Windows Azure....

[DeanMc]

Yeah im struggling to make out exactly what it is with all the marketing hype. From what I gather it is essentially like buying hosting but you only pay per use. So what about domain names etc,

Does anyone understand it better that what I got?

[dilettante]

It isn't the same sort of thing as Web hosting or a hosted server. It has more to do with hosting all or part of server applications off-site on a leased capacity basis.

Where you might lease a real or virtual server, using Cloud based hosting you'd lease capacity to run an entire application or parts of one. These run "sandboxed" but otherwise side-by-side with other customers' applications (i.e. in the same OS instance or even in several OS instances).

For example you might just have your database in the "cloud" and it would share the remote hardware and OS with other customers' databases. You don't pay for a whole real or virtual server, and could pay based on metered usage instead of a dedicated slice of capacity. If demand increases you can scale up and out across multiple servers in the cloud.

This type of scaling means you generally would not use such a database the same way a local (or a dedicated hosted) database is used. Many cloud providers have avoided supporting relational DBMSs, but recently have begun to relent since today's developers generally don't have the necessary sophistication yet to know when and how to use replicating key/value store databases.

Other kinds of cloud services exist besides database and raw capacity services too.

Here is one simplified overview: Introducing the Azure Services Platform

Azure is atypical, in that it is tightly bound to .Net while many cloud offerings support a wide range of technologies.

[DeanMc]

Hmm.

I am still confused though, say I had a website built in silverlight and also an application that was built in asp.net. Could all these be hosted on Azure along with say email facilities and pointed to with an addy like www.deansmadstuff.com ?

[dilettante]

I haven't looked at Azure itself to say how they expect it to be used. A lot of these "cloud" offerings are really meant to be consumed internally though, not by the public directly.

How they handle DNS would be a good question. I assume Microsoft is using some sort of dynamic routing behind a "front door" router. This would let your application appear to be in the same place (in terms of DNS names or even IP addresses) even though it may "float" among different physical servers.

Another quick look suggests that yes, you could just host a web site in Azure. That really isn't what Azure is meant to be used for though. Simple web hosting is probably cheaper to obtain through conventional web hosting arrangements. When they talk about "web applications" I think they mean the term more generally, as in "crap glued together using Web Services as an IPC technology" and not a conventional ASP.Net, PHP, etc. "web application."

[DeanMc]

Ah that makes sense so!

[techgnome]

It's complicated. There's several facets to Azure... there's the Azure SQL, which allows you to have your database in the cloud, making it essentially available from a desktop app as well as a web app. Advantage of this is that you can have both kinds of apps hitting the same database, and location becomes a non issue. Then there's the Azure AppFabric (I thinks that's right - my head is still swimming from all this info over load at PDC). This allows you to host your processes in the cloud. With Azure, you can manage a virtual server farm -- need more capacity, go into your panel, increase the number of instances running, click a button.... and they spin up. When the usage spike is done, wind down the number and the instances will close themselves.

The example that was given during yesterday's keynote was Domino's Pizza.... on SuperBowl Sunday, their volume of online orders increases several times over. By using Azure, they are able to kick up the number of instances running their order processing, and the end user making the orders doesn't know the difference. To do this with physical servers like in the past, during your off peak times, you'd have idle systems sitting there, which ends up being a waste of resources.

In short, it's a way to be able to add and remove capacity on demand, when you need it and only when you need it.

-tg

[DeanMc]

Now that makes even more sense, what I would worry about though is security. I mean judging by the cost of usage you could save yourself a fortune on infrastructure if used properly but this takes you systems outside your control in terms of security.

[techgnome]

that has been the biggest question from the people I've talked to. The talk from the MS guys here is that it is extremely secure. But I've seen push back from people that have highly sensitive stuff, like for HIPPA Requirements, or major proprietary information. It's a good idea for smaller but growing companies, that don't have a lot to spend on infrastrure.

-tg

[DeanMc]

Ok. so the crux of it, given that they charge per usage why would I go put up a site on say discountasp.net when i could load it up to azure and pay per use?

[chris128]

From what I understood, Azure was not meant for hosting a web site really. Its more for running your server service or SQL database from, rather than having your own server in house that runs them. Obviously it is aimed more at business applications than consumer apps.

