It seems like it was announcement day across IBM, and specifically in WebSphere. While the announcements were numerous and touched many different topics, I want to focus on a couple of announcements of particular interest to those of you interested in WebSphere CloudBurst and IBM Hypervisor Edition virtual images.
First, for all of our WebSphere Process Server and WebSphere Business Monitor users, there are a couple of important pieces of information in this announcement. This announcement outlines the availability of WebSphere Business Monitor Hypervisor Edition. The new image allows you to dispense WebSphere Business Monitor 7.0 environments using WebSphere CloudBurst to VMware hypervisors. In addition, the announcement outlines the expansion of the existing WebSphere Process Server Hypervisor Edition image to support the z/VM platform and the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) operating system for VMware.
Moving beyond our BPM set of solutions, IBM also announced the availability of a WebSphere Message Broker Hypervisor Edition. This virtual image allows you to construct and deploy WebSphere Message Broker and WebSphere MQ environments using WebSphere CloudBurst. The stack includes the RHEL operating system, and it is ready to run on VMware hypervisors.
With that in mind, here's an update to the WebSphere CloudBurst supported product matrix:
* Availability subject to dates documented in referenced announcement letters
As you can see, we are continuing our effort to expand the choice you have when using WebSphere CloudBurst to create and deploy application environments to your cloud. If you are interested in using WebSphere CloudBurst for WebSphere Business Monitor, WebSphere Process Server, or WebSphere Message Broker, check out the above announcements. You will find more technical information as well as planned availability dates.
Just one last scrap of food for thought. Feedback from you, our users, is instrumental as we continue to expand software choice with WebSphere CloudBurst. Please continue to let us know your thoughts and needs!
One of my favorite things to do with users or potential users of WebSphere CloudBurst is to help them understand how they can construct a custom environment using the appliance. Typically, we take one of their existing application environments and discuss the configuration steps that contribute to its makeup. From there, we map the required configuration actions to different customization capabilities in the appliance. It is one thing to talk about how you can customize every layer of your application stack with WebSphere CloudBurst, it is quite another to talk about it in the context of an existing environment. This exercise usually serves to greatly enhance a user's understanding of how to construct tailored environments with the appliance.
While I cannot take every one of you through this exercise in the context of one of your own application environments, I can propose a scenario that will help to illustrate the WebSphere CloudBurst customization process. Consider that I want to deploy a clustered WebSphere Application Server environment whose application server instances utilize WebSphere DataPower XC10 for HTTP session management. In order to deploy such an environment, I would need to do the following:
Install an OS and WAS
Install the WebSphere eXtreme Scale Client binaries - required for integration
Construct a clustered cell
Augment profiles with WebSphere eXtreme Scale profile templates
Configure the application server instances to use WebSphere DataPower XC10 for session management
So those are the steps, but how do they map to WebSphere CloudBurst? First, I know that the WebSphere Application Server Hypervisor Edition image used by WebSphere CloudBurst encapsulates the installation of the OS and WAS. I also know that WebSphere CloudBurst will automatically construct the clustered cell during the deployment process. That means I need to address the installation of client binaries, augmentation of profiles, and configuration of application server instances. In order to do this, I will use a combination of image extension and custom script packages.
To get started, I extend an existing WebSphere Application Server Hypervisor Edition image and simply install the WebSphere eXtreme Scale Client binaries. I then capture that image and store it as my own unique image in the WebSphere CloudBurst catalog. Now, you may wonder why I did not capture the profile augmentation in the custom image. Remember, you cannot change profile configuration during the extend and capture process as WebSphere CloudBurst resets the profiles as part of capturing the custom image.
My custom image encapsulates the installation of the client binaries, so now I turn to custom script packages. I need two in this case. One script package will augment a profile (either deployment manager or custom node) with the WebSphere eXtreme Scale profile template. The second script package will configure application server instances to use WebSphere DataPower XC10 for HTTP session management. Once done with these script packages, I have all the assets I need to build my target environment.
Using my custom image, I build a pattern that contains the number and kind of WebSphere Application Server nodes that I want. I use the advanced options to define a WebSphere Application Server cluster ensuring its creation happens during deployment. Next, I drag and drop the profile augmentation script onto the deployment manager and custom node parts in my pattern. Finally, I drag and drop the WebSphere DataPower XC10 configuration script onto the deployment manager. The pattern is now ready to deploy!
