I've followed "cloud for at least as long as OpenStack has existed, but back
then I followed whatever/whoever called themselves "cloud" or
"cloud-{app|service|etc}" and at one point there was a heated discussion
(mostly that the rest of the group agreed with) that you couldn't claim you ran
in the/a cloud if you utilized your own equipment in your own data center.
So, yeah. The rest of the world doesn't always see cloud the way we do.
--Rocky
From: Silence Dogood <[email protected]>
I figure if you have entity Y's workloads running on entity X's hardware...
and that's 51% or greater portion of gross revenue... you are a public
cloud.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kenny Johnston
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
> That seems like a strange definition. It doesn't incorporate the usual
> multi-tenancy requirement that traditionally separates private from public
> clouds. By that definition, Rackspace's Private Cloud offer, where we
> design, deploy and operate a single-tenant cloud on behalf of customers (in
> their data-center or ours) would be considered a "public" cloud.
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Rochelle Grober <
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>>
>>
>> At considerable risk of heading down a rabbit hole... how are you
>> defining "public" cloud for these purposes?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Blair
>>
>>
>>
>> Any cloud that provides a cloud to a thirdparty in exchange for money.
>> So, rent a VM, rent a collection of vms, lease a fully operational cloud
>> spec'ed to your requirements, lease a team and HW with your cloud on
>> them.....
>>
>>
>>
>> So any cloud that provides offsite IAAS to lessees
>>
>>
>>
>> --Rocky
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
