Monthly Archives: March 2010

Amazon EC2 EBS Instances and Ephemeral Storage

Here’s a couple tidbits I’ve gleaned that are useful.

When  you start an “instance-store” Amazon EC2 instance, you get a certain amount of ephemeral storage allocated and mounted automatically.  The amount of space varies by instance size and is defined here.  The storage location and format also varies by instance size and is defined here.

The upshot is that if you start an “instance-store” small Linux EC2 instance, it automagically has a free 150 GB /mnt disk and a 1 GB swap partition up and runnin’ for ya.  (mount points vary by image, but that’s where they are in the Amazon Fedora starter.)

[root@domU-12-31-39-00-B2-01 ~]# df -k
Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1             10321208   1636668   8160252  17% /
/dev/sda2            153899044    192072 145889348   1% /mnt
none                    873828         0    873828   0% /dev/shm
[root@domU-12-31-39-00-B2-01 ~]# free
total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       1747660      84560    1663100          0       4552      37356
-/+ buffers/cache:      42652    1705008
Swap:       917496          0     917496

But, you say, I am not old or insane!  I use EBS-backed images, just as God intended.  Well, that’s a good point.  But when you pull up an EBS image, these ephemeral disk areas are not available to you.  The good news is, that’s just by default.

The ephemeral storage is still available and can be used (for free!) by an EBS-backed image.  You just have to set the block devices up either explicitly when you run the instance or bake them into the image.


You refer to the ephemeral chunks as “ephemeral0”, “ephemeral1”, etc. – they don’t tell you explicitly which is which but basically you just count up based on your instance type (review the doc).  For a small image, it has an ephemeral0 (ext3, 15 GB) and an ephemeral1 (swap, 1 GB).  To add them to an EBS instance and mount them in the “normal” places, you do:

ec2-run-instances <ami id> -k <your key> --block-device-mapping '/dev/sda2=ephemeral0'
--block-device-mapping '/dev/sda3=ephemeral1'

On the instance you have to mount them – add these to /etc/fstab and mount -a or do whatever else it is you like to do:

/dev/sda3                 swap                    swap    defaults 0 0
/dev/sda2                 /mnt                    ext3    defaults 0 0

And if you want to turn the swap on immediately, “swapon /dev/sda3”.


You can also bake them into an image.  Add a fstab like the one above and when you create the image, do it like this, using the exact same –block-device-mapping flag:

ec2-register -n <ami id> -d "AMI Description" --block-device-mapping  /dev/sda2=ephemeral0
--block-device-mapping '/dev/sda3=ephemeral1' --snapshot your-snapname --architecture i386
--kernel<aki id>  --ramdisk <ari id>

Ta da. Free storage that doesn’t persist.  Very useful as /tmp space.  Opinion is split among the Linuxerati about whether you want swap space nowadays or not; some people say some mix of  “if you’re using more than 1.8 GB of RAM you’re doing it wrong” and “swapping is horrid, just let bad procs die due to lack of memory and fix them.”  YMMV.

Ephemeral EBS?

As another helpful tip, let’s say you’re adding an EBS to an image that you don’t want to be persistent when the instance dies.  By default, all EBSes are persistent and stick around muddying up your account till you clean them up.   If you don’t want certain EBS-backed drives to persist, what you do is of the form:

ec2-modify-instance-attribute --block-device-mapping "/dev/sdb=vol-f64c8e9f:true" i-e2a0b08a

Where ‘true’ means “yes, please, delete me when I’m done.”  This command throws a stack trace to the tune of

Unexpected error: java.lang.ClassCastException:
cannot be cast to

But it works, that’s just a lame API tools bug.


Filed under Cloud, Uncategorized

Before DevOps, Don’t You Need OpsOps?

From the “sad but true” files comes an extremely insightful point apparently discussed over beer by the UK devops crew recently – that we are talking about dev and ops collaboration but the current state of collaboration among ops teams is pretty crappy.

This resonates deeply with me.  I’ve seen that problem in spades.  I think in general that a lot of the discussion about the agile ops space is too simplistic in that it seems tuned to organizations of “five guys, three of whom are coders and two of whom are operations” and there’s no differentiation.  In real life, there’s often larger orgs and a lot of differentiation that causes various collaboration challenges.  Some people refer to this as Web vs Enterprise, but I don’t think that’s strictly true; once your Web shop grows from 5 guys to 200 it runs afoul of this too – it’s a simple scalability and organizational engineering problem.

