1. What happens if your cloud computing resources are unavailable?
While questions about disaster recovery and high availability in the cloud will be similar to those asked about your own data center, you need to be a lot more specific when looking to implement or utilize a cloud environment.
IAAS is smart choice for ConnectEDU
SLAs vary widely between providers so you've got to make sure you're clear on the details surrounding guaranteed uptime, and then decide if that works for your business.
2. How (and more importantly where) do you backup data?
In a cloud environment, IT executives need to be confident that their data not only will be replicated but also stored across multiple sites in separate locations to ensure they will still have access to that data in the event of a data center failure or other incident.
3. How do you handle large data migration and what are the costs?
While provisioning a cloud environment takes minutes, populating that cloud with the necessary data is an entirely different story.
For example, if you need to migrate or populate a database to the cloud that is too large to send over the network, you need to consider factors such as additional costs, available data load options, and the process for working with your provider on the migration.
4. What are my network access options - and, more importantly, the restrictions?
One of the biggest benefits of the cloud is being able to access critical data over the Internet from any location. Beyond obvious questions such as whether you can access the cloud from mobile devices is whether the provider can support VPNs or dedicated connections. This is particularly true for organizations like financial services firms that have more stringent rules around access.
Tips for picking an IaaS provider
5. My organization must comply with regulations. What are my options for using IaaS?
For some organizations, particularly ones that have to comply with stringent regulations, public cloud IaaS offerings might not make sense.
Ultimately, everything is shared even though it's separate both logically and from a security perspective. For this reason, many CIOs may look to community clouds, which enable companies with similar requirements - for example, two pharmaceutical companies that both must meet strict FDA regulations - to share a cloud and achieve true economies of scale.
6. What's the cost to decommission an IaaS project?
While most cloud providers are upfront about the cost of specific IaaS offerings (for example the cost per megabyte for storage), it is much more difficult to provide a cost for decommissioning - a critical but often forgotten step in the cloud life cycle.
Read the views of online Certification Experts, which provide the real questions and correct answer and explanation for the students / professionals who are seeking or enhancing their level of expertise. more at certkingdom.com
June 6, 2011
Apple Leaks New Automatic Updates for iOS Apps
Happy Apple rumor weekend! The week before WWDC is usually rife with speculation for the details behind the colorful logos and product teases that Apple's slapped on its huge print displays in San Francisco's Moscone Center. But that's not the only place where you can find sneak peeks for Apple's to-be-announced features: How about iTunes itself?
Just last night, Apple let a little detail slip within iTunes that suggests automatic application updates are going to be unveiled for iOS users come Monday's iOS 5 announcement at WWDC.
The source of the information comes from the little description found within iTunes' app update page. Typically, the text indicates (and has indicated for years) the process by which one can update one's apps: Click "Get Update" on an app to just download the new version of one particular program, or use the "Download All Free Updates" button to do just that. Once you connect your iPhone or iPad to your computer and sync the device, the app updates you downloaded to your system transfer over to your smartphone or tablet.
A new line appended to the bottom of this app update description–text which has since been removed from iTunes by Apple–said the following: "Or if your device has Automatic Download enabled for apps, your updates will download to your device without having to sync."
Automatic Download, eh? If released, the feature would be a significant upgrade for iPad and iPhone users that would finally put these devices on par with Google's Android OS in the "keeping your apps updated" category.
Right now, the over-the-air process for updating one's apps on an iPad or iPhone is entirely manual: You have to remember that you haven't checked the status of your apps in a while, you have to pull up the App Store, you have either select the updates you want to download or download all available updates at once, and you have to wait while your app downloads chug to your device over your 3G connection (or Wi-Fi , if an update is larger than 20 megabytes).
It's unclear whether Apple would allow its users to take a piecemeal approach to automatic app updates a la Android, where one selects exactly which app updates should download and install as soon as they're released. That's in contrast to a blanket automatic update service that could apply to all apps, which could be frustrating prospect for users who want to control over how and when their devices use a ton of 3G or Wi-Fi (due to concerns over data caps or battery life, to name a few).
There's also no indication from Apple as to whether automatic downloading would apply to app updates only, or whether updates to iOS itself could automatically push to users once released.
Just last night, Apple let a little detail slip within iTunes that suggests automatic application updates are going to be unveiled for iOS users come Monday's iOS 5 announcement at WWDC.
The source of the information comes from the little description found within iTunes' app update page. Typically, the text indicates (and has indicated for years) the process by which one can update one's apps: Click "Get Update" on an app to just download the new version of one particular program, or use the "Download All Free Updates" button to do just that. Once you connect your iPhone or iPad to your computer and sync the device, the app updates you downloaded to your system transfer over to your smartphone or tablet.
A new line appended to the bottom of this app update description–text which has since been removed from iTunes by Apple–said the following: "Or if your device has Automatic Download enabled for apps, your updates will download to your device without having to sync."
Automatic Download, eh? If released, the feature would be a significant upgrade for iPad and iPhone users that would finally put these devices on par with Google's Android OS in the "keeping your apps updated" category.
