Slashdot Mirror
The Uncertain Promise of Utility Computing
icke writes "A quick overview of where the Economist thinks we are with the The Next Big Thing, also known as Stuff that doesn't work yet. Quoting: 'It is increasingly painful to watch Carly Fiorina, the boss of Hewlett-Packard (HP), as she tries to explain to yet another conference audience what her new grand vision of "adaptive" information technology is about. It has something to do with "Darwinian reference architectures", she suggests, and also with "modularising" and "integrating", as well as with lots of "enabling" and "processes". IBM, HP's arch rival, is trying even harder, with a marketing splurge for what it calls "on-demand computing". Microsoft's Bill Gates talks of "seamless computing". Other vendors prefer "ubiquitous", "autonomous" or "utility" computing. Forrester Research, a consultancy, likes "organic". Gartner, a rival, opts for "real-time". Clearly, something monumental must be going on in the world of computing for these technology titans simultaneously to discover something that is so profound and yet so hard to name.'"
If you can't explain what you do in a way a 10 year old can understand, your business will probably fail.
Computers will be everywhere and the will all talk to each other all of the time. That is all they are talking about, however what makes them nervous is whoever makes this work seemlessly first will be a huge winner.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
All that they're flogging is this: lots of intercommunicating little computers in everything. We're already about halfway there -- between the XBox, Tivo, and KISS Technology's (GPL-violating) DVD player, *normal* people are more likely than ever to have a computer connected to their television without even knowing it.
The instructor couldn't explain it, so she brought in a marketing exec, who could only define it in terms of itself. "E-business on demand is about computing, on demand, for e-business." Sprinkle in a healthy dose of meaningless adjectives, and you get the picture.
I'll tell you, it's pervasive. Since then, I've not found one person who can give a cohesive definition at this company. And yet, it's supposed to be my driving force and ultimate goal.
yay.
I was at Thinking Machines (the company that invented massively parallel computing) a decade ago, and back then Danny Hillis talked frequently about "utility computing" -- the idea that your computations would know how to flow back to wherever it needed to be done. So you'd work on a desktop computer and the user interactive bits would run locally, harder parts would flow back to a big CPU in the basement, and the really hard parts could flow back to a city supercomputer, in a CPU equivalent of the power grid.
...
At a high level, it's a pretty simple idea, and very powerful.
At the detailed level, there are some amazingly hard problems to solve. Like, for example, how does software get split into parts that can be separated with minimal communications overhead, or how do you decide when a task would run more efficiently spread across a bunch of CPU's, or how do you keep running smoothly when a network outage causes 10% of your CPU's to drop off of the grid.
I suspect that the reason that all of the big companies are pitching this is that:
1) CPU's and operating systems have been commoditized by Intel/AMD/etc. and Linux, and they want to have a reason for you to buy bigger/better/more expensive systems.
2) Once one of them announced it, they all have to have a "response".
That being said, I think that what they're doing is going to be of real value to high-end customers. If you're running a farm of 5,000 servers, you really need the software to be self-healing, etc.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Look at it this way... if we cant work out what a "Darwinian reference architecture" is, the indians must be totally fucking baffled!
Clearly, something monumental must be going on in the world of computing for these technology titans simultaneously to discover something that is so profound and yet so hard to name.
There's nothing monumental that's really floated to the surface yet. I work in grid computing, which itself is an amazing buzzword that everyone wants to say and no one understands (hell, I am not really sure what the purpose of what I do is).
Everyone's grasping for straws right now, b/c when some research project actually does become useful, they want to be in front of the wave so they can ride it all the way. This is everyone throwing out made up words in the hopes that people will like some (or at least one) of them. Around here, our made up phrase that I love is that we are being called "the cornerstone of cyberinfrastructure." It's even been used so much that they've shortened cyberinfrastructure to "CI" in big rambling memos about our future and direction. It's sort of depressing, though, when you realize that none of this actually means anything yet. Maybe it will one day, but that's not quite here yet.
"Clearly, something monumental must be going on in the world of computing for these technology titans simultaneously to discover something that is so profound and yet so hard to name.'"
:)
Yup. It's called "Bandwagon."
Carly Fiorina spews out a bunch of meaningless bafflegab and everyone just nods their head. Once again we see that nobody learned anything from the story of The Emperor's New Clothes.
Gee she's done alot for working women, layed them off by the thousands at HP and Compaq, not mention the thousands of contractors that took it up the hiney in houston (at least 30% of whom were working women). On top of that all she has to show for it is a muddled and confusing product line, and she's running long standing customers off in droves (like the co. I work for) and not adding any new ones. At this rate she'll singlehandedly drive HP/CQ into the ground, quite an accomplishment for the little lady.