As an aside, I don’t even like the “Ops” term – a sysadmin team can split into subgroups that do systems engineering, release management, and operational support…  Just saying “Ops” seems to me to create implications of not being a partner in the initial design and development of the overall system/app/service/site/whatever you want to call it.

Ops Verticals

Here, we have a large Infrastructure department.  Originally, it was completely siloed by technology verticals, and there’s a lot of subgroups.  Network, UNIX, Windows, DBA, Lotus Notes, Telecom, Storage, Data Center…  Some ten plus years ago when the company launched their Web site in earnest, they quickly realized that wasn’t going to work out.  You had the buck-passing behavior described in the blog posts above that made issues impossible to solve in a timely fashion, plus it made collaboration with devs/business nearly impossible.  Not only did you need like 8 admins to come involve themselves in your project, but they did not speak similar enough languages – you’d have some crusty UNIX admin yelling “WHAT ABOUT THE INODES” until the business analyst started to cry.

Dev Silos

But are our developers here better off?  They are siloed by business unit.  Just among the Web developers there’s the eCommerce developers, eCRM, Product Advisors, Community, Support, Content Management…  On the one hand, they are able to be very agile in creating solutions inside their specific niche.  On the other hand, they are all working within the same system environment, and they don’t always stay on the same page in terms of what technologies they are using. “Well, I’m sure THAT team bought a lovely million dollar CMS, but we’re going to buy our own different million dollar CMS.   No, you don’t get more admin resource.”  Over time, they tried to produce architecture groups and other cross-team initiatives to try to rein in the craziness, with mixed but overall positive results.

Plugging the Dike

What we did was create a Web Administration group (Web Ops, whatever you want to call it) that was holistically responsible for Web site uptime, performance, and security.  Running that team was my previous gig, did it for five years.  That group was more horizontally focused and would serve as an interface to the various technology verticals; it worked closely with developers in system design during development, coordinated the release process, and involved devs in troubleshooting during the production phase.


In fact, we didn’t just partner with the developers – we partnered with the business owners of our Web site too, instead of tolerating the old model of “Business collaborates with the developers, who then come and tell ops what to do.”  This was a remarkably easy sell really.  The company lost money every minute the Web site was down, and it was clear that the dev silos weren’t going to be able to fix that any more than the ops silos were.  So we quickly got a seat at the same table.


This was a huge success.  To this day, our director of Web Marketing is one of the biggest advocates of the Web operations team.  Since then, other application administration (our word for this cross-disciplinary ops) teams have formed along the same model.  The DevOps collaboration has been good overall – with certain stresses coming from the Web Ops team’s role as gatekeeper and process enforcement.  Ironically, the biggest issues and worst relationships were within Infrastructure between the ops teams!

OpsOps – The Fly In The Ointment

The ops team silos haven’t gone down quietly.  To this day the head DBA still says “I don’t see a good reason for you guys [WebOps] to exist.”  I think there’s a common “a thing is just the sum of its parts” mindset among admins for whatever reason.  There are also turf wars arising from the technology silo division and the blurring of technology lines by modern tech.  I tried again and again to pitch “collaborative system administration.”  But the default sysadmin behavior is to say “these systems are mine and I have root on them.  Those are your systems and you have root on them.  Stay on your side of the line and I’ll stay on mine.”

Fun specific Catch-22 situations we found ourselves in:

  • Buying a monitoring tool that correlates events across all the different tiers to help root-cause production problems – but the DBAs refusing to allow it on “their” databases.
  • Buying a hardware load balancer – we were going to manage it, not the network team, and it wasn’t a UNIX or Windows server, so we couldn’t get anyone to rack and jack it (and of course we weren’t allowed to because “Why would a webops person need server room access, that’s what the other teams are for”).

Some of the problem is just attitude, pure and simple.  We had problems even with collaboration inside the various ops teams!  We’d work with one DBA to design a system and then later need to get support from another DBA, who would gripe that “no one told/consulted them!”  Part of the value of the agile principles that “DevOps” tries to distill is just a generic “get it into your damn head you need to be communicating and working together and that needs to be your default mode of operation.” I think it’s great to harp on that message because it’s little understood among ops.  For every dev group that deliberately ostracizes their ops team, there’s two ops teams who don’t think they need to talk to the devs – in the end, it’s mostly our fault.