For those of you that are visual learners like me, this demonstration provides a nice overview of exactly what I wrote about above. Check it out and let me know what you think.
One of the things that often comes up at some point in IBM Workload Deployer conversations is the notion of self-service access. Specifically, users want to know what the appliance provides that enables them to allow various teams in their organization to directly deploy the middleware environments they need. In other words, they want to use IBM Workload Deployer to tear down the traditional barriers that exist between those that request the environment and those that fulfill said request. Now, as we begin to elaborate on this notion, it becomes quickly apparent that in order to effectively enable self-service, IBM Workload Deployer must deliver a few things.
First, IBM Workload Deployer must provide the means to define users with various levels of access. Second, IBM Workload Deployer must provide the means to define resource access at a fine-grained level to different users and groups of users. Check and check. The appliance has been doing this since the beginning of WebSphere CloudBurst. Without those two things, the conversation of self-service access would end pretty quickly. However, there is a final capability that is equally important: IBM Workload Deployer must deliver a means to limit resource consumption at a fine-grained level.
In IBM Workload Deployer there are a couple of ways to achieve this. First, you could define multiple cloud groups and allow access to those groups in a way that maps directly to resource entitlements. While that may work in some situations, others call for even more granularity. You may want to allow multiple different users or groups to access a cloud group, but you may want to allow different consumption limits for each of these groups. In this situation, you can take advantage of environment profiles and a new option when defining users of IBM Workload Deployer.
Consider the case that you have a group of developers and you want to limit their consumption of memory in the cloud. First, you start by defining your development users and for each you select Environment Profile Only as the value for the Deployment Options field.
By selecting the above value for the deployment options of a user, you restrict that user to only deploying via an environment profile as opposed to general cloud group deployments. After defining all of your development users, you may choose to organize them into a user group for easier management. At that point, you can define environment profiles and determine which ones your developers should have access to using the Access granted to field of the profile.
Within the environment profile, you can define resource consumption limits for compute resource and software licenses. For instance, you can define a limit on the amount of virtual memory consumed by all deployments using the profile. It is important to note that the limit is cumulative for ALL deployments that use the profile.
Now that all of the controls are in place, consider the deployment process for one of your development users. They pick a virtual system pattern, click the deploy icon and begin to configure the pattern for deployment. In the Choose Environment section of the deployment dialog, your development user will only be able to select the Choose profile option for deployment. Further, they will only be able to deploy using the environment profiles to which they have access.
After the deployment completes, a look at the Environment limits section in the profile shows the current usage totals.
Now suppose another development user, or even the same one, comes along and attempts to deploy another virtual system pattern even though the profile limits have already been reached. The user can initiate the deployment, but they will get a near immediate failure owing to the fact that they would exceed consumption limits if the deployment were allowed to proceed.
The same kind of enforcement occurs regardless of the resource limit type. You can use this approach to limit the consumption of CPU, virtual memory, storage, or software licenses among the various different users or groups of users you define in IBM Workload Deployer. If you combine fine-grained resource consumption limits with varying permissions and fine-grained access, I think you are on the road to truly enabling self-service in the enterprise.
The concepts that govern users and user groups in WebSphere CloudBurst are fairly basic, but I get asked about them enough that I believe they warrant a short discussion. First things first, you can define users in WebSphere CloudBurst and optionally define user groups to assemble users into logical collections. For both users and user groups, you can assign roles that define the actions a particular user or group of users can take using the appliance.
All of that is straight forward, but it can get a bit tricky once we start considering the effects of user permissions when managing at the user group level. The basic premise is that when a user belongs to a group or groups, the user's effective permissions are a sum of the permissions to all of the groups to which they belong. While that is easy to say, and maybe even to understand, I feel like an example always helps.
Consider that we have a single user WCAGuy that belongs to the PatternAuthors, ContentCreators, and CloudAdmins groups. The permissions for those groups are as follows:
PatternAuthors: Users in this group have permission to create and deploy patterns
ContentCreators: Users in this group have permission to create catalog content as well as create and deploy patterns
CloudAdmins: Users in this group have permission to administer the cloud, create catalog content, and create and deploy patterns
Naturally then, it follows that the WCAGuy user can administer the cloud, create catalog content, create patterns, and deploy patterns. So then, what happens if we remove the WCAGuy user from the CloudAdmins user group? Well, as you may expect, there is an update to the user's permissions. The WCAUser user can no longer administer the cloud, but they can still create catalog content, create patterns, and deploy patterns (owing to their membership in the other two groups). Similarly, if we next removed the WCAGuy user from the ContentCreators group, then the user would retain only the permission to create and deploy patterns.
