April 17, 2015 at 8:25 am
Eric M Russell (4/17/2015)
Gary Varga (4/17/2015)
So we need to consider the failing of aspects of SLAs which might be too risky to ignore.Just as the IT department has SLAs with their clients, the cloud data provider should have an SLAs with it's clients. If there are substantial financial penalties for beaking the SLA, then I'm sure the insurance industry will start (if they havn't already) underwriting all this.
Hi Eric,
I think, but I may be wrong, that you missed my point. Regardless of the legal position and the theoretical fiscal come back, sometimes being legally covered but technically ruined can decimate a company. In such cases it may be prudent to ignore the legal cover and technically cover it by a local backup, for example.
Claiming compensation may only be feasible because you have mitigated failure of the SLA.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
April 17, 2015 at 9:00 am
Gary Varga (4/17/2015)
Eric M Russell (4/17/2015)
Gary Varga (4/17/2015)
So we need to consider the failing of aspects of SLAs which might be too risky to ignore.Just as the IT department has SLAs with their clients, the cloud data provider should have an SLAs with it's clients. If there are substantial financial penalties for beaking the SLA, then I'm sure the insurance industry will start (if they havn't already) underwriting all this.
Hi Eric,
I think, but I may be wrong, that you missed my point. Regardless of the legal position and the theoretical fiscal come back, sometimes being legally covered but technically ruined can decimate a company. In such cases it may be prudent to ignore the legal cover and technically cover it by a local backup, for example.
Claiming compensation may only be feasible because you have mitigated failure of the SLA.
I was thinking along the lines of intermittent failure, something that causes a disruption of a few hours or maybe a full day (which might have more to do with our ISP than the cloud data center), in which case we owe the client an apology and a few thousand dollars.
Even with a local instance of SQL Server 2014 on standby, it can take hours to restore from backup and more than a day to get the applications operational. The whole idea behind leveraging a cloud data provider is that the organization doesn't have to invest in the hardware, licenses, and staff required to host the database locally. For many, perhaps most, falling back to local hosting may look good on paper and help management rest easier, but in reality it would only mitigate a scenario where the cloud is unavailable for a week or more, and it would no doubt involve a huge financial cost. It would be equivalent to the aftermath of corporate headquarters getting flooded.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
April 17, 2015 at 9:13 am
Eric M Russell (4/17/2015)
I was thinking along the lines of intermittent failure, something that causes a disruption of a few hours or maybe a full day (which might have more to do with our ISP than the cloud data center), in which case we owe the client an apology and a few thousand dollars.Even with a local instance of SQL Server 2014 on standby, it can take hours to restore from backup and more than a day to get the applications operational. The whole idea behind leveraging a cloud data provider is that the organization doesn't have to invest in the hardware, licenses, and staff required to host the database locally. For many, perhaps most, falling back to local hosting may look good on paper and help management rest easier, but in reality it would only mitigate a scenario where the cloud is unavailable for a week or more, and it would no doubt involve a huge financial cost. It would be equivalent to the aftermath of corporate headquarters getting flooded.
I claim no expertise, but I recall hearing about load balancing/failover hardware that if one cloud provider failed, it could switch over to another. The problem is that no two cloud providers work the same (that may no longer be true), so you have a lot of setup logistics to keep the two clouds in sync.
Most businesses can survive the inconvenience of hours or a day of being disconnected from their app cloud, though there's going to be lots of mutinous rumbling. I think if it's a problem, then your business model may be flawed and you probably need an IT department and staff. At least if your HQ is flooded, it's a tangible reality that people can envision and participate in fixing it. If the cloud is down, you're screwed, there's nothing you can do, and good luck getting incident updates that are translatable to managementspeak.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
May 12, 2015 at 9:13 am
Interesting to hear the word "trust" used many times in this thread. As a prod DBA I am very cloud sceptical, but is that because I don't want to place my trust in the companies that are hosting the data? Possibly, but is it the same level of trust when you buy a car you trust the car manufacturer that it will work and more importantly the brakes will work each and every time you need them to? :ermm:
I think you have to go armed with a whole bunch of questions to any cloud hosting company that start with "What if..." Yes it sounds very obvious to us DBAs (Guardians Of The Data, dant dant daaar! :cool:) but to some business owners they are just trying to ride the the wave of the latest hype/buzzwords "Oh sure, we have ALL our data in the cloud, isn't it great?" without any understanding of what that implies.
qh
May 12, 2015 at 9:42 am
I'd be willing to trust the cloud database provider, especially if it were Azure. They understand things like disaster recovery and service level agreements.
