Here is a little hint - most distributed applications in traditional jobsets,
tend to work best when they are close together. Unless you can map those jobsets
onto truly partitioned algorithms that work on local copy, this is a _non starter_.<
I thought that I had made my view clear in this respect in my earlier postings.
When moving to the kinds of optical extension techniques I outlined earlier in
this thread, I can't be too emphatic in noting that one size does not fit all.
And while I appreciate the hint, you probably don't realize it yet, but in some
ways you are helping to make my argument.
Consider for a moment my initial point (my main point, in fact) concerning moving
all of the LAN gear in an enterprise building out to the cloud (customer-owned
data center or colo, machs niches). My contention here is that, this not only
eliminates LAN rooms and all the switches and environmentals that fill them, but
it radically reduces the bulk of the gear normally found in the building's
telecom center, as well, since hierarchical routing infrastructure, and severs of
most types that are used for networking purposes (along with their associated
power and air provisions to keep all of them going) would also no longer have a
place onsite, either.
Rather, these elements, too, could be centrally located in an offsite data center
(hence reducing their overall number for multi-site networks) _or _in _a _colo _
OR in one of the enterprise's other sites where it makes sense.
"OR IN A COLO" is especially relevant here, and in some ways related to the point
you are arguing. There are many enterprises, in fact, who have already, over
their own dark fibernets (now lit, of course) and leased optical facilities, long
since taken the steps to move their server farms and major network node positions
to 111-8th, 611 Wilshire, Exodus and scores of other exchange locations around
the world, although most of them, up until now, have not yet taken the next
precipitous step of moving their LAN gear out to the cloud, as well.
Of course when they do decide to free the premises of LAN gear, so too will they
obviate the requirement for many of the routers and associated networking
elements in those buildings, too, thus streamlining L3 route administration
within the intranet, as well.
I should emphasize here that when played properly this is NOT a zero sum game. By
the same token, however, what we're discussing here is really a situational call.
I grant you, for instance, that some, perhaps many, jobs are best suited to
having their elements sited close to one another. Many, as I've outlined above do
not fit this constraint. This is a scalar type of decision process, where the
smallest instance of the fractal doesn't require the same absolute level of
provisioning as the largest, where each is a candidate that must meet a minimum
set of criteria before making full sense.
lets assume we have abundant dark fiber, and a 800 strand ribbon fiber cable
costs the same as a utp run. Can you get me some quotes from a few folks about
terminating and patching 800 strands x2?<
This is likely an rhetorical question, although it needn't be. Yes, I can get
those quotes, and quotes that are many times greater in scope, and have for a
number of financial trading floors and outside plant dark nets. It wasn't very
long ago, however, when the same question could still be asked about UTP, since
every wire of every pair during those earlier times required the use of a
soldering iron. My point being, the state of the art of fiber heading,
connectorization and splicing continues to improve all the time, as does the
quality and costing of pre-connectorized jumpers (in the event your question had
to do with jumpers and long cross-conns).
There is a reason most people, who are backed up by sober accountants, tend to
cluster stuff under one roof.<
Agreed. Sometimes, however, perhaps quite often in fact, one can attribute this
behavior to a quality known more commonly as bunker mentality.