Just one more thing, let's talk about what happens when I remove a user from a group and they no longer belong to any groups. Consider that I created the WCAGuy user with the permission to create catalog content as well as create and deploy patterns. Next, I added the user to the CloudAdmins group, meaning the user now has the permission to administer the cloud. I promptly decide that the user has no business with those permissions, so I remove the user from the CloudAdmins group. What happens? The user retains the permission set of the last group to which they belonged. In this case, that means the WCAGuy user retains cloud administration rights. I have to update the user's permission set if I want to take that right away, but in this case, it will not automatically disappear upon removing them from the CloudAdmins group.
I hope this helps clear up any ambiguity you may have had concerning users, user groups, and permission sets in WebSphere CloudBurst.
When writing a new tool for the WebSphere CloudBurst samples gallery last week, I got the chance to use an API in the CLI that was new to me. Specifically, I got a chance to use the WebSphere CloudBurst CLI in order to retrieve an audit log from the appliance for a specified date period. In case this is new and interesting to you, I thought I would share what I found.
First off, let's take a look at the API I am talking about. It's pretty simple: cloudburst.audit.get(file, start, end). Here, start is the start date for the audit entries and (naturally) end is the end date for those entries. The file parameter simply denotes the location or file object you want to use to store the audit archive retrieved via the get method.
This is a simple enough API. The only wrinkle comes in dealing with calculating the start and end dates. According to the WebSphere CloudBurst Information Center, both the start and end times are 'specified as the number of seconds since midnight, January 1, 1970 UTC. Floating point values can be specified to indicate fractional seconds.' For my use case, I wanted to let a user or calling program pass the start and end times as arguments to the CLI script that retrieves the audit archive. Check out the relevant portion of my script below:
As you can see, the script takes in the start and end time in the MM/dd/yy HH:mm format (i.e. 05/20/10 15:30). It parses the value to produce a date, gets the long value of the date (which is in milliseconds according to the java.util.Date API), and divides that value by 1000. This is to account for the fact that the cloudburst.audit.get method expects you to express the start and end times in seconds. The script passes the converted dates along with the output file location to the get method. The result is a ZIP file that contains an appliance audit, license audit, and PVU audit file for the specified date range.
One of my favorite things about the WebSphere CloudBurst CLI is that it is Jython-based. This means I can leverage Java APIs from my CLI scripts, and that is huge for me because of my existing knowledge of the Java language. You certainly can substitute Python APIs for my use of Java APIs to handle the start and end date calculation. I hope this is helpful, and good luck with the WebSphere CloudBurst CLI!
Users of cloud computing solutions today expect to be charged for exactly the amount of compute resource they use. No more, no less. This expectation is often at the forefront of our customers' minds when contemplating the creation of internal or private clouds. They want to be sure that any solution they use audits the activity and usage of their cloud and enables them to consume this information to implement their specific chargeback scheme.
Thought it's not a feature we always seem to talk about, WebSphere CloudBurst provides the necessary capabilities to properly allocate costs to users, teams, and organizations. To start with there are some handy usage reports that you can view directly from the WebSphere CloudBurst console. For instance, as seen below, a WebSphere CloudBurst administrator can see a break down of cloud resource usage for each user of the appliance.
While the capability illustrated above is nice, it is likely that if you are implementing an enterprise-scale chargeback scheme you want to automate the processing of the usage data, thus implying the need to programatically consume such data. WebSphere CloudBurst enables you to do just this by way of its audit log. The WebSphere CloudBurst audit log is a record of each and every action taken in the appliance, along with information about who took the action, when the action was taken, what object the action was taken on, and much more. You can instruct the appliance to generate this file for a specified date range, and the output is a comma separated value file that can then be consumed in a manner of your choosing.
As an example of some of the things you can do with this data, I recently wrote a Java program that parsed the audit file and for each virtual system determined who created it, who deleted it (if it had been removed), and the duration of its existence. This program was simple (more of a string parsing exercise than anything else), but nonetheless provided necessary function and output for billing schemes based on hours of usage. If you are interested in how this was done please let me know and I'd be happy to discuss details. In the meantime, if you have any thoughts you can reach me on Twitter via @WebSphereClouds.