Part of the problem is organizational.  I also believe (and ITIL, I think, agrees with me) that the technology-silo model has outlived its usefulness.  I’d like to see admin teams organized by service area with integral DBAs, OS admins, etc.  But people are scared of this for a couple reasons.  One is that those admins might do things differently from area to area (the same problem we have with our devs) – this could be mitigated by “same tech” cross-org standards/discussions.  The other is that this model is not the cheapest.  You can squeeze every last penny out if you only have 4 Windows admins and they’re shared by 8 functional areas.  Of course, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face because you lose lots more in abandoned agility, but frankly corporate finance rules (minimize G&A spending) are a powerful driver here.

If nothing else, there’s not “one right organization” – I’d be tempted to reorg everyone from verticals into horizontals, let that run for 5 years, and then reorg back the other way, just to keep the stratification from setting in.

Specialist vs Generalist

One other issue.  The Web Ops team we created required us to hire generalists – but generalists that knew their stuff in a lot of different areas.  It became very hard to hire for that position and training took months before someone was at all effective.  Being a generalist doesn’t scale well.  Specialization is inevitable and, indeed, desirable (as I think pretty much anything in the history of anything demonstrates).  You can mitigate that with some cross-training and having people be generalists in some areas, but in the end, once you get past that “three devs, two ops, that’s the company” model, specialization is needed.

That’s why I think one of the common definitions of DevOps – all ops folks learning to be developers or vice versa – is fundamentally flawed.  It’s not sustainable.  You either need to hire all expensive superstars that can be good at both, or you hire people that suck at both.

What you do is have people with varying mixes.  In my current team we have a continuum of pure ops people, ops folks doing light dev, devs doing light ops, and pure devs.  It’s good to have some folks who are generalizing and some who are specializing.  It’s not specializing that is bad, it’s specialists who don’t collaborate that are bad.


So I’ve shared a lot of experiences and opinions above but I’m not sure I have a brilliant solution to the problem.  I do think we need to recognize that Ops/Ops collaboration is an issue that arises with scale and one potentially even harder to overcome than Dev/Ops collaboration.  I do think stressing collaboration as a value and trying to break down organizational silos may help.  I’d be happy to hear other folks’ experiences and thoughts!


Filed under DevOps

Defining Agile Operations and DevOps

I recently read a great blog post by Scott Wilson that was talking about the definitions of Agile Operations, DevOps, and related terms.  (Read the comments too, there’s some good discussion.)  From what I’ve heard so far, there are a bunch of semi-related terms people are using around this whole “new thing of ours.”

The first is DevOps, which has two totally different frequently used definitions.

1.  Developers and Ops working closely together – the “hugs and collaboration” definition

2.  Operations folks uptaking development best practices and writing code for system automation

The second is Agile Operations, which also has different meanings.

1.  Same as DevOps, whichever definition of that I’m using

2.  Using agile principles to run operations – process techniques, like iterative development or even kanban/TPS kinds of process stuff.  Often with a goal of “faster!”

3.  Using automation – version control, automatic provisioning/control/monitoring.  Sometimes called “Infrastructure Automation” or similar.

This leads to some confusion, as most of these specific elements can be implemented in isolation.  For example, I think the discussion at OpsCamp about “Is DevOps an antipattern” was predicated on an assumption that DevOps meant only DevOps definition #2, “ops guys trying to be developers,” and made the discussion somewhat odd to people with other assumed definitions.

I have a proposed set of definitions.  To explain it, let’s look at Agile Development and see how it’s defined.

Agile development, according to wikipedia and the agile manifesto, consists of a couple different “levels” of thing.  To sum up the wikipedia breakdown,

  • Agile Principles – like “business/users and developers working together.”  These are the core values that inform agile, like collaboration, people over process, software over documentation, and responding to change over planning.
  • Agile Methods – specific process types.  Iterations, Lean, XP, Scrum.  “As opposed to waterfall.”
  • Agile Practices – techniques often found in conjunction with agile development, not linked to a given method flavor, like test driven development, continuous integration, etc.

I believe the different parts of Agile Operations that people are talking about map directly to these three levels.

  • Agile Operations Principles includes things like dev/ops collaboration (DevOps definition 1 above); things like James Turnbull’s 4-part model seem to be spot on examples of trying to define this arena.
  • Agile Operations Methods includes process you use to conduct operations – iterations, kanban, stuff you’d read in Visible Ops; Agile Operations definition #2 above.
  • Agile Operations Practices includes specific techniques like automated build/provisioning, monitoring, anything you’d have a “toolchain” for.  This contains DevOps definition #2 and Agile Operations definition #3 above.

