My two cents on this
Agree with Kevin, IaaS solutions(like CloudStack, OpenNebula, OpenStack, etc.)
offer a deep level of customization for those apps which requires fine-grained
control of Cloud resources with the disadvantage of increasing the time
required for developing them. By other hand, PaaS solutions (e.g Cloud Foundry,
OpenShift, etc) usually deployed on top of IaaS solutions, offer a quicker
development process but lower level of customization associated with poor
performance or scalability controlled by the PaaS solution. Lastly, my
understanding is that the term "legacy apps” refers to non-cloud aware
applications usually with monolithic instead of using microservices
architecture and/or publish/subscribe pattern.
On 1/13/17, 12:38 AM, "Joshua Harlow" <harlo...@fastmail.com> wrote:
>Kevin Benton wrote:
>> If you don't want users to specify network details, then use the get me
>> a network extension or just have them boot to a public (or other
>> pre-created) network.
>> In your thought experiment, why is your iPhone app developer not just
>> using a PaaS that handles instance scaling, load balancing and HA? Why
>> would he/she want to spend time managing security updates and log
>> rotation for an operating system running inside another program
>> pretending to be hardware? Different levels of abstraction solve
>> different use cases.
>Fair point, probably mr/mrs iPhone app developer should be doing that.
>> Amazon VPC exists (and is the default) for the same reason neutron
>> provides network virtualization primitives. People moving legacy apps
>> onto these systems end up needing specific addressing schemes and
>> isolation topologies.
>What's a legacy app, sounds sorta dirty lol
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)