[FoRK] An interesting offshoot from the iPad discussion

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Wed Feb 3 07:32:03 PST 2010


On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 10:44:35PM -0800, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> We need to redefine what a "cloud" is.

Nodes so thick they darken the star. Or making the
night sky bright enough to read by.
 
> Let's start by having a cloud that can seamlessly scale a single system image across an arbitrary number of machines, not the current "I'm running WinXP on a hypervisor" fetish or the largely useless "I've distributed a simple hash table" fad.  The former is running a non-cloud in someone else's basement and the latter has so little value for analytics that I can't remember why I mentioned it.

In principle you could scale to the accessible universe.
The response latency would be a bit long, though.

Gravitational assemblies define a natural adressing hierarchy,
and you can do relativistic cut-through with a simple
binary node labelling scheme. Long-term ephemeride
forecast is a bitch, though.

> I've tacitly identified why the cloud sucks above.
> 
> The obvious point is that you can't do anything in it that you can't do somewhere else; it competes on price and that is rarely a path to something recognizable as "success". Analytics is driving a lot of the growth of large-scale data infrastructures and sharded models like MapReduce are largely useless for almost all analytics anyone would actually care about. We have "big data" but what we really need to make clouds useful is "big analytics".  The software du jour is in dire need of a computer science overhaul in that regard.
> 
> The subtle point is that even if we did have "big analytics" in a real cloud, the value of a semi-public cloud is that it would be horrendously expensive to backhaul the myriad quasi-realtime data sets that will be required in the near future in order for the analytics to be valuable. Having every third-rate or even first-rate company replicate their own version of exabytes of reality is a non-starter. Grossly inefficient and politically implausible. If analytic processes could seamlessly bridge the public-private sphere, it would be vastly more efficient than trying to suck the universe into a laughably tiny rack of servers.  Designing a protocol that allows this will require semantics and protocols that are richer and more clever than what passes for a "service" today, but not that much more. Calling back to the previous paragraph, that would require better algorithms and data structures and little more.
> 
> 
> The economics of the "cloud" as currently defined don't pan out.  The economics of a true cloud are so strong that once implemented most everyone will be sucked in whether they like it or not.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE


More information about the FoRK mailing list