, but when it comes to a lot of very basic programs that constitute the bulk of 'normal' computer use I don't really see the downsides.

    tea-1.jpg
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited March 2009
    google apps is awesome for sharing documents. house bills excel file in particular.

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    While I may be confused about the intent of your post due to maybe sarcasm, I'd like to point out that (and I wish I could find a link for this, but ironically Google searches bring me nothing) a few years ago, a Google data center, built to house information from people's gmail and calendar apps, burned to the fucking ground, and not one single client experienced an interruption in service or a loss of data.

    So yeah, I'd say cloud servers mixed with centralized mainframes are actually a pretty good idea.

    Google is censoring negative publicity! Cabal!

    OMG CENSORSHIP

    no, honestly the reason is that no one bothered reporting on it because it was a total non-event for anyone other than the gross IT nerds who worked at the facility.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    The phrase "cloud computing" bugs me because it doesn't really mean anything.

    It's been used to describe everything from centralized ASPs to completely distributed Bittorrent networks.

    I think it's poetic that the metaphor is fuzzy and amorphous, much like a cloud.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Lizz the BlizzLizz the Blizz Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Cloud Computing is brilliant, and it's definitely not going to leave just because there's no immediate obvious profits for client-based computing.

    For server-based computing, it's almost certainly the way basically every SMB our research lab encounters is wanting to go with their IT infrastructure.

    Apart from HPC and, well, games I guess, a huge rift has been formed in between the server software and hardware markets. New and faster hardware is developed at a dizzying pace, while many companies prefer sticking to their old and proven software. Most SMB's don't really have time to do a lot of research into IT and larger companies don't really care a whole lot about hardware costs, so you end up with a printserver, a firewall, a mailserver, a fileserver, maybe a webserver, and of course database servers, etc. All of these running at about 5% of their hardware's capacities.

    What with the current state of the economy (and the push to make IT greener), many of these SMB's (and large companies just as well) have been looking to somehow reduce the footprint of their IT infrastructures to only what is absolutely necessary (while still retaining the necessary availability of these services). If you know that on average, a dual socket server system that isn't being used optimally (think somewhere between 5-10% of its capabilities) still runs at about 330 Watts. Running 5 of these puts you at a usage of 1650 Watts, constantly.

    So along came VMware with its barebone hypervisors, allowing consolidation of multiple software platforms onto a single server. Throwing together these theoretical 5 servers onto a single platform, than, when used efficiently, only consumes about 440 Watts.

    The next step here is Cloud Computing. The whole idea behind cloud computing isn't just to put everything back into one big single machine, the idea is to break software loose from a single hardware platform. That's why we are now slowly but surely evolving to self-maintaining data centers, live migration of running virtual machines from one hardware platform to another, without the users even noticing. Servers are able to monitor eachother to minimize downtime due to hardware failures (look up VMware Fault Tolerance if you want to learn about something really cool). Yes, pretty soon we can start thinking of data centers as one big supercomputer, a huge resource pool, but the concept is infinitely improved from before. It is infinitely more flexible and maintainable, while still providing all the security of having separate hardware platforms handle things.

    Cloud Computing is not a step backwards: it's a natural step forwards into a more efficient way of handling IT tasks. Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) and Google Applications are what they are because these companies have the IT infrastructure available to provide cloud services on a large scale.

    It may not impact client-based computing users a whole lot to this day, but trust me, in the server world, this is HUGE.

    EDIT: Just think about how much power the average desktop computer is sucking up while you're doing menial tasks like surfing the web and maybe listening to music. Personal computers are horribly bloated and are pretty much only ever running efficiently when playing video games (or something similar). Distributed computing is one way of trying to actually put all that wastefulness to use, cloud computing is a way to reduce it for companies.

  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Having centralized servers do all the work is great! For instance, now you only have to monitor that one computer for illegal and/or seditious activities!

    steam_sig.png
  • Mortal SkyMortal Sky FONOTUNE Electric FairytaleRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    I'm not seeing how client/server communication ever died off, dumb terminals just died. And those have stayed mostly dead. OnLIVE is off the top of my head the only crew trying to bring back the dumb terminal in any major way.
    Edubuntu is a really good school-based system for computer labs done exactly this way.

