Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Three Years, Nearly 45% of All the Servers Will Ship To Cloud Providers

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the silver-lining dept.

Cloud 152

dcblogs writes "IDC expects that anywhere from 25% to 30% of all the servers shipped next year will be delivered to cloud services providers. In three years, 2017, nearly 45% of all the servers leaving manufacturers will be bought by cloud providers. The shift is slowing the purchase of server sales to enterprise IT. The increased use of SaaS is a major reason for the market shift, but so is virtualization to increase server capacity. Data center consolidations are eliminating servers as well, along with the purchase of denser servers capable of handling larger loads. The increased use of cloud-based providers is roiling the server market, and is expected to help send server revenue down 3.5% this year, according to IDC."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

When it rains... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632711)

It pours!

Three years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632739)

Holy crap, are we coming up on 2014 already?

God damn do I suddenly feel old.

Re:Three years (1)

WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) | about a year ago | (#45633167)

You people complain when the stories are old, and you people complain when stories arrive from the future.

There's just no way to satify you people, is there?

Re:Three years OR months, ball's in your court (2)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about a year ago | (#45633799)

There's just no way to satify you people, is there?

I thought they meant In Three Years, Nearly 45% of All Servers Will be Obtained from Bankrupt Cloud Providers.

So if you hold on to your existing autonomous infrastructure today... in three years you will be able to upgrade your server very cheaply!

If we can convince everyone to hold on to their existing autonomous infrastructure starting right now... we won't even have to wait three years! Those sad little cloud service pound puppies will start hitting the market in months.

In light of this I have decided to hold on to my own autonomous infrastructure for one more day. Now it's your turn.

What could possibly go wrong? (5, Funny)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about a year ago | (#45632745)

In a three years, nearly everyone will send their own data to the NSA without even having to be asked!

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632775)

So what. Do you have something to hide?

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632881)

Says Anonymous Coward. I DO have things to hide. In fact, I'd like to hide almost everything about myself. Do you have a problem with that?

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about a year ago | (#45632981)

If you have nothing to hide, why post Anonymous Coward, that just show YOU have something to hide...

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

ewibble (1655195) | about a year ago | (#45633433)

Just because someone posts as "Anonymous Coward" don't mean they have something to hide. They may simply not want to open a slashdot account.

Anyway I assume AC was simply making a joke.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633309)

The current administration is criminalizing things that were once the norm: patriotism, belief in limited government, self-reliance. If you ever vocalized those things in the last six years, you may be on a watch list for the IRS. Anything you do today might be the bogeyman of tomorrow's administration, which is why there should be severe limits on what the government can do in response to speech (nothing, govt should be able to do nothing).

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633553)

You really need to learn about the separation of powers between the branches of the U.S. government. The President doesn't really have the power to criminalize anything. Congress makes the laws. At best, the executive branch can choose not to really enforce a law, effectively nullifying it for his term. But he does not have the power to create law. Which he would need in order to criminalize anything. It's no wonder the system's not working when so many voters don't even understand it. Do you think we elect a king or a dictator every 4 years?

And if you think Congress has abdicated its powers to the Presidency, you should take that up with your Congressman.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45633807)

The SCOTUS is busy dismantling all of that. Fat lot of good a quaint notion of civics will do you when the supremes decide that well established limits on the power of government are now outdated.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year ago | (#45634039)

Fat lot of good a quaint notion of civics will do you when the supremes decide that well established limits on the power of government are now outdated.

I never did like Diana Ross, Now I know why.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2)

ToasterTester (95180) | about a year ago | (#45633589)

Seem like idea of build Private Cloud should start increasing.

What was always taught about security if they have physical access they have you. So with commerical clouds you're giving physical acess to ???????

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45633571)

So what. Do you have something to hide?

Would you also accept the following deal: the NSA would have your home key and they could walk in any time and look at various objects?

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45633825)

If you think you don't, then you are just kidding yourself.

Our Constitution evolved in a context that includes things that could be described as "historical abuses" and is thus something that few modern Americans have any ability to relate to.

Human nature doesn't change all that much really.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632893)

Assuming they OPT IN to the services in the cloud that they decide they "need" to use...

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633357)

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
https://www.schneier.com/essay-114.html

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#45633415)

No you fool! Forget privacy, there's a bigger danger! If these trends continue, we'll upload the last existing server to the cloud and shut down the server, only to realize that the cloud was on servers! THE INTERNET WILL JUST DISAPPEAR!

Re:What could possibly go wrong? go wrong? (1)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about a year ago | (#45633865)

No you fool! Forget privacy, there's a bigger danger! If these trends continue, we'll upload the last existing server to the cloud and shut down the server, only to realize that the cloud was on servers! THE INTERNET WILL JUST DISAPPEAR!

GOOD ONE. But it's already too late. The last of the content disappeared years ago. Everything is being served from Squid proxies. If you don't believe me check the Last-Modified time on this page. See how it is, like, this very minute? That means there is a coverup in progress.

In three years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632751)

...the cloud market might as well implode, like any bubble in making.