I think it’s helpful to break them up along the same lines as agile development, however, because in the end some of those levels should merge once developers understand ops is part of system development too…  There shouldn’t be a separate “user/dev collaboration” and “dev/ops collaboration,” in a properly mature model it should become a “user/dev/ops collaboration,” for example.

I think the dev2ops guys’ “People over Process over Tools” diagram mirrors this about exactly – the people being one of the important agile principles, process being a large part of the methods, and tools being used to empower the practices.

What I like about that diagram, and why I want to bring this all back to the Agile Manifesto discussion, is that the risk of having various sub-definitions increases the risk that people will implement the processes or tools without the principles in mind, which is definitely an antipattern.  The Agile guys would tell you that iterations without collaboration is likely to not work out real well.

And it happens in agile development too – there are some teams here at my company that have adopted the methods and/or tools of agile but not its principles, and the results are suboptimal.

Therefore I propose that “Agile Operations” is an umbrella term for all these things, and we keep in mind the principles/methods/practices differentiation.

If we want to call the principles “devops” for short and some of the practices “infrastructure automation” for short I think that would be fine…   Although dev/ops collaboration is ONE of the important principles – but probably not the entirety; and infrastructure automation is one of the important practices, but there are probably others.


Filed under DevOps, Uncategorized

Upcoming Free Velocity WebOps Web Conference

O’Reilly’s Velocity conference is the only generalized Web ops and performance conference out there.  We really like it; you can go to various other conferences and have 10-20% of the content useful to you as a Web Admin, or you can go here and have most of it be relevant!

They’ve been doing some interim freebie Web conferences and there’s one coming up.  Check it out.  They’ll be talking about performance functionality in Google Webmaster Tools, mySQL, Show Slow, provisioning tools, and dynaTrace’s new AJAX performance analysis tool.

O’Reilly Velocity Online Conference: “Speed and Stability”
Thursday, March 17; 9:00am PST
Cost: Free

Leave a comment

Filed under Conferences, DevOps

Microsoft Azure for Dummies – or for Smarties?

What Is Microsoft Azure?

I’m going to attempt to explain Microsoft Azure in “normal Web person” language.  Like many of you, I am more familiar with Linux/open source type solutions, and like many of you, my first forays into cloud computing have been with Amazon Web Services.  It can often be hard for people not steeped in Redmondese to understand exactly what the heck they’re talking about when Microsoft people try to explain their offerings.  (I remember a time some years ago I was trying to get a guy to explain some new Microsoft data access thing with the usual three letter acronym name.  I asked, “Is it a library?  A language?  A protocol?  A daemon?  Branding?  What exactly is this thing you’re trying to get me to uptake?”  The reply was invariably “It’s an innovative new way to access data!”  Sigh.  I never did get an answer and concluded “Never mind.”)

Microsoft has released their new cloud offering, Azure.  Our company is a close Microsoft partner since we use a lot of their technologies in developing our company’s desktop software products, so as “cloud guy” I’ve gotten some in depth briefings and even went to PDC this year to learn more (some of my friends who have known me over the course of my 15 years of UNIX administration were horrified).  “Cloud computing” is an overloaded enough term that it’s not highly descriptive and it took a while to cut through the explanations to understand what Azure really is.  Let me break it down for you and explain the deal.

Point of Comparison: Amazon (IaaS)

In Amazon EC2, as hopefully everyone knows by now, you are basically given entire dynamically-provisioned, hourly-billed virtual machines that you load OSes on and install software and all that.  “Like servers, but somewhere out in the ether.”  Those kinds of cloud offerings (e.g. Amazon, Rackspace, most of them really) are called Infrastructure As A Service (IaaS).  You’re responsible for everything you normally would be, except for the data center work.  Azure is not an IaaS offering but still bears a lot of similarities to Amazon; I’ll get into details later.

Point of Comparison: Google App Engine (PaaS)

Take Google’s App Engine as another point of comparison.  There, you just upload your Python or Java application to their portal and “it runs on the Web.”  You don’t have access to the server or OS or disk or anything.  And it “magically” scales for you.  This approach is called Platform as a Service (PaaS).   They provide the full platform stack, you only provide the end application.  On the one hand, you don’t have to mess with OS level stuff – if you are just a Java programmer, you don’t have to know a single UNIX (or Windows) command to transition your app from “But it works in Eclipse!” to running on a Web server on the Internet.  On the other hand, that comes with a lot of limitations that the PaaS providers have to establish to make everything play together nicely.  One of our early App Engine experiences was sad – one of our developers wrote a Java app that used a free XML library to parse some XML.  Well, that library had functionality in it (that we weren’t using) that could write XML to disk.  You can’t write to disk in App Engine, so its response was to disallow the entire library.  The app didn’t work and had to be heavily rewritten.  So it’s pretty good for code that you are writing EVERY SINGLE LINE OF YOURSELF.  Azure isn’t quite as restrictive as App Engine, but it has some of that flavor.

