There are already great examples of businesses using the cloud to support their infrastructure (Amazon's posterchild being SmugMug.)
One of the major reasons people will migrate is efficiency. In this green-age that we're now in, companies are looking to reduce their individual power requirements while increasing scale. Who can provide cheaper power or more efficient cooling for datacenter? Your on-site NOC or ACME colo? ACME colo, or sunpowered-ocean-cooled-datacenter.com? By making this leap, companies are able to lower their costs, 'at the cost' (har har) of building their applications in a cloud-friendly manner.
There are a few major hurdles left to cross for widespread adoption, but you can see this wave coming from miles away.
Two of those hurdles are reliability and performance. As a business looking to lower costs by switching to cloud-based computing (say Amazon's EC2), I need to know what kind of performance I can get and how reliable the service will be. This information is starting to come out via services like CloudStatus.com -- which is able to give performance and health metrics on a
real-time & historical basis.
You'll definitely see a huge push towards SLAs which will push adoption. The competition is heating up in this space.
// Disclaimer -- I work for Hyperic which wrote CloudStatus
Why is Java bad? This isn't 1996 anymore. Have you ever run HQ? It would be shame to throw someone out of your interview over that!;-) If you want to argue about objective features, then point them out.
Look at the installation procedure: Nagios documentation starts out with telling you that you'll need root access, a compiler, libGD, etc. Hyperic HQ comes with an installer that does all the work for you.
Where do the 'light years' come into play? Feature for Feature, Nagios and HQ have a lot of the same features. Are you getting performance management, autodiscovery, correlations between alerts and monitoring data in Nagios? HQ provides all those and all without ever compiling or chmoding anything.
With such a low barrier to try it, it's worth it for people to take the 30 minutes and see for themselves how easy monitoring and managing your infrastructure can be.
I'm surprised people still use these 'svn co &&./configure && make install && edit config files' systems. You can download Hyperic HQ, install it, and be monitoring your software and hardware in 30 minutes -- no joke. Want alerts when your disks are full? Cake. Want to autodiscover your Apache server? Cake. Want an alert when a process goes haywire? Cake.
And since it has a pluggable framework, you can monitor anything that you want -- network devices, software, hardware, etc.
It's Open Source and has an active community, so if you really long for the days of 'svn co', that's also provided.
Disclaimer: I work for Hyperic... and it's objectively better.
Slashdot Mirror
There are already great examples of businesses using the cloud to support their infrastructure (Amazon's posterchild being SmugMug.)
One of the major reasons people will migrate is efficiency. In this green-age that we're now in, companies are looking to reduce their individual power requirements while increasing scale. Who can provide cheaper power or more efficient cooling for datacenter? Your on-site NOC or ACME colo? ACME colo, or sunpowered-ocean-cooled-datacenter.com? By making this leap, companies are able to lower their costs, 'at the cost' (har har) of building their applications in a cloud-friendly manner.
There are a few major hurdles left to cross for widespread adoption, but you can see this wave coming from miles away.
Two of those hurdles are reliability and performance. As a business looking to lower costs by switching to cloud-based computing (say Amazon's EC2), I need to know what kind of performance I can get and how reliable the service will be. This information is starting to come out via services like CloudStatus.com -- which is able to give performance and health metrics on a real-time & historical basis.
You'll definitely see a huge push towards SLAs which will push adoption. The competition is heating up in this space.
Why is Java bad? This isn't 1996 anymore. Have you ever run HQ? It would be shame to throw someone out of your interview over that! ;-) If you want to argue about objective features, then point them out.
Look at the installation procedure: Nagios documentation starts out with telling you that you'll need root access, a compiler, libGD, etc. Hyperic HQ comes with an installer that does all the work for you.
Where do the 'light years' come into play? Feature for Feature, Nagios and HQ have a lot of the same features. Are you getting performance management, autodiscovery, correlations between alerts and monitoring data in Nagios? HQ provides all those and all without ever compiling or chmoding anything.
With such a low barrier to try it, it's worth it for people to take the 30 minutes and see for themselves how easy monitoring and managing your infrastructure can be.
I'm surprised people still use these 'svn co && ./configure && make install && edit config files' systems. You can download Hyperic HQ, install it, and be monitoring your software and hardware in 30 minutes -- no joke. Want alerts when your disks are full? Cake. Want to autodiscover your Apache server? Cake. Want an alert when a process goes haywire? Cake.
And since it has a pluggable framework, you can monitor anything that you want -- network devices, software, hardware, etc.
It's Open Source and has an active community, so if you really long for the days of 'svn co', that's also provided.
Disclaimer: I work for Hyperic ... and it's objectively better.
How about:
God is Love
Love is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind
therefore
Ray Charles is God!
Anyone can pick it up if they like. The license
is BSDish.