Re:In three years... (2)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#45633219)

I'd like to know what your reasoning is? I think we are simply witnessing the movement of certain base-level IT services into the commodity space. This has happened in many other industries once they become mature. For instance, unless you have some critical, unique, proprietary capability, you probably farm out your manufacturing. Why have capital equipment and specialized employees unless they are going to be utilized 100% of the time? A well-run contract manufacturer will be doing just that. The same thing is happening with IT. Why run in-house email or public-facing services? If the internet is down, you won't be getting email anyway, and no one will be able to see your web page. If you have multiple locations or telecommuting employees, you are already at the mercy of internet speeds and availability. Certain services are mature, and unless you have some specialized need "the cloud" works just as well or better than your in-house solution.

Re:In three years... (5, Interesting)

ewibble (1655195) | about a year ago | (#45633517)

Although I don't proclaim to be able to predict what will actually happen in the future. I the past in the computer industry has bounced between server "cloud" centric and client centric for years. There are advantages in having both, In your example of email while it is true you can't get new email while the internet is down you can still read old emails. If the emails where stored only on the server then this would be inconvenient. Also there is a difference your connection to the internet going down and your email cloud provider going down. It is one more point of failure.

Also don't underestimate the value of having control over your data, you do not want to be reliant on some random person/company being up, not go bankrupt, or change its terms and conditions on you. Also people like having the impression of ownership, I think its something inherent in our nature, how many things do you own that you use only use occasionally, that would much be a much better allocation of resources if it was shared?

Ownership = control (1)

King_TJ (85913) | about a year ago | (#45634243)

I think people "like the impression of ownership" not simply because it's some sort of quirk of human nature, but because it equals control of what's owned. If you think about it though, when it comes to most things of large value - we don't really own what we say we own. A lender does.

I don't know very many people in the U.S. who own their homes, free and clear. Most people I know with relatively nice cars have a loan on them, too.

So why would we be so eager to make those arrangements? Well, there's still the promise that at the end, when all the payments are complete, it truly becomes yours. And just as importantly, as long as you pay on time, nobody ELSE out there has any say so or ability to borrow/use what you're paying for.

That's my problem with a lot of these cloud based services. They offer a number of benefits, but you give up some control in order to use them. I think some people are so used to payment arrangements as part of a purchase, they feel like they're still in control of what they put in the cloud. "I get my very own unique username and password, and I can log in and do whatever I like with the service at any time as long as I keep making my payments on time!" Problem is, there's no end to those payments when the service becomes "yours". You're just a renter of the service, and the law isn't even very clear as to what the "landlord" is obligated to do with your data if you're evicted from the system.

Re: In three years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633591)

Because the only reason "cloud" companies can do those things at scale is management tools and fabric, plus deliberately limiting the number of choices end users have. gmail simply does not do all that Exchange does.

That's a knife that cuts both ways. Commodity easy to use services can just as easily be brought in house provided they're managed the same automated and scalable ways. Why pay someone huge fees per month when your staff can easily do whatever it is. That they can't easily do it right now is a symptom of too much feature creep and poor software writing on the part of publishers, plus a desire on some of the publishers' parts to spread FUD about how hard to do some stuff is.

Never forget too that IT and information are competitive weapons used properly. Having the same stuff as everyone else is not always good.

The media hype about "cloud computing" is of course going to drive at least 5 or 10 years of piss poor management decisions, and we're going to have to live with that. Meanwhile, this stuff really can fill in some gaps and should be used for that.

That doesn't mean hosted stuff is all bad. For disaster backups the primary attraction is that they're not in the same place as you are. For things where you really need extra server power right now on a temporary basis they're great.

Re:In three years... (5, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#45633625)

Reasoning? The mainframe is a "cloud in a box". We are almost up to 1970. The mainframe died. The "private cloud" (think 1989 Citrix) has seen its growth and decline.

We host, we insource, we host again, and repeat. Rather than the challenge of "why will this one fail like all others before it have" ask the question the other way, "why do we think this one will be permanent, when all others before it failed?"

Re:In three years... (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45633841)

Sooner or later, companies will realize that they can save money by taking back ownership of their IT infastructure. It's simply a cycle very much in the tradition of pre-Abrahamic societies that viewed life in general as a never ending cycle.

Corporate beaurocrats need to re-arrange the deck chairs in order to make it look like they are doing something productive. Sooner or later, they will change things even if there isn't any real reason to.

Re: In three years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45634169)

Hosting 100 servers youself will be cost 20K and take up 2 square feet. Small price to pay for privacy

Re:In three years... (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45634197)

The cloud isn't technological. There are a few enabling technologies like virtualisation, but the cloud itsself is a business model. It's just a new, upmarket term for 'outsourcing to a specialist contractor.'

Re:In three years... one fine day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633961)

...the cloud market might as well implode, like any bubble in making.

