Could the Cloud Derail a $300 Million Data Center?

1sockchuck writes "The cloud computing debate has come into focus for taxpayers in Washington state, where a proposed $300 million project to build a data center in Olympia for the state's IT operations is coming under scrutiny. Two legislators are urging the state to shift applications to the cloud instead, noting that two of the largest cloud computing providers (Microsoft and Amazon) are based in the state. The critics say the data center project is driven by an interest in local construction and 'fails to seriously explore the larger strategic question facing government technology today.'"

Comments

could it? Sure. Should it? No

[Em Emalb]

Good God, I can't be the only one so sick of this cloud computing bullshit. Seriously, just because it works for some types of data and/or applications, doesn't mean it'll work for everything.

Put down the fucking hammer, not every IT task is a frigging nail.

Idiots.

And here I was ...

[lbalbalba]

... stupid me, thinking that 'The Cloud', actually *was* a $300 Million Data Center...

Re:And here I was ...

[dave562]

This presents an interesting situation without an easy, clear cut answer. As a tax payer, I'm not sure what makes more sense. Do I want the government spending my money with a private company like Microsoft or Google, or do I want them spending my money developing their own infrastructure. On one hand, it could be argued that a large corporation that faces competitive pressures in the marketplace would be forced to keep costs down. On the other hand, by having a government run datacenter, costs can be controlled through the bugetary process. If the state runs their own datacenter, they don't have to worry about their "cloud" provider raising the rates every time the contract comes due.

The politican who came out against the datacenter says that he favors transparency. It seems to me that if he wants transparency, the state should run their own datacenter because then they will be able to completely audit all of the costs associated with it. If the IT services are outsourced into the cloud, it becomes more difficult to account for exactly how the dollars are spent. As you mentioned, a private entity needs to make a profit. A public entity simply needs to cover their costs, and in fact it is quite common for legislation to contain verbage that makes it illegal for a public entity to attempt to turn a profit by charging more for services than required to cover the costs involved.

From what I know of public sector workers (my girl friend works for the state of California), they are proud of their jobs and what they do. Of course there are always antecdotes about lazy DMV workers, or life time employees who get by doing the least possible as they look forward to their pension. However by and large, most public sector work environments have a strong sense of community pride that comes from knowing that they have a job for life (budget crisises aside). They know what their jobs are and they get them done. The large majority of the delay comes from the legislatively mandated proceedures that they have to follow... the reams of paperwork that they have to fill out to do the simplest thing. The jobs aren't the best paying jobs, but they are stable.

I can almost guarantee that sense of pride would shine through with the state of Washington IT services department. That would be "their" datacenter, and they would be providing services directly to the people of the state. There will be people working in that datacenter for 20 plus years. How long do you think people stick around a typical datacenter?

Some day...

[Facegarden]

Some day, someone will figure out how to store data in *actual* clouds, and this whole thing is gonna get *really* confusing.
-Taylor

Re:could it? Sure. Should it? No

[vertinox]

Seriously, just because it works for some types of data and/or applications, doesn't mean it'll work for everything.

What is the difference between an in-house datacenter and an outsourced one?

The person you write the checks to.

That's about it these days.

Chances are if they did do in house, the techs were still be outsourced contracts instead of state employees. If they outsource it to Amazon or Microsoft in the state they'll still be employing locals and hopefully save tax dollars in the process.

But I do agree about the whole "cloud computing" being BS as a hypeword. Its really a euphemism for "outsourced".

Re:*blinks*

[Albanach]

If I lived in that state, I'd be pretty upset by the mere suggestion that it would be a good idea to have all the private information which the state holds about me go through either Microsoft or Google.

If you're hosting your own images and just using their processors, storage and bandwidth then what I would be concerned about is the privacy policy that forms part of the contract. Properly set up however, the important data should be arriving at the cloud encrypted and be stored encrypted. The host should have no ability to access raw personal data.

Personally I'm wondering just what sort of IT infrastructure they have that demands a $300 million data center? With 66,000 employees that's $4500 per employee. Just what is the data center for?

"Cloud" Privacy?

[mosodede]

I really do not feel comfortable with the idea of the government "outsourcing" my data to a third party. I think that cloud-computing is such a young concept that it should not be used for government purposes until any privacy concerns are addressed.

Re:could it? Sure. Should it? No

[snspdaarf]

It would be an interesting archaeology study to dig through messageboards and bulletin boards from the 70's and 80s. I'm sure that you could find people discussing the idea of shifting computing from the big, time shared mainframes to personal computers.

I'm also sure one would find comments like yours, stating how annoying the idea of personal computers sounds like the ubiquitous nail for the universal hammer problem. I wouldn't be surprised if there were several people in the vocal minority who had disdain for non-distributed computing.

Hopefully, in two decades, someone will be digging through Slashdot and laughing about us having to search through the slow-ass "Information Superhighway" for our data.

It's funny how history repeats itself.

One could. There was. And it isn't.

There is no difference between what was happening then, and what is happening now. Then, it was short-sighted management that wanted to avoid the costs of the mainframe and having to deal with Data Processing when they wanted something. Now, it is short-sighted management that wants to avoid the cost of in-house servers and desktop computers and having to deal with IT when they want something.

Then, the problems cropped up when data that used to be in one location was suddenly on every PC in the organization and out of sync with the mainframe and every other PC. Now, the problem will crop up when we will have the data on NONE of the computers in an organization, and some dork with backhoe whose parents never bought him Tonka toys chops the fiber. Or, that a poorly written application stores critical data in the clear and suddenly a Google search brings up your medical history.

When I call a company for service I do not want to be told sorry, we can't help you until whatever problem happened is fixed, because we have no way to pull up your records.

Re:Want real government savings?

[mosodede]

Windows is not quite as crappy in large enterprises as you might like to believe.

Re:could it? Sure. Should it? No

[Em Emalb]

Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer to keep my data in-house. I know who is accessing it, who even has access to it, who has access to the physical rooms, the racks, etc. Do you think that "cloud" computing is going to increase or decrease security leaks? In a few years, if this keeps going the way we're going, there will be so many leaks we won't even report them anymore.

Yeah, I do networking/security for a living, and I simply cannot trust a third party to be as responsible as I am with my data. I work for a financial firm, there is no way in hell we'd even consider out-sourcing our data or servers to a third party. Way way too much information available there, it would be too tempting, IMO.

With regards to the data center in question, yes, chances are it will be out-sourced. But I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to calling out-sourcing your servers and whatnot to a 3rd party "cloud computing". Cloud computing to me indicates that your information is distributed all over the internet, not a single provider. That's not a "cloud", that's a single entity.

But whatever floats their boat.

sometimes public policy matters....

[Rep. Reuven Carlyle]

Do you really think I'd take a stand like this for Microsoft or Google or any other company? I'm trying to have a more serious discussion before we spend $300M on a state owned and operated data center with a weak business case behind it on the Capitol Campus when we're so broke we're closing group foster homes. And I'm not suggesting we send all the data to the cloud, just look at a more strategic technology plan that uses it when/if appropriate. Doesn't take away or discount the legitimate privacy/security issues to raise other options. Reuven Carlyle