Who I don't trust are the internet service providers, those responsible for delivering the data stream between me and the database. The big internet provers optimize their bandwidth to accomodate pedestrian web traffic and streaming video. They advertise 100gbs, at they will max out at that sporatically, but they do so in bursts, not a steady stream, and the service routinely drops off for several minutes at a time daily. Those of us who RDP into the office know how this works.
Honestly, the apartment building across the street from your business could hold your database hostage every day between 5PM - midnight when folks start streaming Netflix and playing Call of Duty.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
May 12, 2015 at 10:22 am
Eric M Russell (5/12/2015)
I'd be willing to trust the cloud database provider, especially if it were Azure. They understand things like disaster recovery and service level agreements.Who I don't trust are the internet service providers, those responsible for delivering the data stream between me and the database. The big internet provers optimize their bandwidth to accomodate pedestrian web traffic and streaming video. They advertise 100gbs, at they will max out at that sporatically, but they do so in bursts, not a steady stream, and the service routinely drops off for several minutes at a time daily. Those of us who RDP into the office know how this works.
Honestly, the apartment building across the street from your business could hold your database hostage every day between 5PM - midnight when folks start streaming Netflix and playing Call of Duty.
You can pay to ensure that this doesn't occur (at least you can with some UK providers). The configuring of access to/priority of bandwidth is called shaping. I pay £5 a month at home to ensure that I have even bandwidth available to me 24 hours a day (otherwise they will "shape" your internet connection based on either being a home or a business).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
May 12, 2015 at 10:40 am
Gary Varga (5/12/2015)
Eric M Russell (5/12/2015)
I'd be willing to trust the cloud database provider, especially if it were Azure. They understand things like disaster recovery and service level agreements.Who I don't trust are the internet service providers, those responsible for delivering the data stream between me and the database. The big internet provers optimize their bandwidth to accomodate pedestrian web traffic and streaming video. They advertise 100gbs, at they will max out at that sporatically, but they do so in bursts, not a steady stream, and the service routinely drops off for several minutes at a time daily. Those of us who RDP into the office know how this works.
Honestly, the apartment building across the street from your business could hold your database hostage every day between 5PM - midnight when folks start streaming Netflix and playing Call of Duty.
You can pay to ensure that this doesn't occur (at least you can with some UK providers). The configuring of access to/priority of bandwidth is called shaping. I pay £5 a month at home to ensure that I have even bandwidth available to me 24 hours a day (otherwise they will "shape" your internet connection based on either being a home or a business).
For now, at least until those Net Neutrality zealots get their way.
Harumph! :rolleyes:
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
May 12, 2015 at 10:57 am
Eric M Russell (5/12/2015)
Gary Varga (5/12/2015)
Eric M Russell (5/12/2015)
I'd be willing to trust the cloud database provider, especially if it were Azure. They understand things like disaster recovery and service level agreements.Who I don't trust are the internet service providers, those responsible for delivering the data stream between me and the database. The big internet provers optimize their bandwidth to accomodate pedestrian web traffic and streaming video. They advertise 100gbs, at they will max out at that sporatically, but they do so in bursts, not a steady stream, and the service routinely drops off for several minutes at a time daily. Those of us who RDP into the office know how this works.
Honestly, the apartment building across the street from your business could hold your database hostage every day between 5PM - midnight when folks start streaming Netflix and playing Call of Duty.
You can pay to ensure that this doesn't occur (at least you can with some UK providers). The configuring of access to/priority of bandwidth is called shaping. I pay £5 a month at home to ensure that I have even bandwidth available to me 24 hours a day (otherwise they will "shape" your internet connection based on either being a home or a business).
For now, at least until those Net Neutrality zealots get their way.
Harumph! :rolleyes:
Well I am not sure which side is fighting for what, the media sure doesn't want to tell us the truth. I can't say if I am in favor of the net neutrality laws or not. I just don't know the truth about what they say.
What I do know is that it isn't fair for the ISPs like comcast to charge Google to stream You Tube, and if not, "we are going to cut the bandwidth" until you do. They already meter the connection to the home, they have no right to decide which content providers get to share content based on how much bribe money, I mean charges, they pay.
Taxpayers initially paid for everything, we pay exorbitant rates to cable companies every month, and they arbitrarily limit what we can do. My town is 100% fiber and we are limited to 25mbs connections! I hate comcast.