AND IT'S GONE! [youtube.com]
[dancing banana]
[dancing banana]
[dancing banana]

and thanks to the NSA..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632781)

and thanks to the NSA ...0 percent will be hosted near any friend of the nsa

Re:and thanks to the NSA..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632917)

Which is irrelevant for the NSA when they can just tap the backbones.

That's the whole plan (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#45633097)

See, if they spy on Americans, they could get in trouble. See, as an intelligence agency, there are limits on what they can do wrt Americans, and if you ahve an American server and an American person of interest, then you have to do a bunch of paper work and go to a secret court and it's just a big pain in the ass.

BUT if you ship everything overseas, then it's fully within plausible deniability in harvesting all of the information from a source controlled by a foreign national. Once it goes off shore, the drag net gets to sift through everything. The NSA's mission is to sift through every scrap of data they can get ahold of. The only people who would want non-American servers are non-Americans, because they have no protections whatsoever. Americans *should* want American servers as there's a whole judicial process involved once everything is under US jurisdiction. That won't stop the NSA from "accidentally" combing though your stuff, but if they screw up even a little bit then a good lawyer can have it all thrown out.

Goodbye Server Admins (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632785)

[I am a developer not an admin]
It takes us weeks to months to get a new server provisioned and ready for use where I work. We did a MAJOR project years ago with the promise that it would take less than half an hour to do so, but that is never the reality. They put in huge servers with virtualization, a SAN, and everything else they asked for to do this, but they just don't. It has turned our workplace into slow IT because of admins not because of development. We can develop a solution in days and then take months to deploy.

Now we can within an hour have our server set up in Rackspace, have our network admin make a firewall rule for it and it is all set up within the day. Our admins are making themselves irrelevent and they don't even realize what they are doing.

BTW, I am 100% against using "the cloud", but am having a very difficult time justifing that position with what I see on a daily basis.

but is PHB's calling the shots are better? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#45632909)

Where some PHB does the buying of your cloud system so you can be stuck with low end systems, small bandwidth , small web space and so on as the PHB picked bob's cheap cloud space.

Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632983)

A basic SANS can be installed (depending on size). The larger the SAN the longer it takes to ensure the environment is correct: proper wiring, AC, power conditioning+UPS, failover testing,...

And repeat for the server.

In both cases, a testing period is required to identify early failures (shipping a lot of disks almost guarantees a few will fail immediately, others will fail in a week). Sometimes even the power supply fails and needs replacement.

This is the same with "the cloud"... the only difference is you are assuming the "cloud" provider has ALREADY DONE THE WORK.

You still pay for it, either way. Cloud bills continue forever. Local install overheads (wiring, AC, UPS) only occur during installation. In both cases, you still pay for maintenance. With the cloud provider you continually pay for installation...

Re:Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45633043)

I dunno how paying the admins he was complaining about is not continually paying for installation.

and really, if we're realistic, they weren't running realibility tests on it..

Re:Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year ago | (#45633081)

Paying the admin is continuously paying for maintenance that he included, not installation.

Re:Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#45633199)

the only difference is you are assuming the "cloud" provider has ALREADY DONE THE WORK.

You're not 'assuming' it, you've written it into the contract in the form of SLAs. In most organizations I've worked with, there are rarely SLAs between IT and the departments they support, or, if there is, they are ignored. Not the case with an SLA between a cloud provider and an organization.

SLAs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633359)

the only difference is you are assuming the "cloud" provider has ALREADY DONE THE WORK.

You're not 'assuming' it, you've written it into the contract in the form of SLAs. In most organizations I've worked with, there are rarely SLAs between IT and the departments they support, or, if there is, they are ignored. Not the case with an SLA between a cloud provider and an organization.

Let's be honest. SLAs are not panacea. SLA's are written excuses and liability limitations for providers. They provide no real guarantee nor do they benefit the consumer in anyway.

SLA: We, the provider, guarantee to provide X service within 3 hours. Should we fail to provide X service within said time, you the consumer, will not be billed fro the 3 hours during which service was not provided. Guaranteed!

So, you won;t charge me for the service you failed to provide me? That's dandy! How much does that SLA help my business when Verizon won't repair my connection for 3 days? How much benefit has the SLA provided when AWS has a cascading failure that shuts my IT services down for days on end or slows my sales to @% of normal while also angering my customers? Woohoo, they won't charge me for 3 days this month!

Interorg or departmental SLAs are even more ludicrous. But nitwitted middle managers and PHBs(which are you?) can use them as an excuse to avoid blame, so SLAs still get trotted out as if a SLA had any real value with regard to uptime or delivery schedules.

Re:Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (1)

segedunum (883035) | about a year ago | (#45633417)

Not the case with an SLA between a cloud provider and an organization.

I really don't know where you get that idea from. Cloud SLA's are not worth the paper they aren't written on.

Re:Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (2)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year ago | (#45633527)

Why write the SLA on paper when you can store it in the cloud?

Re:Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#45633567)

Cloud SLA's are not worth the paper they aren't written on.

I work for a SaaS company. Our customers hold us strongly to the SLAs. If your providers aren't, then you need a different provider, better lawyers, or both.