If you read some of my entries from time to time, chances are you know that you can use WebSphere CloudBurst to apply interim fixes and fixpacks to your deployed virtual systems. When you choose to apply either a fix or fixpack, WebSphere CloudBurst temporarily stops the virtual system, takes a snapshot of the system (the entire WebSphere cell), applies the fix or upgrade, and then starts the system back up. The result is an updated, running WebSphere cell, and if you need to, you can rollback the virtual system to the previous configuration by simply clicking a button.
In WebSphere CloudBurst 1.0 the application of fixes and upgrades were applied via the web console which made it hard to automate this process. However, in WebSphere CloudBurst 1.1 you can use the command line interface to apply fixes and fixpacks to virtual systems. The appliance still takes the actions I described above, thus the process is still simple, safe, and fast. The only difference is the interface through which you drive the application of the maintenance.
What does it look like? Quite frankly, it's very simple. You can go through all of my virtual systems and apply both fixes and fixpacks with the seven line script below:
for virtualSystem in cloudburst.virtualSystems:
fixes = virtualSystem.findFixes()
if len(fixes) > 0:
upgrades = virtualSystem.findUpgrades()
if len(upgrades) > 0:
You can write this script once, save it as a Jython file, and run it with the CLI's batch mode anytime you want to roll out maintenance to your virtual systems. It's really amazing to me that the above SEVEN lines are capable of rolling out all fixes and all upgrades within your WebSphere CloudBurst catalog to every virtual system the appliance is managing. I can't think of an easier or safer way to automate the deployment of fixes/upgrades to your WebSphere environments.
Let me know if you have any questions. As always you can reach me on Twitter @WebSphereClouds.
I spent most of my time growing up doing two things, going to school and playing sports. I made many fond memories -- mostly from the latter :) -- and learned more than a few lessons over that time. Of all of those lessons, there was one in particular that stuck out in both the classroom and on the baseball diamond: Sometimes you have to get back to the basics.
In that vein, I think it is time to revisit the basics of WebSphere CloudBurst. In revisiting the basics, I am not talking about the technical basics of the appliance. Rather, I am talking about revisiting exactly why WebSphere CloudBurst exists in the first place. In other words, let's take a look at the problem domains WebSphere CloudBurst addresses, and let's discuss a little bit about how the appliance does so.
One of the things I haven't written about much here is how the WebSphere CloudBurst Appliance integrates with other IBM software solutions. One of those interesting integration scenarios, and one I think is particularly useful for developers, involves Rational Build Forge.
Very simply put, Rational Build Forge is an adaptive execution framework that allows users to define completely automated workflows for just about any purpose. These workflows are represented as projects that contain a discrete number of steps. When looking at Rational Build Forge through the software assembly prism, the offering allows users to fully automate and govern the process of building, assembling, and delivering software into an application environment.
Now, on to the integration of WebSphere CloudBurst and Rational Build Forge. Users can build custom patterns in WebSphere CloudBurst that include a special script package (which I'll eventually provide a link to from here). This script package provides the glue between the deployment process in WebSphere CloudBurst and Rational Build Forge. When deploying a WebSphere CloudBurst pattern that contains this script package, users provide the name of a Rational Build Forge project as well as information about the Rational Build Forge server on which the project is defined.
Once the necessary information is supplied, the deployment process gets underway. Toward the end of the deployment, like all other scripts included in patterns, the special Rational Build Forge script is invoked. This results in the project specified during deployment being executed on the virtual machine created by WebSphere CloudBurst.
Because the Rational Build Forge project executes on a virtual machine setup by WebSphere CloudBurst, the individual steps of the project can very easily access the WebSphere Application Server environment. Thus, the Rational Build Forge project could very easily contain steps to build, package, and deploy an application into the WebSphere Application Server cell. The result is a fully automated process that includes everything from standing up the application environment to delivering applications into that environment.
I put together a short demonstration of this integration, and you can take a look at it here. As always, please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Your feedback is much appreciated!
It's really hard to complain about my work week right now. As I write this blog, I'm sitting in the Congress Center in Düsseldorf, Germany looking out over the Rhine River. As an aside, in Germany it is the Rhein River, and I have a historical connection to this body of water. My surname, Amrhein, translates (loosely) to 'on the Rhein'. It does not take an expert in genealogy to conclude that I have ancestors who at one time or another lived very close to this important German waterway.