Dave
May 12, 2015 at 10:59 am
GoofyGuy (4/8/2015)
Wayne, I think Fujitsu may still offer a PC-based COBOL compiler, although I'm far too lazy to Google it!I agree, I enjoyed working with JCL, too. I started off with 360/370 assembler which, short of spinning out 0s and 1s, is near to as low-level as one might have gotten back then. It was helpful with macro-level CICS. I loved it all!
But I never got to play with a printer the likes of which you did. Sounds like fun!
I believe it is Micro Focus Cobol, which I believe Fujitsu purchased. Whoever owns it, there is something available. Microfocus.com is the site.
Dave
May 12, 2015 at 11:07 am
djackson 22568 (5/12/2015)
Eric M Russell (5/12/2015)
Gary Varga (5/12/2015)
Eric M Russell (5/12/2015)
I'd be willing to trust the cloud database provider, especially if it were Azure. They understand things like disaster recovery and service level agreements.Who I don't trust are the internet service providers, those responsible for delivering the data stream between me and the database. The big internet provers optimize their bandwidth to accomodate pedestrian web traffic and streaming video. They advertise 100gbs, at they will max out at that sporatically, but they do so in bursts, not a steady stream, and the service routinely drops off for several minutes at a time daily. Those of us who RDP into the office know how this works.
Honestly, the apartment building across the street from your business could hold your database hostage every day between 5PM - midnight when folks start streaming Netflix and playing Call of Duty.
You can pay to ensure that this doesn't occur (at least you can with some UK providers). The configuring of access to/priority of bandwidth is called shaping. I pay £5 a month at home to ensure that I have even bandwidth available to me 24 hours a day (otherwise they will "shape" your internet connection based on either being a home or a business).
For now, at least until those Net Neutrality zealots get their way.
Harumph! :rolleyes:
Well I am not sure which side is fighting for what, the media sure doesn't want to tell us the truth. I can't say if I am in favor of the net neutrality laws or not. I just don't know the truth about what they say.
What I do know is that it isn't fair for the ISPs like comcast to charge Google to stream You Tube, and if not, "we are going to cut the bandwidth" until you do. They already meter the connection to the home, they have no right to decide which content providers get to share content based on how much bribe money, I mean charges, they pay.
Taxpayers initially paid for everything, we pay exorbitant rates to cable companies every month, and they arbitrarily limit what we can do. My town is 100% fiber and we are limited to 25mbs connections! I hate comcast.
I am for Net Neutrality. I do not want hosts paying for what the customer has already paid for. This will reduce innovation and competition.
It is one thing giving the consumer choice by having scaling charges for different connection speeds (in theory) but how can they deliver on fast connections if they are restricting the speed of the sites the consumer are accessing.
As soon as you restrict a site that someone wants to access who has paid a premium for faster download/upload speed then surely they cannot truly fulfil their promised service.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
May 12, 2015 at 11:10 am
I'm for neutrality in terms of not prioritizing traffic based on source. However, I don't think that this means Google or Netflix can't pay for higher connection speeds to send data quickly.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
May 12, 2015 at 11:15 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/12/2015)
I'm for neutrality in terms of not prioritizing traffic based on source. However, I don't think that this means Google or Netflix can't pay for higher connection speeds to send data quickly.
The problem then comes when an alternative to Netflix, for example, cannot get off the ground because it cannot find the exhorbatant fees in order to try to compete. It becomes a closed shop. The consumer has always payed for speed adjusted connections and hosts have paid based on bandwidth quantity. It is a simple mechanism that is fair (IMHO).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
May 12, 2015 at 11:23 am
The problem then comes when an alternative to Netflix, for example, cannot get off the ground because it cannot find the exhorbatant [spelling!] fees in order to try to compete.
A new business would take the fees into account when required market capitalisation is estimated.
May 12, 2015 at 11:29 am
GoofyGuy (5/12/2015)
The problem then comes when an alternative to Netflix, for example, cannot get off the ground because it cannot find the exhorbatant [spelling!] fees in order to try to compete.A new business would take the fees into account when required market capitalisation is estimated.
Possibly a fair point.
(Apologies for the spelling mistake. Somehow the current client has managed to have internet proxy settings, I am presuming, that means that most of the time when I launch the spelling dialog box it just sits there. For hours. And hours. Even overnight.)
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
May 12, 2015 at 11:32 am
Possibly a fair point.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 😉
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 66 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply