I’ve been reading some of James Hamilton’s publications recently: he’s one of the clever chaps behind Amazon Web Services (AWS).  One line bio from his blog:

James is a Vice President and Distinguished Engineer on the Amazon Web Services team where he is focused on infrastructure efficiency, reliability, and scaling.

What struck me about Hamilton’s work is his combination of pragmatism, engineering and operations: now that’s my idea of a holy trinity!

Hamilton works for AWS and is obviously heavily involved in making the service a game changer, and has been successful at it, but how is he doing this?

If you look at Hamilton’s publication list you can get some clues to the human weaponry that AWS have.  Here’s just one example:

Data Center Efficiency Best Practices (pdf)

This is looking beyond mere servers and looking at the whole data center.  Slide 5 points at a $200M / 15MW / 15yr  facility and $100M / 50,000 / 3yr servers.  The monthly costs are $5.6M, of which $2.3M are related to power and confirm the approximate rule of thumb that for every $ of compute there is a $ of power.

Slide 24 talks about the Co-operative Expendible Micro-slice Servers (CEMS) which is a joint project with Rackable to produce efficient servers, and he makes a great point that instead of growing bad facilities, why not move to containers and repurpose the data center as more valuable office space?

I’d just like to note that at the recent VMworld09 a Cisco Unified Computing System of 512 blades ran between 30,000-40,000 VMs.

AWS are recognizing that their data center is core to their business and IT is a core competency to selling stuff better than the competition.  So they invest in IT and brains to make them better than the competition.  I don’t think that there is a vendor on the planet than could do a better job than them today, even considering Microsoft and Google.

After reading James Hamilton’s work I could not imagine AWS using someone else’s weaponry, such as VMware’s vCloud, in the Cloud arms race.  I’m sure AWS have looked at vCloud, but they would look at more than just the API and would burn through the marketing with their efficiency and effectiveness laser focus.  If using vCloud improves the PUE and DCiE figures compared to the home-grown system, then would vCloud be a better solution than AWS home-grown CEMS and Xen?

How about we consider someone who isn’t AWS but want’s to compete with AWS in the Public Cloud space.  First of all there are two great barriers to entry to providing a Public Cloud service:

1. Investment Capital. From the numbers above, you can see the hundreds of millions that AWS have _already_ spent, and today’s economy is not one in which to raise capital on the markets.
2. Intellectual Capital. There is a scarce number of smart people who are like James Hamilton.

You could argue that vCloud gives other Public Cloud builders a “leg up” by letting them buy the weaponry that reduces these barriers to entry and can get them towards an AWS-like service at a lower investment.  But is there really a shortcut to becoming AWS or better? If there is, I reckon AWS are the only people that know what it is, and they are unlikely to share it.

For the companies that are getting into the public cloud business I can only see them complement AWS if they offer some service that AWS doesn’t.  If they try to offer the same service at a lower price than AWS : how?  They must be more efficient and effective than AWS, and I can only see that happening through brains, hard work, time, and significant investment.  No short cut.

So if you can’t compete publicly with AWS, then that leaves the internal/Private Cloud (which AWS will be eating into steadily – did you see Virtual Private Cloud?  If AWS are eating into the Private Cloud now, then they are putting pressure on internal IT service providers.

• Read Chris Hoff’s Calling all Private Cloud Haters: Amazon just peed on your fire hydrant.

If you thought there was a big wall between Public and Private cloud, think again: VPC is a huge hole in the wall, and your internal application users are looking longingly at AWS through that hole.  The Inter Cloud is coming!

There’s a lot of talk in Cloud circles about APIs, standards and virtualization, but I wonder how many internal/Private Cloud proponents are applying the same laser focus on efficiency and effectiveness like James Hamilton is doing at AWS?  Surely the efficiency of a cloud is more important than if you and I use the same name for it?

If you think that an internal/private cloud is just another VMware cluster with some fancy self-service catalogue wrapped around it, then think again.  Out of all the “what is a cloud?” discussions, I want to see more focus on money / power / useful work efficiency which results in hard, tangible $$ on the costs to deliver and price to buy.

My question to anyone thinking about an internal/private cloud:

Is buying top end hardware and software from an arms dealer the way to achieve that efficiency and effectiveness and offer a competitive cloud service?

I think that it is possible, but it isn’t guaranteed.  There are a bunch of things you must do to provide a competitive cloud solution, across purchasing, architecture, engineering, operations, sales, marketing – it’s a big bet.  Being effective means your service is good, but that’s not enough.  You have to be efficient at delivering that effective service.  You need to be good at both to beat the competition.

This is important  because if internal/Private Clouds become common place in a business vertical (e.g. banking) then they will become a competitive differentiator: an efficient and effective large-scale cloud will cost $millions less and drive $millions more revenue than the inefficient and ineffective competition.

Imagine the Banking CIOs playing golf at Wentworth, with most people envious of the CIO with the most efficient / effective Inter-Cloud, and majority laughing at the CIO with the inefficient / ineffective Private Cloud.

The numbers are industry standard numbers (PUE, DCiE, DCP and more) and will be easy to produce.  At last, IT will have objective numbers that can be compared across the industry: great for business, bad for Inefficient IT.

And it gets worse for Inefficient IT: if you have an inefficient and ineffective internal/Private Cloud, and we all know about it from the numbers, then now we have abstracted the business services from the infrastructure/platform it’s real easy just migrate the workloads, either piece-meal or en-masse.

Migration to Cloud is inevitable.  It’s not a binary switch from current, internally provided IT to externally provided Cloud.  There is at least a step in the middle called Private Cloud, and perhaps a more hybrid destination of Inter Cloud.  But Pandora’s box of clouds is open there’s no going back and the hard numbers will show the winners and losers.

No related posts.