Oh and TG - I thought AppFabric was something totally different? I thought it was a new feature they were adding to IIS or something... maybe I got it wrong
EDIT: Nope, looks like it is just that: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/wind.../ee695849.aspx

[techgnome]

The way I understood it is that AppFabric is part of IIS, but it's also part what's going to be available through Azure. If I'm a small company that doesn't want the hassle of maintining the hardware myself, then I can go with Azure and the hosted AppFabric. If I'm a large enogh company, and do the hosting myself, then I still have access to AppFabric and manage it myself directly. I think the point they were making is that this new vitualization isn't exclusive to the cloud, and that these changes they are making to support the cloud are going to be available to the rest us mere mortals.

-tg

[mendhak]

Ok. so the crux of it, given that they charge per usage why would I go put up a site on say discountasp.net when i could load it up to azure and pay per use?

You wouldn't. It's meant for companies that need to dynamically scale their variable-traffic applications. If you look at the prices, then you'll quickly realize that hosting a normal website on Azure is a bad idea, it's quite prohibitive and I could quickly drain your account by making a lot of requests. What you'd host on a cloud is an application rather than a site, and this isn't the Visual Studio terminology I'm using here. An example of an application was mentioned earlier - the pizza ordering system. The actual website itself can be on a normal web server handling and passing on the requests.

[mendhak]

What I think is going to change everything is Velocity which is part of AppFabric. It's a new fad to talk about cloud computing, well done, eat a medal, but the capability to throw more RAM into your datacenter, talk to a unified cache and have it manage your back-end communication will change the way you work. Well, that's what I'm hoping for, but we'll have to wait and see. Of course, as with any other layer of abstraction, what I do fear is if it does get popular, you end up with stupid developers who don't know how certain parts of computing work which further leads to this big divide between the providers and the users... that's all speculation. Look out for it though.

[DeanMc]

The thing I do not like about all this abstraction is it should be used for A but is always only available to B.

Why cant I just rent a server and pay per use for the thing rather than this messing of virtual this and abstracted that!

[Merrion]

The difference is similar to the difference between a house and a hotel (in a major chain)- renting your own server is like renting a house : you get a lot of scope to customise it
However if you suddenly get 200 relatives wanting to stay over you're totally stuffed. Similarily if there is some localised flooding your house could be unavailable.

With the hotel you pay for the rooms you are using - if 200 relatives drop by you can accomodate them but have to pay for the extra rooms. When they go home you stop paying for the extra rooms. And if there is a localised flood the hotel chain can move you to a different hotel without you paying for the move or paying for the rooms you vacated in the (now innaccessible) hotel.

[Krokonoster]

Am I right if I build this "picture" in my head?
Database sitting in "the cloud"
You create a user access "service....in "the cloud" as well.
Then your website (hosted normally), and desktop applications can all make use of the UA service....?
Sounds the same to me than what we all did so far with normal hosting....(ok ok..I get the "pay for what you use" idea)
Sounds like something that might be useful for huge web apps with thousands of visits per minute.

Reason asking is that the boss-man asked me to look into this and create some kind of estimate...needless I only saw the advertisements for Azure.

[techgnome]

That's pretty much it in a nutshell... the difference is that some one else maintains the hardware. In a normal situation where you are hosting, if you have an event coming up, say for instance the SuperBowl... your normal server may not be able to handle the load. So that means you have to get more servers, install them, bring them online.... and that all costs money... and then what do you do with those unused servers the other 51 weeks of the year? With Azure, you can increase your virtualization servers as needed.... then when the demand tapers off, you can take your excess capacity offline and not worry about it.

-tg

[RobDog888]

Did anyone notice that Azure services are now no longer free? The free period ended on the 31st of Jan. But if you have a MSDN subscription you can get Azure services for 5% off until July 31st, 2010.

[Krokonoster]

Did anyone notice that Azure services are now no longer free? The free period ended on the 31st of Jan. But if you have a MSDN subscription you can get Azure services for 5% off until July 31st, 2010.

Yeah...apparently you don't get charged for the first month though (maybe hearsay..will see Friday, as I only have 1 day per week looking at that )

[RobDog888]

I'm gonna try to sign up over the weekend. Need another business write off

[DeanMc]

The launch event I went stated that they had very big discounts for MSDN premium subscribers rob, you should check that out!

[RobDog888]

Its only 5%

[DeanMc]

Buggeryflakes

[RobDog888]

Something is better then nothing but seems like they sould give more then 5% since msdn subscriptions are so expensive.

[Krokonoster]

How about BizSpark? Anything for us?