Azure’s Model

Windows Azure falls between the two.  First of all, Azure is a real “hosted cloud” like Amazon Web Services, like most of us really think about when we think cloud computing; it’s not one of these on premise things that companies are branding as “cloud” just for kicks. That’s important to say because it seems like nowadays the larger the company, the more they are deliberately diluting the term “cloud” to stick their products under its aegis.  Microsoft isn’t doing that, this is a “cloud offering” in the classical (where classical means 2008, I guess) sense.

However, in a number of important ways it’s not like Amazon.  I’d definitely classify it as a PaaS offering.  You upload your code to “Roles” which are basically containers that run your application in a Windows 2008(ish) environment.  (There are two types – a “Web role” has a stripped down IIS provided on it, a “Worker role” doesn’t – the only real difference between the two.)  You do not have raw OS access, and cannot do things like write to the registry.  But, it is less restrictive than App Engine.  You can bundle up other stuff to run in Azure – even run Java apps using Apache Tomcat.  You have to be able to install whatever you want to run “xcopy only” – in other words, no fancy installers, it needs to be something you could just copy the files to a Windows PC, without administrative privilege, and run a command from the command line and have it work.  Luckily, Tomcat/Java fits that description. They have helper packs to facilitate doing this with Tomcat, memcached, and Apache/PHP/MediaWiki.  At PDC they demoed Domino’s Pizza running their Java order app on it and a WordPress blog running on it.  So it’s not only for .NET programmers.  Managed code is easier to deploy, but you can deploy and run about anything that fits the “copy and run command line” model.

I find this approach a little ironic actually.  It’s been a lot easier for us to get the Java and open source (well, the ones with Windows ports) parts of our infrastructure running on Azure than Windows parts!  Everybody provides Windows stuff with an installer, of course, and you can’t run installers on Azure.  Anyway, in its core computing model it’s like Google App Engine – it’s more flexible than that (good) but it doesn’t do automatic scaling (bad).  If it did autoscaling I’d be willing to say “It’s better than App Engine in every way.”

In other ways, it’s a lot like Amazon.  They offer a variety of storage options – blobs (like S3), tables (like SimpleDB), queues (like SQS), drives (like EBS), SQL Azure (like RDS).  They have an integral CDN.  They do hourly billing.  Pricing is pretty similar to Amazon – it’s hard to totally equate apples to apples, but Azure compute is $0.12/hr and an Amazon small Windows image compute is $0.12/hr (Coincidence?  I think not.).  And you have to figure out scaling and provisioning yourself on Amazon too – or pay a lot of scratch to one of the provisioning companies like RightScale.

What’s Unique and Different

Well, the largest thing that I’ve already mentioned is the PaaS approach.  If you need OS level access, you’re out of luck;  if you don’t want to have to mess with OS management, you’re in luck!  So to the first order of magnitude, you can think of Azure as “like Amazon Web Services, but the compute uses more of a Google App Engine model.”

But wait, there’s more!

One of the biggest things that Azure brings to the table is that, using Visual Studio, you can run a local Azure “fabric” on your PC, which means you can develop, test, and run cloud apps locally without having to upload to the cloud and incur usage charges.  This is HUGE.  One of the biggest pains about programming for Amazon, for instance, is that if you want to exercise any of their APIs, you have to do it “up there.”  Also, you can’t move images back and forth between Amazon and on premise.  Now, there are efforts like EUCALYPTUS that try to overcome some of this problem but in the end you pretty much just have to throw in the towel and do all dev and test up in the cloud.  Amazon and Eclipse (and maybe Xen) – get together and make it happen!!!!

Here’s something else interesting.  In a move that seems more like a decision from a typical cranky cult-of-personality open source project, they have decided that proper Web apps need to be asynchronous and message-driven, and by God that’s what you’re going to do.  Their load balancers won’t do sticky sessions (only round robin) and time out all connections between all tiers after 60 seconds without exception.  If you need more than that, tough – rewrite your app to use a multi-tier message queue/event listener model.  Now on the one hand, it’s hard for me to disagree with that – I’ve been sweating our developers, telling them that’s the correct best-practice model for scalability on the Web.  But again you’re faced with the “Well what if I’m using some preexisting software and that’s not how it’s architected?” problem.  This is the typical PaaS pattern of “it’s great, if you’re writing every line of code yourself.”

