Dare Obasanjo aka Carnage4Life - Storage is Key
I will be interested to learn if Amazon has now or will offer some higher-level services on their storage service. Search, matching, versioning, etc. I see they want to keep it simple, and I agree with that. Before long though people will want to do things with their storage. Some of those things will be better done very close to the data itself.
I wonder if/when we'll see the ability to put computations very near Amazon's storage (including indexes, calculations, searches, etc.) that are aware of the format of the stored data, that is secure, etc. Storage is just the most basic start of a shared grid of services.
PLEASE NOTE: The above is a quote of a quote, in this case a quote from Patrick Logan provided in a "thinking about" type post from Dare Obasanjo.
With that note firmly in place, heres my question:
Why the fuck do people have to insist on complicating things???
Amazon S3 should not take the place of the web hosting provider. It's ALL about separation of complexity into smaller, less complicated pieces that can then be stitched together on the client using a PHAT client mentality. The power on the client exists, and as Tim Bray recently pointed out, sits in idle 90% of the time. So why are we still thinking about things from the server-side mentality as if THIS is the "wave of the future".
The server-side only future os OVER! OVER, OVER, OVER, OVER, OVEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!
Okay, now that I have that off my chest.
Here's the dealio folks:
Amazon has created a FANTASTIC system in S3 that provides a REST and SOAP-based interface into a static file system. Thats not to say they won't or don't plan to offer processing power on top of storage and bandwidth, but to me:
Simple Storage System (S3)
Pretty much states in no uncertain terms what S3 is all about.
* It's Simple
* It's Storage
* It's a System
The last part of this list, System, is the part of this that I think people could take to mean a COMPLETE system. I don't believe the first two words allow for such a definition.
Amazon SHOULD NOT take the place of the Web Hosting Service Provider. The WHSP's job has just got a WHOLE LOT EASIER with S3 as part of the complete puzzle. The WHSP can now focus on processing requests, and routing a client-side web application to the proper locations to pick up the pieces it needs to build itself on the client. This can mean grabbing the URI location from a SQL DB, it could mean the stitching together of a URI based on load balance, etc... but what it all has to do with is a message, in this case an HTTP-based (or HTTPS for that matter) request for a particular URI that potentially also contains an extended data enclosed in a SOAP, or POX-based XML package. The servers job is now to take that message, and disect its parts, processing the pieces its needs to process, and passing on the message, based on user credentials if necessary, to other pieces of the system. It then compiles a return XML-based message and sends it back to the client who in turn takes that message, disects its pieces, and process this message accordingly. In some cases, this will require a request to S3 for a file of some sort. Of course, in the absolute and pure genius that is commonplace @ Amazon is the inclusion of support for the BitTorrent protocol that immediatelly opens up the opportunity to spread the load out over and even broader surface area than even S3's decentralized surface area.
This is GREAT!!! And WONDERFUL!!!!
AND DON'T FUCK WITH IT!!!! LEAVE IT ALONE!!!! END OF STORY!!!!
But not of post.
Folks, upon receiving FANTASTIC opportunities such as what S3 offers to the WW:*, why do we immediattely try to complicate things? There's no need!
Amazon SHOULD NOT become a Web Hosting Service Provider. The Web Hosting Service Provider system already in place is decentralized, and an offered up by a plethora of smaller companies, each focused on providing various levels of hosting services. LEAVE THEM BE!!! They do a good job of what they do. And as already mentioned, with S3 as part of the picture they can become even more specialized in the services they offer because of the load that can now be taken off of their pipes, creating an opportunity for these same pipes to serve up more requests in less time.
LEAVE THEM BE!
Please.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.xsltblog.com/xslt-blog-mt/mt-tb.cgi/1424
If you provide a storage platform, people will eventually ask for the kind of functionality that Patrick describes.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the functionality a hosting provider would give you. That’s completely orthogonal.
Hey Dare,
Yeah, I agree… They will. I hope Amazon stands its ground and keeps thing simple, while at the same time keeps the customer happy.
Time will tell I guess.
re: Hosting providers. You’re right. There’s nothing thats S3 offers that would allow it to replace the hosting provider. However, if people start thinking of how they can get Amazon to provide processing power as part of S3, its only a matter of time before they start thinking of S3 AS they’re hosting provider. I guess my point in connecting the two now is to attempt to prevent this type of mentality from settling in.
But I think you’re probably right on the money… People will ask for it, and, more than likely, Amazon will eventually offer at least some of what they are asking for.
As long as this doesn’t replace the current hosting provider, then I’m happy. If it does, then I think it will be a shame.
Again, time will tell.
Thanks for taking the time to comment!