Cloud Computing: Will data integration be its Achilles Heel?
Wesley: Now, there may be problems once our app is in the cloud. Inigo: I'll say. How do I find the data? Once I do, how do I integrate it with the other apps? Once I integrate it, how do I replicate it? If you remember this somewhat altered scene from the Princess Bride, you also remember that no one had any answers for Inigo. That's apropos of this discussion, because no one has any good answers for this version of Inigo either. And no, a holocaust cloak is not going to save the day this time. If you've been considering deploying applications in a public cloud, you've certainly considered what must be the Big Hairy Question regarding cloud computing: how do I get at my data? There's very little discussion about this topic, primarily because at this point there's no easy answer. Data stored in the cloud is not easily accessible for integration with applications not residing in the cloud, which can definitely be a roadblock to adopting public cloud computing. Stacey Higginbotham at GigaOM had a great post on the topic of getting data into the cloud, and while the conclusion that bandwidth is necessary is also applicable to getting your data out of the cloud, the details are left in your capable hands. We had this discussion when SaaS (Software as a Service) first started to pick up steam. If you're using a service like salesforce.com to store business critical data, how do you integrate that back into other applications that may need it? Web services were the first answer, followed by integration appliances and solutions that included custom-built adapters for salesforce.com to more easily enable access and integration to data stored "out there", in the cloud. Amazon offers URL-based and web services access to data stored in its SimpleDB offering, but that doesn't help folks who are using Oracle, SQL Server, or MySQL offerings in the cloud. And SimpleDB is appropriately named; it isn't designed to be an enterprise class service - caveat emptor is in full force if you rely upon it for critical business data. RDBMS' have their own methods of replication and synchronization, but mirroring and real-time replication methods require a lot of bandwidth and very low latency connections - something not every organization can count on having. Of course you can always deploy custom triggers and services that automatically replicate back into the local data center, but that, too, is problematic depending on bandwidth availability and accessibility of applications and databases inside the data center. The reverse scenario is much more likely, with a daemon constantly polling the cloud computing data and pulling updates back into the data center. You can also just leave that data out there in the cloud, implement, or take advantage of if they exist, service-based access to the data and integrate it with business processes and applications inside the data center. You're relying on the availability of the cloud, the Internet, and all the infrastructure in between, but like the solution for integrating with salesforce.com and other SaaS offerings, this is likely the best of a set of "will have to do" options. The issue of data and its integration has not yet raised its ugly head, mostly because very few folks are moving critical business applications into the cloud and admittedly, cloud computing is still in its infancy. But even non-critical applications are going to use or create data, and that data will, invariably, become important or need to be accessed by folks in the organization, which means access to that data will - probably sooner rather than later - become a monkey on the backs of IT. The availability of and ease of access to data stored in the public cloud for integration, data mining, business intelligence, and reporting - all common enterprise application use of data - will certainly affect adoption of cloud computing in general. The benefits of saving dollars on infrastructure (management, acquisition, maintenance) aren't nearly as compelling a reason to use the cloud when those savings would quickly be eaten up by the extra effort necessary to access and integrate data stored in the cloud. Related articles by Zemanta SQL-as-a-Service with CloudSQL bridges cloud and premises Amazon SimpleDB ready for public use Blurring the functional line - Zoho CloudSQL merges on-site and on-cloud As a Service: The many faces of the cloud A comparison of major cloud-computing providers (Amazon, Mosso, GoGrid) Public Data Goes on Amazon's CloudIntegration Topologies and SDN
The scalability issue with the #SDN model today isn’t that the data plane that won’t scale …it’s issues with the control plane. Reading “OpenFlow/SDN Is Not A Silver Bullet For Network Scalability” brought to light an important note that must be made regarding scalability and networks, especially when we start talking about the control plane. It isn’t that the network itself won’t scale well with SDN, the concern is – or should be – on the control side, on whether or not the integration of the control plane with the data plane will scale. A core characteristic of SDN is not only the separation of the control and data planes, but that that the control plane is centralized. There can be only one. The third characteristic that is important to SDN is the integration of these decoupled data plane devices with the control plane via APIs (Mike Fratto does an excellent job of discussing the importance of API support as well as making the very important distinction between API and SDK in his recent blog, “Three Signs of SDN Support to Watch for from Vendors”, so I won’t belabor this point right now). The convergence of these three characteristics results in what Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) has long known as a “hub and spoke” integration pattern. A hub – in the case of SDN, the controller – sits in the middle of a set of systems – in the case of SDN, the data plane devices – and is the center of the universe. The problem with this pattern, and why bus topologies rose to take its place, is that it doesn’t scale well. There is always only one central node, and it must necessarily manage and communicate with every other node in the integration. While hub-and-spoke, which grows linearly, isn’t nearly as difficult to scale as its predecessor the spaghetti (mesh) pattern, which grows exponentially, in a network growing even linearly is going to be problematic for some value of n (where n is the number of edges, i.e. nodes, in the network). At some value of n, it becomes apparent that the controller (hub) must be able to scale, too. Scaling up would require expansion of the system upon which the controller is deployed, which may require replacement. You can imagine the reluctance of operations to essentially shut down the entire network while that occurs. The other option is to scale out, vis à vis traditional methods of scaling other systems, via a load balancing service and duplicate instances. This implies a shared-something architecture, usually