When a large enterprise creates a private cloud that is run entirely internally, is it still a cloud

Joe, Dale,

Given that there are no "official" definitions of these entities, you're entitled to your opinion what cloud computing is or isn't, however, if we recognized NIST as a reasonable source for definition, private cloud is a legitimate service model as long as it has these five characteristics:

On-demand self-service. A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service’s provider.

Broad network access. Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, laptops, and PDAs).

Resource pooling. The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, network bandwidth, and virtual machines.

Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out and rapidly released to quickly scale in. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be purchased in any quantity at any time.

Measured Service. Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service.

Just sayin'!

I would say no. The whole idea of the cloud buzz word is that it is something on the Internet. Put even better the "cloud" is the internet. So if you remove the cloud from cloud computing...all you have is computing.

If something is run completely internally it is not cloud computing unless it taps in to actual third party cloud computing services. The whole idea of cloud computing is adding capacity or capabilities without investing in more infrastructure.

In general, I agree with Dale.

However, when dealing with sufficiently large organizations, there may be nuances to consider. If an organization like, say, Walmart were to create a "private" cloud that was used by all of their suppliers and other members of their supply chain to provision resources dynamically for different functions within that ecosystem... What then?

If another organization creates a large pool of shared infrastructure such that all of its business divisions can now self-provision their servers and applications, with the charge-backs calculated by usage, is that not a good definition of private cloud?

(Robert De Nero Impression) Are you freakin' kiddin' me?

Absolutely! I can't believe people are dismissing the value of private cloud as a reasonable service model. Cloud is a means of utilizing compute resources. It has nothing to do with who owns the resources or how those resources are paid for. Those are business models built on top of cloud. A business can save millions every year by developing processes on a cloud platform to support elasticity in their applications without having to invest in a lot of excess compute resources that are not being utilized. Moreover, cloud represents delivery of compute resources as a service. If the IT organization is providing compute resources to the business on a service-oriented basis, then they are leveraging the power of cloud computing.

Why does it matter at all if someone uses an ambiguously defined marketing term? This has nothing to do with the technical implementation of the system and I could really care less what someone calls it. We might as well debate if this shirt I am wearing is green or mint colored.

It depends on what the physical boundaries are that present this so called cloud infrastructure.

If a company is taking in-house a private cloud and running their own hypervisors and presenting it as a genuine cloud by fully managing it themselves then what level of restrictions do they have in place for the elasticity of cloud computing, how does it scale out when physical limitations are exceeded.

An example would be as I call it referencing a historical part of the great migration where companies had and some still do a computer closet like room filled inside with servers, mail servers, file servers, domain controllers, backup disks, tape drives etc. Imagine that and in addition take the 10 year old way of doing things and add the underlining hypervisor flavors, MsHyperv/vmware/xen/etc... and well then you have successfully built a virtually consolidated system to meet specifics of a cloud and presented a solution for secure fully managed environment administrated by internally staff members only.

It might be correct that this can be called a cloud since scaling beyond just the bare metal is then possible by creating virtual machines and then again thats what cloud is really about.

Now a lot of complications might go into this saying well if you have a cloud in your closet office space then what happens if it loses power, catches on fire or suffers some sort of catastrophic data loss... it wasn't a fully redundant cloud by its specifications in meeting the demands and efficiency brought by enterprise tier level providers which provide main stream cloud computing.

Personally I'd rank that as space within a closet with virtualization technology or if hosted elsewhere maybe even classified as colocation.

The cloud computing is only as good as the environment it resides to produce the full effect and ability to present as one.

So, this begs the question:

If Microsoft, Amazon, Google and others use their own globally distributed architectures upon which to run the technology for their own business divisions, are they or are they not using the cloud?

Steve - your shirt looks blue to me.

Amazon and Google? Yes as these systems are also utilized by other companies. Google's Gmail runs on the same system as any other company utilizing Gmail.

Microsoft is running most of their systems on dedicated, single tenant server products so I'm voting "no" on that one. Microsoft's Exchange cluster serves MSFT employees only and makes another companies' hosted Exchange instance look like a toy.

Joe you really hit the nail on the head. The issue of whether or not something is cloud computing is whether or not the cloud is actually involved. It also has a very great deal to do with who actually owns the services being distributed.

I wasn't implying MSFT doesn't have IaaS or SaaS offerings, just that the firm itself generally doesn't run on them.

On-premises technology isn't going away and is often the the best solution but it is not cloud computing. Can a service for which there is only one customer be called cloud computing? No. Multitenancy is important. What on-premises technology is or is not "private-cloud"? The term is ridiculous although the marketing value is unquestionable - implied innovation with all the familiarity and profit margins of the status quo. A company can buy all the software and hardware available and hook it up however it wants but it's still on-premises products.

If the firm is not in the business of providing IT services, the firm is not in the business of providing IT services. This practice is status quo only because it was the only option. Today there are other options and sometimes they're more efficient.

"Private-cloud" is a recognized service model because there are billions of dollars in profits and investments at stake. Legacy vendors are not going to give up their seat at the table under any circumstances, nor should they. On-premises is often the best choice and for some applications the only choice.

Can firms take advantage of new technologies and attributes of cloud computing to make their on-premises systems more efficient? Sure. Is "private-cloud" anything other than a new marketing message for on-premises hardware and software? No. Will NIST, Gartner, the IDC, Forrester and others say otherwise? If the price is right.