On 07/08/2014 01:19 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> And can you explain the difference between "cloud" and "time-sharing
> on a mainframe"
Sure.
"Cloud" is much more dynamic, for better or for worse, than mainframes
in ye olde days. Cloud takes advantage on smart clients, and, well, is
a bit of a nebulous terms covering many things traditional servers do,
but with more of an emphasis on dynamic load balancing. Ideally, if no
one is using a server that server should not be running, as it is
wasting power. The challenge is to get servers up with low latency.
And when I say 'servers' that includes physical iron as well as fully
virtualized hardware and more fluid virtual containers that just sortof
act like a server.
It's all about getting the necessary services to the client processes,
regardless of whether the client is smart or dumb.
And ideal application for cloud-based technology is renderfarms;
transparent spinup and spindown of render machines, which often contain
very power-hungry GPUs, saves lots of money.
As much as it is going to rub sysadmins the wrong way (because the very
comfortable and flexible SA hat is one I wear often it definitely rubs
me a bit wrong), ideally the admin should spend time on setup and
implementation more than operation; the operation of this dynamic spinup
and spindown of resources, once set up by a competent admin, should be
entirely user-driven and automated.
Ye Olde Mainframes (not the more modern stuff, which *is* more
cloud-oriented) never did this and required monstrous opex for
personnel. Cloud is about reducing opex, pure and simple. Setup can be
capex, and thus a separate budget (at least here, once again wearing the
way too stiff CIO hat).
Robert mentions security, and that is a very very true statement, and is
where it is incumbent upon the admin who sets it up to be competent.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