describes as being the database or repository for policy from which nodes are “programmed” by the controller. This appears to be the response in existing implementations, with “clusters of controllers” providing the scale and resiliency required. So scaling out the controller, then becomes an exercise in traditional scalability methods used to scale out client-server architectures. So the Control Plane of an SDN Can Scale. What’s the Problem then? As pointed out by Ivan Pepelnjak in “OpenFlow/SDN Is Not A Silver Bullet For Network Scalability”, the problem with this model appears to be response time. Failure in a node cannot be addressed fast enough by a centralized software system, particularly not one that relies on a database (which has its own scalability issues, of course). There are several questions that must be answered in order to even deal with failure that pose some interesting performance and scaling challenges. How does the controller know that an element node is “down”? Is it polling, which introduces an entirely new concern regarding the level of monitoring noise on the network interfering with business-related traffic? Is it monitoring a persistent control-channel connection between the controller and the node? Certainly this would indicate nearly instantaneously the status of the node, but introduces scaling challenges as maintaining even a one-to-one control-channel connection per element node in the network would consume large quantities of memory (and ultimately have a negative impact on performance, requiring scale out much sooner than may be otherwise necessary). Does a neighbor or upstream element tattle on the downed node when it doesn’t respond? There are a variety of mechanisms that could be used to monitor the network such that the controller is informed of a failure, but each brings with it new challenges and has different responsiveness profiles. Polling is tricky, as any load balancing provider will tell you, because it’s based on a timed interval. Persistent connections, as noted earlier, bring scalability challenges back to the table. Tattle-tale methodologies are unreliable, requiring that a neighbor or upstream element have the need to “talk to” the downed down before notification can occur, leaving open the possibility of a downed node going unnoticed until it’s too late. How does the controller respond to a downed element node? Obviously the controller needs to “route around” or “detour” traffic until a replacement can be deployed (virtually or physically). This no doubt requires some calculations to determine the best route (OSPF anyone?) if done in real-time. Some have suggested alternative routes in tables be available on each node in the event of a failure, a model more closely related to today’s existing routing practices and one that would certainly respond much better to failure in the network than would a system in which the controller must discover and reconfigure the network to adjust to failures. What happens to existing flows when an element node fails? Ah, the age old stateful failure challenge. This is one that is (almost) solved with redundant architectures that mirror sessions (flows) to a secondary device. The problem is that these models work best, i.e. have the highest levels of success, for full-proxy devices, particularly when the flow supports stateful/connection-oriented protocols. These questions are nothing new to experienced EAI practitioners who’ve had to suffer through a hub-and-spoke based integration effort. Failure in a node or of the controller give rise to painful fire-drill exercises, the likes of which no one really enjoys because they are highly disruptive. They’re also not really new questions for those with a long history in load balancing and high availability architectures. Still, these are questions which need to be answered in the context of the network, which has somewhat different uptime and performance requirements than even applications. Ultimately the answer is going to lie in architecture, and it’s unlikely that what results will be a single, centrally controlled one. QoS without Context: Good for the Network, Not So Good for the End user Applying ‘Centralized Control, Decentralized Execution’ to Network Architecture F5 Friday: ADN = SDN at Layer 4-7 SDN, OpenFlow, and Infrastructure 2.0 Cyclomatic Complexity of OpenFlow-Based SDN May Drive Market Innovation Five needs driving SDNsMadness? THIS. IS. SOA!
There is an interesting war being fought in the blogosphere over the use (or overuse) of ESB (enterprise service buses) to build out a SOA (service oriented architecture). It certainly appears that Dave Linthicum is taking on the role of Leonidas and the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae while everyone else is on the side of Xerxes and the Persians. Dave is defending his view that ESBs are overused and often, apparently, misused against a host of ESB and SOA focused bloggers like Joe McKendrick and Jeff Schneider. But everyone is talking in abstractions, and no one's really giving anyone a good idea of when to use an ESB or when to avoid them. No one seems to be looking at why people are or aren't using ESBs and getting to the root of the question - when are they appropriate for use in a SOA and when are they simply being implemented for the sake of being implemented? So when should you consider implementing an ESB as part of your SOA? 1. You have a need to orchestrate services. Orchestration of services is one of the greatest strengths of an ESB. ESBs layer transaction management around orchestration of services and provide value when two or more services need to be composed into a single "transaction". 2. You have a need to integrate middleware messaging with applications. Let's face it, service-enabling MQ or JMS is a pain in the ... neck. An ESB makes this process simple and allows for orchestration of asynchronous services that might otherwise be difficult to integrate into an architecture. 3. Multi-application updates (a la integration). I know this is an unpopular thing to say, but sometimes the best solution to the problem of enterprise application integration in a SOA world is to use an ESB. ESBs are more than capable of orchestrating updates in a parallel processing scenario, and if you have multiple legacy applications or services that need updating during the same process, then an ESB is going to provide significant value in implementing such processes. 4. You plan on doing any of the above in the future. Laying the foundation for orchestration, integration, and parallel processing of messages means laying the foundation now, not rip-and-replace later. If there are plans in your SOA's future that would include an ESB, then implement sooner rather than later. SOA is supposed to help align IT with the business. If you need an ESB, or three or ten, to accomplish that goal, then that's what you need to do. While it may not be a "pure" SOA in implementation, if you're staying true to its goal then it's definitely a "pure" SOA in design and intent.