Re:Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45634391)

Cloud SLA's are not worth the paper they aren't written on.

I work for a SaaS company. Our customers hold us strongly to the SLAs. If your providers aren't, then you need a different provider, better lawyers, or both.

Really? Give us an example. Give us a specific example of your SLA that actually empowers the customer and gives them real value.

"Our customers hold us strongly to the SLAs." That statement has as much meaning as most SLAs I've seen.

Re:Sounds more like you have Windows admins... (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year ago | (#45634541)

Our uptime is guaranteed; we are required to adhere to certain maintenance windows. If we don't, customers can (and have) penalized us. It's in the SLA - That's our "service level."

Re:Goodbye Server Admins (5, Insightful)

Oceanplexian (807998) | about a year ago | (#45633083)

Sysadmins are worried about a lot more than how fast something is for development.

As a DevOps minded person who does code and understands hardware very well, Amazon and Rackspace are both a pile of garbage. They run on 4-year old Xeons that have been split 30 different ways. There are major IO contention issues. Snapshots take hours. SSDs cost thousands a month. They lock you into their service by using proprietary standards (e.g. RDS disables external replication). They come with little to no SLA.

Secondly, we've got privacy and security issues to worry about, regulations like HIPAA, PCI compliance, backups, redundancy, failover, documentation and continuity of business planning. We'll probably still be working for the company long after Amazon has gone out of business and the development team has been replaced or quit.

So, please, forgive your admin if he gets upset. A lot of us are in it for the long game and prefer not to shit all over our employer so they can continue to do business in the future.
 

Re:Goodbye Server Admins (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year ago | (#45633629)

SSDs cost thousands a month.

If you're hiring that sort of service on the Cloud for months at a time, you're doing it wrong. The USP of the Cloud is very short hire times, say a few minutes or an hour. When you're hiring for longer periods, other types of service provider can be a better choice.

Re:Goodbye Server Admins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45634615)

Because your server you wanted is not the only server. Maybe the existing SAN or the hardware running the virtualization was approaching EOL, time for a capacity increase, moving to something else etc. There are times when it makes sense to add more and times when it makes sense to migrate off to something completely new.
I can give you an example. We have an ESX cluster comprised of HP DL380G5's and an EMC Clariion CX480. As time went on and more capacity was needed, we added more and DL380 G5's. Most were hand me downs from other projects. Now.. We are at the point where the G5's are getting expensive to keep under warranty and being memory limitedand additional memory for them is getting expensive. It is time to get this cluster over to something else. Maybe a small mid sized vBlock setup, Maybe just a UCS chassis and new fiber switches and keep the SAN (it goes EOL in 2016), maybe move the the whole thing to a dedicated co-lo and get some dedicated gigaman connections but what about backups and DR and response time, maybe move services to a new infrastructure and keep the existing hardware but with much less load on it... Hhmmm. There are 1000's of different scenarios and possibilities here, no two situations are the same. That one cluster I mentioned? We have 13 of them in 13 different offices in 8 different countries all of various hardware depending on when it was bought and stages of warranty .

Just like coal (2)

jamesl (106902) | about a year ago | (#45632799)

Almost 100% of all coal is shipped to electricity providers. Reliability and Economies of Scale.

Re:Just like coal (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#45633099)

Almost 100% of all coal is shipped to electricity providers. Reliability and Economies of Scale.

You can buffer a supply of coal and survive a shipping delay
What happens with your Cloud data access during internet outage on either side?

Re:Just like coal (2)

jamesl (106902) | about a year ago | (#45633363)

If Joe's hard drive dies, he's completely screwed unless he has an up to date backup ... in which case he is out of commission until he buys a new disk and restores his applications and data to it.

An "internet outage" is a temporary annoyance until "the internet" is restored and business as usual resumes. In my experience the reliability of "the internet" is almost identical to that of electricity -- "the internet" fails when the local power fails.

Re:Just like coal (0)

penix1 (722987) | about a year ago | (#45633173)

Almost 100% of all coal is shipped to electricity providers. Reliability and Economies of Scale.

Absolutely false. Most of the coal here in West Virginia actually goes for metallurgical (steel production) uses. The 1/3 to 1/4 that is used for power production comes from the southern coal fields.

Re:Just like coal (3, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | about a year ago | (#45633329)

Over 92% of the coal consumed in the United States is used for generating electricity.
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/role_coal_us.cfm [eia.gov]

Over 92% is almost 100%.

Re:Just like coal (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#45633523)

There is a significant problem with your comment. It only accounts for coal consumed in the U.S.. It does not account for coal produced in the U.S. and shipped elsewhere. Approximately 10% of coal produced in the U.S. is exported, which drops that 92% to around 81% (according to the link you provided). That means that only 81% of coal is shipped to electricity providers and while 81% is the clearly the overwhelming majority of coal it is not "almost 100%" as most people use that term.

Re:Just like coal (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#45633643)

Approximately 10% of coal produced in the U.S. is exported, which drops that 92% to around 81% (according to the link you provided). That means that only 81% of coal is shipped to electricity providers and while 81% is the clearly the overwhelming majority of coal it is not "almost 100%" as most people use that term.