In many ways, Azure is meant to be very developer friendly.  In a lot of ways that’s good.  As a system admin, however, I wince every time they go on about “You can deploy your app to Azure just by right clicking in Visual Studio!!!”  Of course, that’s not how anyone with a responsibly controlled production environment would do it, but it certainly does make for fast easy adoption in development.   The curve for a developer who is “just” a C++/Java/.NET/whatever wrangler to get up and going on an IaaS solution like Amazon is pretty large comparatively; here, it’s “go sign up for an account and then click to deploy from your IDE, and voila it’s running on the Intertubes.”  So it’s a qualified good – it puts more pressure on you as an ops person to go get the developers to understand why they need to utilize your services.  (In a traditional server environment, they have to go through you to get their code deployed.)  Often, for good or ill, we use the release process as a touchstone to also engage developers on other aspects of their code that need to be systems engineered better.

Now, that’s my view of the major differences.  I think the usual Azure sales pitch would say something different – I’ve forgotten two of their huge differentiators, their service bus and access control components.  They are branded under the name “AppFabric,” which as usual is a name Microsoft is also using for something else completely different (a new true app server for Windows Server, including projects formerly code named Dublin and Velocity – think of it as a real WebLogic/WebSphere type app server plus memcache.)

Their service bus is an ESB.  As alluded to above, you’re going to want to use it to do messaging.   You can also use Azure Queues, which is a little confusing because the ESB is also a message queue – I’m not clear on their intended differentiation really.  You can of course just load up an ESB yourself in any other IaaS cloud solution too, so if you really want one you could do e.g. Apache ServiceMix hosted on Amazon.  But, they are managing this one for you which is a plus.  You will need to use it to do many of the common things you’d want to do.

Their access control – is a mess.  Sorry, Microsoft guys.  The whole rest of the thing, I’ve managed to cut through the “Microsoft acronyms versus the rest of the world’s terms and definitions” factor, but not here.   “You see, you use ACS’s WIF STS to generate a SWT,” says our Microsoft rep with a straight face.   They seem to be excited that it will use people’s Microsoft Live IDs, so if you want people to have logins to your site and you don’t want to manage any of that, it is probably nice.  It takes SAML tokens too, I think, though I’m not sure if the caveats around that end up equating to “Well, not really.”  Anyway, their explanations have been incoherent so far and I’m not smelling anything I’m really interested in behind it.  But there’s nothing to prevent you from just using LDAP and your own Internet SSO/federation solution.  I don’t count this against Microsoft because no one else provides anything like this, so even if I ignore the Azure one it doesn’t put it behind any other solution.

The Future

Microsoft has said they plan to add on some kind of VM/IaaS offering eventually because of the demand.  For us, the PaaS approach is a bit of a drawback – we want to do all kinds of things like “virus scan uploaded files,” “run a good load balancer,” “run an LDAP server”, and other things that basically require more full OS access.  I think we may have an LDAP direction with the all-Java OpenDS, but it’s a pain point in general.

I think a lot of their decisions that are a short term pain in the ass (no installs, no synchronous) are actually good in the long term.  If all developers knew how to develop async and did it by default, and if all software vendors, even Windows based ones, provided their product in a form that could just be “copy and run without admin privs” to install, the world would be a better place.  That’s interesting in that “Sure it’s hard to use now but it’ll make the world better eventually” is usually heard from the other side of the aisle.


Azure’s a pretty legit offering!  And I’m very impressed by their velocity.  I think it’s fair to say that overall Azure isn’t quite as good as Amazon except for specific use cases (you’re writing it all in .NET by hand in Visual Studio) – but no one else is as good as Amazon either (believe me, I evaluated them) and Amazon has years of head start; Azure is brand new but already at about 80%! That puts them into the top 5 out of the gate.

Without an IaaS component, you still can’t do everything under the sun in Azure.  But if you’re not depending on much in the way of big third party software chunks, it’s feasible; if you’re doing .NET programming, it’s very compelling.

Do note that I haven’t focused too much on the attributes and limitations of cloud computing in general here – that’s another topic – this article is meant to compare and contrast Azure to other cloud offerings so that people can understand its architecture.

I hope that was clear.  Feel free and ask questions in the comments and I’ll try to clarify!

Leave a comment

Filed under Cloud