I think giving women an equal chance is great, but if they are going to do all the same bone headed, greedy crap that men do why bother?
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
It's so hard to name because these companies all lack the synergistic, results-driven leverage that will incentivize their paradigm shift.
I'm fairly certain that used to be the case when *everybody* was running mainframe environments (not that lots of folks still aren't), but the key to the new version of this is that it'll be done over the network.
Look at it from IBM's perspective. You can have 8 extra processors on-site for each client for those few times when they need the extra CPU, or you can have massive datacenters all over the world with a pool of extra CPU's to draw from. The latter will lead to unprecedented economies of scale as you can reassign computrons dynamically between clients to whomever needs them most, while still maintaining a comfortable cushion. Those economies of scale likely mean both lower prices for the customers as well as increased profit for IBM, because it drastically increases the efficiency of their services.
I would be surprised if IBM was *not* working on a way to make applications portable across architectures also, and the push towards Linux on everything would seem to support this endeavour, irrespective of all the other reasons.
Imagine buying systems capabilities instead of machines. Let's say you need gobs of CPU but not so much I/O bandwidth. Your jobs are allocated to a Power-based compute node. Let's say you need gobs of I/O bandwidth but not so much CPU. Your jobs are allocated to a zSeries machine. Now things get *really* interesting when your job first needs lots of I/O, then lots of CPU, then settles down for a bit. Your job could get reallocated across the grid based on its needs at any given moment.
The technical end of making transfers of processes and datasets seamless is where the difficulty lays, and all of the 800lb gorillas are chomping at the bit to get it working first. The first one to do it right stands to make a fortune.
Dan
They're just spinning off commodity computing as if it's the latest, greatest product offering, rather than the natural evolution of technology. Commoditization of technology has been the downfall of just about every past for-profit technology fad. What these companies and groups are doing is trying to pretend that they created the trend, for some reason. In the end, the result is still the same.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
In 1994 I got a temp job (temp in the sense that they weren't hiring on less than the PhD level to avoid paying benefits, but permanent full-time in every other respect) at HP-Vancouver Washington.
My job was to disassemble brand-new packaged printers for rebuilding as prototypes for new models and loading the base unit CPU boards with Unix code for their prototype firmware.
I worked in a locked warehouse room with an outdoor loading ramp and about a million dollars worth of packaged printers stacked to the ceiling.
(They'd given me a marijuana unine test so they knew that they could trust me, but of course, no benefits not even morning coffee). My boss and my self were the only people who had keys to this locked storage workroom.
I put a picture of Claudia Schiffer in a evening gown on my PC desktop as wallpaper to keep from going insane in this sealed environment.
After about three weeks, I was fired for 'creating an environment conducive to sexual harassment' for this picture of Claudia Schiffer in a evening gown.
I can't recommend anyone seriously considering working at Hewlett-Packard. Sooner or later their bizarre culture is going to wipe you out regardless of how well you work or try to avoid their weird company politics.
I'm sure that Carly's only made a bad situation worse.
Thank you,
Irving Wladawsky-Berger, an in-house guru at IBM, pictures an ambulance delivering an unconscious patient to a random hospital. The doctors go online and get the patient's data (medical history, drug allergies, etc), which happens to be stored on the computer of a clinic on the other side of the world. They upload their scans of the patient on to the network and crunch the data with the processing power of thousands of remote computers-not just the little machine which is all that the hospital itself can nowadays afford.
This "guru"'s story is so unrealistic that it's downright dishonest. First, how is the patient identified among the millions of medical records in this miraculous database? The patient must be carrying some kind of identity card, so why not embed his/her medical records in the card instead of putting them online where they are exposed to hackers? (Of course it's still possible for someone to steal a smartcard, but at least it requires a separate attack on each patient rather than a single attack on the entire database.)
Second, how do the doctors authenticate themselves, or is everyone allowed to browse and update the medical records? These are doctors at a "random hospital", so in order to help this patient they must have access to the medical records of everyone in the country. Every doctor has access to every patient's records - great, what happens when one doctor's smartcard goes missing? The entire database is compromised. Again, the only sensible option is to keep each patient's data on a separate smartcard (with an offline backup in case the card is lost). The 'grid' is not the solution here.
Finally, we have the touching story of The Little Computer That Could - the hospital's computer is too slow to crunch the data on its own so it makes use of idle cycles donated by other computers. This completely misses the point of utility computing, which is to make it possible to buy and sell computing resources. If grid computing ever becomes widespread, all those idle CPU cycles will become a commodity and you will have to pay for them. Perhaps some philanthropic souls will donate cycles to the hospital for free, but they're just as likely to donate a real computer - the idea that the 'grid' solves the problem of equipment shortages is absurd.