And if the foreign buyers are electricity producers, then the number stands. Your numbers would be correct if and only if the exported coal is never used for electric production.

Re:Just like coal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633741)

There is a significant problem with your comment. It only accounts for coal consumed in the U.S.. It does not account for coal produced in the U.S. and shipped elsewhere. Approximately 10% of coal produced in the U.S. is exported, which drops that 92% to around 81% (according to the link you provided). That means that only 81% of coal is shipped to electricity providers and while 81% is the clearly the overwhelming majority of coal it is not "almost 100%" as most people use that term.

That assumes 0% of the exported coal ends up at power plants. Now I don't have the numbers but I would say of the exported coal, about 92% ends up at power plants. Which brings the percentage of US coal ending up at electricity providers pretty close to 100% (I did the math, it's 92% ).

Has IDC considered recent slow down due to NSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45632807)

Although most people don't care about spying activities at all, many managers have stopped or at least paused cloud projects here in Germany during the last months/weeks.

I'm really disappointed by the political reaction against the NSA activities - from both, politicians as well as citizens. But as soon as it affects business, people seem to care. So at least there's attention on a business level. And this affects small companies as well as big ones. Most companies are afraid of industrial espionage in the sense of losing their intellectual property to their competitors. Others are even forced to stop cloud projects from regulatory authorities, because they would infringe privacy laws.

So cloud projects are currently possible only with non-US-based providers.

Re:Has IDC considered recent slow down due to NSA? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45632919)

This. They seem to not take into account that part of the reason that companies want servers it to put private information there. And some countries have strong privacy policies for protecting their citizens information. That should ban a lot of companies for storing their servers into US based clouds at the very least.

My prediction would go into the opposite direction of cloud servers, toward personal/home servers, increasing the use of p2p/mesh encrypted networks and services, at least in the countries not actively cooperating with the NSA. That should be bigger than emerging country specific clouds.

Re:Has IDC considered recent slow down due to NSA? (1)

Decker-Mage (782424) | about a year ago | (#45633065)

You don't get it, do you? The NSA doesn't have to obey the data privacy laws inside or outside the USA. Next, it is the very country's intelligence agencies that are providing the take (intelligence collections) that give the NSA their data streams in violation of those same country's privacy laws. And, to make the deal all the sweeter, the NSA provides a nice sweet intelligence package on those country's citizens and the NSA just so happens to get a nice sweet intelligence package on US citizens in direct contravention (my opinion that I used to enforce with weapons) of our Constitution.

And that's if they don't do things messy, like GCHQ did to Belgian telecoms systems.

Re:Has IDC considered recent slow down due to NSA? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45633429)

Both technical and political solutions should be taken, developed and adopted if we want to get back our privacy. There are several countries that are in bed with NSA (that will do everything in their hand to prevent people to try to keep their privacy, including the ability to have home servers), and several that not. And if well things could be out of hope in US, england, australia, sweden and some more, in others meaninful actions could be taken.

The point is doing what is within our possiblities. If we know for sure that the data in the US cloud will be inspectioned by the NSA and even passed to potential competitors then is not wise to store things there. We can work in protecting countries or home networks, things that should be under our control, if we are not up to the challenge at least we tried.

Re:Has IDC considered recent slow down due to NSA? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45634279)

I'm more cynical: I believe that the vast majority of people couldn't care one bit about internet privacy until it affects them personally and directly. The only people using mesh networking and encrypted p2p are pirates and enthusiastic activists.

Depends on the data. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633001)

No company should trust "company proprietary" to a cloud provider. Once it is in the control of the provider, it is no longer "company proprietary" - it belongs to the provider, and you only have access to it based on the contract you signed...

You also have also added another point of failure (the ISP) in access to the data.

Gartner, IDC they all have an agenda to push (3, Informative)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#45632889)

That agenda is pushing dumbass CIOs into making bad decisions. Cloud Services, Co-Lo Hosting and the services wrapped around them are good tools to have at your disposal but like any tool if you don't know how to use them you can leave your organization high and dry. IDC and Gartner have a vested interest in selling Cloud and their associated third party service vendors to businesses since they're market makers. They're no different that your stock broker calling you up trying to sell a stock that's on their "hot sheets" to drive revenue. Companies pay these idiots for their "research" which is usually some guy sitting down and reading Internet articles and going to conferences where they hear long sales pitches from CSC, Rackspace and Amazon. None of this replaces a good set of people and an Enterprise Architecture strategy that the organization needs to develop and own.

What IDC misses here is two of the big cloud players, Google [wired.com] and Amazon [wired.com] , are growing their own servers so IDC's true "insight" should be that HP, Dell and IBM are going to lose server revenue more not from larger bulk deals with cloud providers but the fact that the bigger players are just going to buy components. Also companies aren't writing blank checks to their IT organization anymore. This means those big budget projects where you roll in racks of servers will be pushed more and more to virtualization. There's also the aspect that there are a lot of businesses who will never let their data or their customers data fall into the hands of any third party, even a hosting provider and they will still need servers and disk and products because year after year their existing footprint gets older and you need more capacity and to refresh your infrastructure.

