Private Ubuntu Cloud
ubuntu.com
ubuntu.com
1. server utilization on average would be good
2. seldom have the situation where everyone wants to do large runs at once
At CompassLabs we use Elastic MapReduce: great because we can use a large number of servers for a few hours, and the price is right. On the other hand, large companies like Yahoo run their own large Hadoop clusters (just as an example)
So, this seems like a good idea only for large organizations.
Your private electricity example is probably a good example. Most datacenters and companies that rely on power pull it from multiple grids and actually do have a way to generate their own private power. The same will probably hold true for IaaS at some point. It will be something people grow to trust but if you want that last 0.1% you are going to have to do it yourself.
For instance that is part of the french navy policy (separate networks). You find it funny, until it saves your ass :)
Sidepoint: weither you believe it's FUD or not, it's a matter of fact that there is a real market here. A lot of medium to large companies are actually totally reluctant to put anything in the cloud. That's part of why you see github:fi, or the hoptoad firewalled version, or the ubuntu private cloud offer.
Another sidepoint: working with vaguely sensitive data at home on an encrypted disk is OK for me, but putting it into an EC2 instance: I would get fired and/or sued (not FUD here, I've been warned!).
Perhaps ironically, a white-listed firewall rule for a cluster of EC2 instances is probably more secure than most government networks, but putting it anywhere that compromises physical security is just as bad.
But of course do a risk assessment, maybe military data should not be on any sort of cloud. But I know internal government and military security is actually pretty poor - funnily enough generals care more making sure their comms work to their soldiers than whether it is encrypted - sound kind of like a business eh?
Either way I predict that within 5 years, private clouds will be a thing of the past
Private clouds will only continue to gain momentum in the enterprise, especially as they become easier to deploy & manage.
I have never worked in a company that physically segregated their internal network to one connected to the internet - and I have worked in Fortune 50 banks, credit card processors and online businesses. Like I said military maybe different but I know colleagues that work for the government and you should hear about how their security actually is vs. the perception (much like banks)
It is hard enough to get companies to segment their network into high value services vs the office network. The practical difficulty and cost of giving end users two machines connected to two different networks is just not worth the benefit gained.
Especially considering you can achieve a level of risk that is acceptable to the board and executive management with logical controls private clouds are just a waste of money.
We have heavily guarded rooms with impressive physical security, and authorized personnel only, in which the two networks can be 'viewed' at the same time.
For what it's worth, the majority of end users don't have two machines, they either visit a secured location when they need to, or have devices / software that only allow them to connect to one network OR the other at a time.
Generally speaking though, the network that has access to tactical data, or knows the most recent whereabouts of Saddam Hussein is typically ignorant of Facebook, or the internet at large.
The point I'm trying to make is you have to look at security holisticly. Having a super strong segregated network has no point if you are not going to have a similar level of control everywhere else which I can guarantee you the Federal government especially in the US does not have.
So why not take advantage of the cloud, enjoy the cost decrease, increase in resilience and scalability and still have an acceptable level of risk with application of reasonable logical controls?
The 'legitimate users' issue is largely mitigated from malice by severely limiting who those users are with background checks, security clearances, layered access levels, and a culture in which everybody reinforces the security procedures and watches for others who might be violating them, intentionally or unintentionally. This isn't 100% of course, nothing is, but it's largely effective I would guess.
Stolen laptops of course happen on occasion, but it's a dramatically different problem than unintentional access to a data center, or all the data therein. Further, most of the laptops I've seen have data-at-rest encryption, remote locating devices (GPS) and fairly stringent security protections on the device. In order to connect to any sensitive networks, they'd also have to use VPN and 2 factor encryption.
Largely, these things have already been thought of... but more importantly, if you're statement holds weight, and they should have stringent controls everywhere to be effective, then why would they arbitrarily allow their data to be potentially compromised in the event that Amazon has less stringent requirements -- and guess what, they do.
To add a little more, in places where security really matters, like DoD manufacturing areas, there is literally physical security segregating everything from the people to the network to the hardware to the data from the unclassified parts. Knowing you could go to jail for a very long time if you do something stupid or illegal is a strong motivator. For those not so motivated, most places not only segregate the network but also the data: tapes or backup data are kept onsite in a secure area, computers used for interacting with the data never leave the secure area and have been modified not to have USB headers or removable hard drives, cables and gear are physically protected from tampering, etc.
None of this is to say that all risk is eliminated, but since most systems are compromised by casual hackers using simple tools, adding the security you can is usually a sensible thing to do.
My main point was that for most corporations and individuals the risk of using a public cloud with effective security controls and the right kind of data stored and processed there could be within their risk appetitive and therefore private clouds have no long term high profit making potential
I personally feel that the data there is quite safe, relatively speaking.
What I'm referring to specifically is this, I believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_MP5
If I am taking any property on or off campus, I have to also present a property pass signed by someone with the authorization to allow that activity.
Admittedly, I could probably sneak a flash drive on if I were so inclined, but that's probably why they do background checks on people before they're given badges and swipe cards and all that.
The web-site doesn't appear to provide a potential customer with the information they need to evaluate the service. At least, not easily.
The problem is, that you need to rent/buy the maximum hardware size of your could upfront as amazon does it. Therefore it's a bigh myth you only pay what you use because the provider has to split all costs+interests among the customers (like EC2). Including costs of hardware/infrastructure not currently in use!
If you have your own rack(s), tools like eucalyptus/ubuntu cloud can help you to dynamically scale your apps and use your hardware more efficent.
But remember: To do this it needs more than some instant-on virtual machines: You need to be able to automatically spawn applications with tools like puppet or chef, too. This usually requires some amount of work and brain :-)
Claiming to be able to scale to infinity just because you're using EC2/Eucalyptus/OpenStack is a biiiiiig common lie.