Very interesting blog post and something to really think about..
I did notice a lack of “Software Defined X”, was this intentional (still have to watch your roundtable on SDN)?
regards,
Alan
Russon 26 July 2016 at 8:04 am
I don’t tend to separate out “software defined x” as a “thing,” any more, but rather as one of a range of options in the design space… It’s become more of a marketing term, or perhaps a general idea, than an actual “product,” as so many products have been labeled “software defined…” For instance, I would expect hyperconverged solutions to use a lot of internal SD stuff to glue things together, while disaggregated solutions are bound to use SD stuff more for programmability and disaggregation (OpenFlow as a standard interface into all chipsets, for instance).
Thanks for stopping by — and, as always, an insightful comment!
Very interesting blog post and something to really think about..
I did notice a lack of “Software Defined X”, was this intentional (still have to watch your roundtable on SDN)?
regards,
Alan
I don’t tend to separate out “software defined x” as a “thing,” any more, but rather as one of a range of options in the design space… It’s become more of a marketing term, or perhaps a general idea, than an actual “product,” as so many products have been labeled “software defined…” For instance, I would expect hyperconverged solutions to use a lot of internal SD stuff to glue things together, while disaggregated solutions are bound to use SD stuff more for programmability and disaggregation (OpenFlow as a standard interface into all chipsets, for instance).
Thanks for stopping by — and, as always, an insightful comment!
🙂
Russ