Re:Gartner, IDC they all have an agenda to push (1)

Decker-Mage (782424) | about a year ago | (#45633143)

This. You can add Facebook to the list of growing their own servers. Google, Amazon, and Facebook, as well as many other players, are buying hardware components in railroad consist consignments (whole trains) direct from the components manufacturers. HP, Dell, IBM and the rest of the large players have three stark choices. Grow up and provide datacenter based "Cloud" services in competition against Google, Amazon, Microsoft, et. al. Two, grow up and get the hell out of providing hardware to anyone, even themselves. Three, wither on the vine. It's actually kind of funny, in a tragic way, watching the consultancies blowing sunshine up the collective asses of so many firms, but there you are. Not for the first time either, by a long shot.

Just as with the various flavors of fortune tellers of the world, nobody seems to recall the massive number of blown calls by Gartner, IDC, and all the rest. They only recall when they got it right. Roll the dice enough times and you'll get double-six; seven on a really easy call.

Re:Gartner, IDC they all have an agenda to push (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#45634587)

I don't remember Gartner, IDC, and such getting it right at all. I only remember them getting nearly the opposite at their worst and getting it vaguely right at best. Random chance is probably more reliable than them.

And many might be worth it (2)

MikeRT (947531) | about a year ago | (#45632925)

One thing that /. readers often fail to take into consideration is that many companies may find that it's easier to outsource to a company with a solid reputation for hiring good people than to try to hire good people on its own. For smaller companies in particular, there's a hiring bootstrap problem here. They have to hire the right people who will be able to identify the candidates to build a solid IT team. A lot can go wrong, and many companies may in fact benefit from outsourcing to a reputable company who they can sue the hell out of if there is an issue and a highly paid consultant can point the finger at them cutting corners to make a few extra bucks.

Everyone's a Cloud Provider these days. (5, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#45632933)

If you don't have "Cloud Provider" in your services portfolio, you're like, so totally last century. Nobody provides server hosting or IT services these days. Everyone does cloud, man. The same old IT department at your employer is now a Cloud Provider.

If you have a server in your mom's basement . . . congratulations, you are a cloud provider!

It's all so everyone can claim that they are doing Cloud.

Re:Everyone's a Cloud Provider these days. (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#45633325)

The same old IT department at your employer is now a Cloud Provider.

No, the real difference is that a diminishing number of companies have an IT department - at least one that operates any significant number of servers. An increasing number of functions are carried out on "on the cloud" - i.e. hosted by some other company whose server farm is largely application-neutral, and which your company shares with any number of others.

I guess your point is that this doesn't change things for hosting companies, but the point is that more companies in general are using hosting in the first place.

Re:Everyone's a Cloud Provider these days. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633463)

I live in the desert. There are no clouds here, you insensitive clod...

Re:Everyone's a Cloud Provider these days. (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year ago | (#45634085)

If you have a server in your mom's basement . . . congratulations, you are a cloud provider!

Only if you have moved out of Mom's basement.

Less and Less Latent Capacity. (1)

mtippett (110279) | about a year ago | (#45632953)

There are two items at play here...
    1) Server consolidation - when I was at AMD a few years ago, I saw a series of roadmaps showing the predicted consolidation based on hypervisors 300 servers to 30. The immediate thought that went through my mind is "the cost of enterprise CPUs" need to go up otherwise there will be blood in chip market. Servers were the cash cow for the market.
    2) Migration to cloud - this is really consolidation mk II. Move to the cloud and rely on focused efforts to migrate, load balance, spin up and spin down services. All with the economy of scale that large datacenters provide. This has hit the OEM manufacturers (HP, Dell, etc) since the larger players in the market can go direct to China with the volumes they need and

Ultimately it is a question of reducing unused capacity. According to some stats (google "datacenter utilization"), 1st party utilization is around 5-10%, cloud utilization is around 20-30%. The two items above really deliver a 1-2 punch to the Server and Chip industry.

And... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633049)

No longer be in control of their data?

I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (5, Insightful)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45633137)

I'm so sick of "the cloud the cloud the cloud." Everything is a freaking cloud now. It's stupid marketing horseshit and that's all there is to it. When I'm doing a consultation for a business and they ask me about "storing things in the cloud," the first thing I do is tell them what that word really means.

"The cloud" just means you're putting all of that data on hard drives owned someone else you don't know.

When I change the context this way, businesses suddenly start to think twice. I also like to point out that Dropbox has been found to open your documents for some unknown reason [wncinfosec.com] as a recent example to show that you don't know who is going through your stuff when you push it off onto another person's computer. Then I bring up the point that if law enforcement decides it wants to look at your data for whatever reason, you have less control over that because it's stored on someone else's systems and the warrant or subpoena could potentially go to that provider instead of you. Then there's the fun part when a cloud provider makes a mistake and accidentally gives your account to someone else you collaborated with, or deletes your account without a trace or any notice. [itworld.com] Don't even start on the NSA end of this mess. Trusting "the cloud" is a stupid idea.