    Kochikens wrote: »
    oh man I saw an otter with a boner at the seattle one and this kid asked his dad, IS HE EATING A HOT DOG
    and I laughed forever
  • freelancerbobfreelancerbob UKRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    SETI@HOME or any of the BOINC programs is cloud computing. and it is great. Allows distributed data processing of massive amounts of data.
    SETI@Home isn't cloud computing, which is exactly the problem. SETI@Home and distributed processing is what we should be moving to, whereas "cloud computing" is a movement towards taking any processing off of your box and putting it on a centralised server somewhere.
    Personally I don't really trust anyone that wants to hold my files for me somewhere and think that there's no chance that they'll loose any information or create fuck ups somewhere down the line.
    There's a chance you'll lose information or create fuckups down the line even when you're keeping your stuff on your own computer.
    Yeah but it would be my own screwup not some poorly trained drone that unplugs something critical at the datacentre.

    What is this thing that is happening here.
  • freelancerbobfreelancerbob UKRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    While I may be confused about the intent of your post due to maybe sarcasm, I'd like to point out that (and I wish I could find a link for this, but ironically Google searches bring me nothing) a few years ago, a Google data center, built to house information from people's gmail and calendar apps, burned to the fucking ground, and not one single client experienced an interruption in service or a loss of data.

    So yeah, I'd say cloud servers mixed with centralized mainframes are actually a pretty good idea.

    Google is censoring negative publicity! Cabal!

    Man that'd hardly negative publicity. A whole datacentre burned to the ground and it didn't disrupt services at all?

    Google: Your data is immune to fire now.

    What is this thing that is happening here.
  • kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Elitistb wrote: »
    Having centralized servers do all the work is great! For instance, now you only have to monitor that one computer for illegal and/or seditious activities!

    *grumble*

    Again, this is really how everything works Anyways.

    Think about your office. Think really hard. How much of the stuff you use isn't actually doing more than temporary storage/rendering on your system? Of all the apps I have open right now, my notepad scratch file is the only entirely local application running. Email? Just a local cache and application, all the data is IMAP on the exchange server. Ton of putty windows, because it would be silly for me to run the data crunching applications off user desktops. Firefox windows, which are obviously just rendering the end result of code running somewhere else.

    My machine here IS a dumb terminal, it's just got an awful lot of hardware behind it trying to pretend it's not. That said, local machines aren't going away barring very specific circumstances. But even then, centrally managed machines are useful. Enterprise backups of your desktop VM farm. No data loss on hardware failure. Give new box, plug in VM path, run. Run from anywhere capability (no assigned desk, just come in, sit down, log in, and your customized desktop is there). Honest dumb terminals are useful for hospitals and educational systems, but centralized storage and management is useful anywhere (and not having to buy bleeding edge desktops for everyone is a huge perk)

    Cloud Computing isn't about replacing the world with dumb terminals. It's about reducing the massive waste inherent in the idea of overly fat machines on every desktop and in every server. It's an evolution of the idea of VMing things for resource reduction/cost reduction. Grid and Cloud computing aren't horribly different technologies, it's the application of such (and cloud being an overly broad marketing term). Grids tend to have a lot of machines, and you allocate the majority of them to working on one massive problem. Clouds are about allocating smaller blocks of processing to larger pools of varied requests. The EC2 cloud is just a fuckton of processing power, and you buy it by time chunk/number of processors you need for that time. It's pay by use burst processing that can integrate with your systems. And that should never go away, because the alternative is having to buy 30 new servers and rack space/power/cooling because you want to crunch your indexes for a client again this month and that goes beyond normal expected processing needs. I don't WANT a 300 server datacenter for a company that honestly only needs 150 on a regular basis. I'd rather replace it all with some seriously hardcore machines running any form of virtualization so I can get even more leverage out of the sliding windows of processing power required by certain systems. I loved when I worked at a company that went that route. We had specific processing times on a clock. Old method was to run dozens of machines that 95% of the day ran at 2% processor, and 5% ran at 80% doing all the math. New method was that their effective hardware could run the actual day to day operations until that 5% shows up, and they could steal some resources from trivial systems like the backup server for a few minutes that didn't need it at the time. Real time distribution of hardware resources to things that need it, instead of massively overspeccing a datacenter Just In Case. Efficiency!

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.