Right now, the over-the-air process for updating one's apps on an iPad or iPhone is entirely manual: You have to remember that you haven't checked the status of your apps in a while, you have to pull up the App Store, you have either select the updates you want to download or download all available updates at once, and you have to wait while your app downloads chug to your device over your 3G connection (or Wi-Fi , if an update is larger than 20 megabytes).
It's unclear whether Apple would allow its users to take a piecemeal approach to automatic app updates a la Android, where one selects exactly which app updates should download and install as soon as they're released. That's in contrast to a blanket automatic update service that could apply to all apps, which could be frustrating prospect for users who want to control over how and when their devices use a ton of 3G or Wi-Fi (due to concerns over data caps or battery life, to name a few).
There's also no indication from Apple as to whether automatic downloading would apply to app updates only, or whether updates to iOS itself could automatically push to users once released.
June 5, 2011
Will the carriers kill the mobile revolution?
Opposition to AT&T's T-Mobile land grab is growing
Meanwhile, opposition to the AT&T merger with T-Mobile is growing. The FCC has posted a list of 50 questions for the giant carrier, asking it to defend claims that the $39 billion acquisition, which would give the combined company about 130 million customers, is in the public interest and necessary to extend and improve wireless voice and data services.
The FCC wants AT&T to produce "all plans, analyses, and reports discussing the relative network spectrum capacity constraints of the company and other mobile wireless service providers, including any relevant pricing, traffic, and spectrum-efficiency assumptions."
Sprint, which would be the biggest loser if the deal goes through, has been beating the drums to kill it. Although it's easy to be cynical about Sprint's motives, it makes a concise argument that it is worth quoting:
It [the FCC] can reject AT&T's bid to take over T-Mobile and extend the last two decades of robust competition in the wireless industry -- competition that has promoted economic growth and advanced U.S. global leadership in mobile communications. Or the commission can approve the takeover and let the wireless industry regress inexorably toward a 1980s-style duopoly. A duopoly of the two vertically integrated Bell companies would result in less choice for consumers and higher prices. A twin-Bell duopoly would stunt investment and innovation. No divestitures or conditions can remedy these fundamental anti-consumer and anti-competitive harms. AT&T's takeover of T- Mobile must be blocked.
For the record, here's AT&T's lengthy justification of the merger.
I don't think the government should go back to the kind of stifling regulation that existed before the breakup of AT&T in the 1980s. But in an odd way, the carriers themselves want to turn back the clock. They'd like to have something akin to the monopoly enjoyed by Ma Bell (in this case, it would be a duopoly) in the decades following World War II -- but without the regulation that at least protected businesses and consumers that depend on its service.
Such a shift to an essentially unregulated market couldn't come at a worse time. The use of mobile devices is growing exponentially, a trend that will accelerate as new platforms appear and older ones get better. Just think about how much data users of devices like the new Google Chromebooks, which is almost entirely browser-centric, will consume. What's more, new applications will move to the fore; it would be a disaster if the carriers become so powerful they could discriminate against apps or content that seem contrary to their business imperatives.
Letting AT&T and Verizon carriers get their way would be a huge blow to the mobile revolution.
Meanwhile, opposition to the AT&T merger with T-Mobile is growing. The FCC has posted a list of 50 questions for the giant carrier, asking it to defend claims that the $39 billion acquisition, which would give the combined company about 130 million customers, is in the public interest and necessary to extend and improve wireless voice and data services.
The FCC wants AT&T to produce "all plans, analyses, and reports discussing the relative network spectrum capacity constraints of the company and other mobile wireless service providers, including any relevant pricing, traffic, and spectrum-efficiency assumptions."
Sprint, which would be the biggest loser if the deal goes through, has been beating the drums to kill it. Although it's easy to be cynical about Sprint's motives, it makes a concise argument that it is worth quoting:
It [the FCC] can reject AT&T's bid to take over T-Mobile and extend the last two decades of robust competition in the wireless industry -- competition that has promoted economic growth and advanced U.S. global leadership in mobile communications. Or the commission can approve the takeover and let the wireless industry regress inexorably toward a 1980s-style duopoly. A duopoly of the two vertically integrated Bell companies would result in less choice for consumers and higher prices. A twin-Bell duopoly would stunt investment and innovation. No divestitures or conditions can remedy these fundamental anti-consumer and anti-competitive harms. AT&T's takeover of T- Mobile must be blocked.
For the record, here's AT&T's lengthy justification of the merger.
I don't think the government should go back to the kind of stifling regulation that existed before the breakup of AT&T in the 1980s. But in an odd way, the carriers themselves want to turn back the clock. They'd like to have something akin to the monopoly enjoyed by Ma Bell (in this case, it would be a duopoly) in the decades following World War II -- but without the regulation that at least protected businesses and consumers that depend on its service.
Such a shift to an essentially unregulated market couldn't come at a worse time. The use of mobile devices is growing exponentially, a trend that will accelerate as new platforms appear and older ones get better. Just think about how much data users of devices like the new Google Chromebooks, which is almost entirely browser-centric, will consume. What's more, new applications will move to the fore; it would be a disaster if the carriers become so powerful they could discriminate against apps or content that seem contrary to their business imperatives.
Letting AT&T and Verizon carriers get their way would be a huge blow to the mobile revolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