Most companies don't like the idea that when they move their data into "the cloud" when the possible repercussions are put into perspective and the marketing gimmick is stripped away.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633251)

"Yup, never freaking trust a cloud provider" -- posted with Google+.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45633377)

You don't know how I use or don't use Google services. Fuck off.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45634371)

You seem anxious. I recommend decaf.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633397)

Google+ is not a "cloud provider." It's an "identity service."

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633287)

Wrong. You can have private clouds, which are clouds you own. A "cloud" is just a term for interchangeable services which aren't tied to a particular piece of hardware.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year ago | (#45633565)

While technically true, you are being at least a little disingenuous. When talking about a self-hosted cloud, I've never once heard someone refer to it with the generic "the cloud" label - they always add the "private" qualifier to it, calling it a "private cloud". When people say "the cloud", they mean hosting services.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (1)

crackspackle (759472) | about a year ago | (#45633743)

Wrong. You can have private clouds, which are clouds you own. A "cloud" is just a term for interchangeable services which aren't tied to a particular piece of hardware.

No one knows the actual origin of the term "cloud computing" and what it means can legitimately be different depending on who you ask making the effectiveness of the term fairly useless. The only reason non-IT folk latch onto it is because there's a component of "I don't know what's going on" that they can understand and it makes it seem friendly. The op was merely pointing out why it's not.

BTW, the cloud symbol was most often used in the 90's on network diagrams to indicate frame-relay links between sites back before dedicated Internet access was common. There was an aspect of "don't know" associated with it because it used shared links, did not guarantee delivery and frequently had service interruptions. Wikipedia sites this as a possible origin of the term but I think it is the origin of the term having seen how suits quickly latched onto it when it was shown in demos and presentations. Not understanding was something they could grasp.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45634297)

I've seen it used on many network diagrams, but by the time I was in university it generally refered to an internet connection. The visual meaning is clear enough. It means 'Something happens here, but the exact description is not important to this diagram.'

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (1)

StormReaver (59959) | about a year ago | (#45633585)

"The cloud" just means you're putting all of that data on hard drives owned someone else you don't know.

I wish I could mod you higher than +5. The title of this article could be accurately rewritten as, "45% of All the Server purchasers are complete, unmitigated, fucking morons."

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633901)

Says a moron who thinks his needs are the same as everyone else's needs, and that he knows company's situation.

It is P.R. people ruining the language. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633871)

Internet is like fire - useful AND dangerous.

"The cloud" is the white fluffy harmless icon on the network diagrams that some marketing guy probably did a Ted Stevens and became inspired by it. Marketing and people not thinking get us to where we are today.

If fire was discovered today, we'd have created many safe sounding names for it that would result in more fire damage.

What marketing speak would you use for fire?

Re:It is P.R. people ruining the language. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45634065)

When demanded RPE2 exceeds on OxyFusion server technology, the REACT(TM) Process initiates a CopperMelt request to permanently reduce allocated compute resource. Additionally the patented DataSink data virtualization software guarantees that your data write requests are deduplicated using a highly optimised write-nowhere block algorithm.

Re:It is P.R. people ruining the language. (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45634401)

That was kind of painful. Worse than this, even. [youtube.com]

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633977)

>"The cloud" just means you're putting all of that data on hard drives owned someone else you don't know.

Such silliness. Businesses are fine "putting all of their money in the vaults of people they don't know", I.e. banks, for safekeeping and financial services. They're fine "putting all their financial records in the hands of people they don't know", i.e. accountants, for various accounting services. It's really no different.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#45634449)

You have it all wrong Jody. The whole damn point of "Cloud" is to abstract your business from the employees. The end-game in all this is to run your business anywhere in the world while simultaneously outsource your staff to anywhere in the world. Having your company in the "Cloud" makes that possible. So no, this marketing horseshit is only getting started.

Re:I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (2)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | about a year ago | (#45634655)

"The cloud" just means you're putting all of that data on hard drives owned someone else you don't know.

No, you're missing the point. Not JUST. The cloud is Nifty, Wonderful, Magical Stuff, and Everyone's Using It Except You, Stupid.

Why? Because look at it from a Senior Manager's standpoint: you're offloading responsibility for control, access, and intrusion detection to the companies data "Somewhere Out There" [youtube.com] as someone's else's responsibility. You've got an ironclad contract that even includes 9x 9's of uptime. Your data stays available to the world no matter what. Why you even make backup costs go away, with absolutely no need to ever restore. That's just one more thing off your plate, and the bean counters will LOVE you! After all, internal providers are exactly the same as the outside ones, and the latter are much cheaper. Any lawsuit issues will be fielded by Legal just like normal, so no problem there, either. It's golden!

And if your company can't say you're "in the cloud", you're obviously a stupid piddly Luddite computer company (!) that can't stay up with the times and will soon fold -- since you're not following the other rushing lemmings onwards and upwards. [youtu.be] [at 3:49, or watch the entire thing if you need context.]

My Most Recent Cloud Turn Up (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633279)

Just yesterday I turned up a new "cloud" based service per corporate directive.

Holy crap what a mess! Granted, I don't have to deal with any hardware and the project was completed in 5 hours. But, what a convoluted and mind numbingly complex series of integrations and cross connections.

Project: A PHP site/app for mass-mailing and list management through AWS.

I have 9(!) new and unique userIDs and passwords for setup and administration. IDs for service providers, servers, applications...
I have no clue where anything is physically located.
I have no idea how secure it actually is because I have no idea what or how many systems it all uses and how well they are secured.
It will be a nightmare to troubleshoot this beast if it stops working!
There is a lot of opportunity for service interruption due to billing issues at any of the numerous different services. Domain, DNS, Hosting, App subscription, AWS...

I could re-implement this entire mess on a single LAMP server(provided a big enough pipe) in an hour, post OS install.

Re:My Most Recent Cloud Turn Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633525)

Some companies don't even have people like you anymore. Just 2 year drones that can change memory on a PC. What happens when the CEO wants something new? Well everyone was outsourced to the cloud, so put in a change order, oh that's not covered under your contract, more money, more time, for a simple fix. Need a change to email server, too bad, that will take 2 weeks. If you want expedited service you can call our support saleman and upgrade your contract. The fact is any company using offsite servers that are not their own are fools. It does not save any money. More than likely the company is now in violation of countless privacy laws and encryption laws for "exporting" encryption technologies to countries not on the list, on and ont. You don't know where the server is, who controls it, what they are doing with your information, etc. It's funny how that chinese company is able reproduce your schematics so quickly isn't it?

Your own cloud (1)

xippie (925090) | about a year ago | (#45633391)

Do they count your own cloud like my synology server too?
It's one of the best ways to avoid NSA.

Server needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633447)

There is absolutely no way all servers could be moved to the Internet. Should I work DHCP, DNS, Active Directory,Backups, Local file shares, and all other basic infrastructure to the cloud? Even when the ISPs here in upstate backwater NY are down for every snowstorm? Sorry, no work today... the Internet is down.

Re:Server needs (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45633607)

Out of curiosity, does somebody already offer a service where you can put your Windows Shares and even Domain Controller to cloud? Then you would use them transparently and users could also log in to them at home. Is this possible?

Cloudy Enterprise Services (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633987)

Out of curiosity, does somebody already offer a service where you can put your Windows Shares and even Domain Controller to cloud? Then you would use them transparently and users could also log in to them at home. Is this possible?

Uh, Yea. That's partially what this whole cloud thing is about.

Users have been able to login to the network, servers(RDP/Citrix), workstations(PCAnywhere - GoToMyPC) since ~1994. The servers can be located as physical machines in any datacenter or, as cloudy virtual machines on Azure, Amazon, Rackspace, and a thousand other VM/VPS providers.

Some service providers, including Microsoft Azure, offer the discreet services(e.g. AD, Sharepoint, Exchange) without any hardware or VM or OS management. You just buy metered Active Directory Service. [windowsazure.com]

Servers shipping is a bad metric (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45633717)

Sure, "nearly 45% of all the servers leaving manufacturers will be bought by cloud providers". This says nothing about general purpose computers that just happen to be used as servers (such as is often done with Raspberry Pis, random desktops etc), or used servers. Given that computers arn't getting better that much faster, and home server requirements arn't growing as a huge rate, I'm not at all surprised or worried that people who care about privacy won't be buying so many brand new servers (only 55% of them? That seems like a ton to me...)

My brand new home server is on the way here. Its not marked as a server, so it does not count in these stats. I hope the NSA likes my using Tor hidden services as a way to deal with my dynamic IP and NAT routing problems :)

In the next three years... (1)

tyme (6621) | about a year ago | (#45634019)

100% of all servers will ship to companies whose executives have used the "cloud" buzzword to promote the company.

But how many will the Cloud SP's build themselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45634131)

Google, Facebook, Amazon and I assume alot of other Cloud SP's are building much of their own hardware today.
Facebook has published the Open Compute Initiative specs they use.

So it would be interesting to know the "real" number of servers being deployed per year in 3-5 years.

or... (1)

Tom (822) | about a year ago | (#45634513)

Better headline: IDC expects current trend to continue, extrapolates linearily despite thousands of years of evidence that few things scale in a linear fashion.

Like all trends in tech, this hype will hit a saturation somewhere and then something else is hot. We've seen this a dozen times before, why do we always look at the newest trend as if we're newborns seing the sun for the first time?

holy christ, slashdot is borked worse than I've ev (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45634729)

this is really bad guys, menu icons only have an outline; you have to mouse over them for them to appear, a bunch of graphic garbage is stuck to the top of the screen and won't budge, the error list has about 5,000 "unknown property" errors in it, but worst of all, it looks like windows 8

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?