Okay, putting the family tree aside for a minute, there is a good reason that I am in Düsseldorf this week. The city, and specifically the Congress Center, is playing host to the IBM European WebSphere Technical Conference. I am here presenting sessions that include a WebSphere CloudBurst overview, a WebSphere CloudBurst hands-on lab, and an up-close look at one of our internal team's use of the appliance. I have done each of these sessions once so far, and attendance was great, audience participation high, and feedback forthcoming. I am hearing and seeing the same thing in other sessions, which is of course, ideal for us presenters.
Now, to focus in on WebSphere CloudBurst for a bit, it seems that I am hearing a recurring question this week from the mostly European audience: "Why is WebSphere CloudBurst delivered as an appliance?" I am sure that I addressed this question in a previous blog post, but I believe it bears revisiting. There are various reasons I could give for the appliance form factor, but I like to distill all of that down into three major reasons: Consumability, Performance, and Security.
From a solution consumability perspective, nothing beats the appliance approach. WebSphere CloudBurst is an integrated hardware and software solution that delivers a specific set of function. You do not have to install software, procure and maintain storage for resources on the appliance (images, patterns, scripts, etc.), and maintain software components over time. You simply drop the appliance in to your data center, perform a one-time initialization, hook it up to the network, and you are ready to start leveraging WebSphere CloudBurst to build out your private cloud. While there is definitely work to setup the cloud infrastructure that WebSphere CloudBurst deploys environments to, we can completely eliminate a significant portion of solution implementation lead time by delivering everything you need in the appliance.
The performance benefits of an appliance approach are a natural result of building an integrated hardware and software stack. Design and development teams provide optimizations in both the hardware and software based on the fact that both the hardware and software have intimate knowledge of each other's design. In other words, this is not a 'least common denominator' tuning approach. Rather, the integrated design leads to enhanced performance for the specific set of functionality provided by WebSphere CloudBurst.
Finally, appliances enable us to deliver a very hardened, secure device. We provide private key encryption of every resource stored on the appliance. That private key is unique to each appliance and cannot be modified. In addition, the physical casing is tamper-resistant. If someone removes the casing, a 'Get Smart' style kill switch puts the appliance in a dormant state. You must send the appliance to IBM so we can reset it before further use, thus providing an additional layer of physical protection on top of the encryption. These security features, plus more, like a shield that prevents anyone from executing code on the appliance, come right out of the box and require no end-user configuration activity. In this way, you can simply focus on leveraging the user security and access controls provided by WebSphere CloudBurst.
If you had any questions on the rationale behind the appliance form factor of WebSphere CloudBurst, I hope this helps. I am off for now... back to the conference and the wonderful city of Düsseldorf.
"What is the difference between WebSphere CloudBurst and IBM CloudBurst?" After the IBM Pulse 2010 event this week, I'm hearing this question in my sleep. It came from both our customers and other IBMers, and it's not hard to understand the confusion caused by the name similarity. Let's take a shot at clearing up any confusion around the two separate offerings and explain the complementary value WebSphere CloudBurst can provide IBM CloudBurst.
Both IBM CloudBurst and WebSphere CloudBurst provide capabilities to enable private, or on-premise, clouds. The main differences between the products are the degree to which they are purpose-built and the form in which they are delivered. First off, the IBM CloudBurst solution form factor consists of three primary elements: service management software, hardware, and IBM services. The software portion of the package provides general purpose (very important distinction) provisioning, workflow, and management capabilities for the services that make up your cloud. These services could consist of WebSphere software or any other software that you can package into a virtual image format. The hardware is the actual compute resource for your on-premise cloud, and the IBM services portion of the package provide a fastpath to get started with your cloud implementation.
On the other hand, WebSphere CloudBurst is a cloud management hardware appliance that delivers function to create, deploy, and manage virtualized WebSphere application environments in an on-premise cloud. WebSphere CloudBurst is purpose-built for WebSphere environments meaning that a lot of the things users would have to script with general purpose cloud provisioning solutions (creating clusters, federating nodes into a cell, applying fixes, etc.), are automatically handled by the appliance and virtual images with which it ships. Also, it is important to note that WebSphere CloudBurst works on a "bring your own cloud" model. The virtualized WebSphere application environments do not run on the appliance, but instead they are deployed to a shared pool of resources to which the appliance is configured to communicate.
While we are talking about two offerings that have the noted differences above, I should also point out the how and why of the integration of these two offerings. The WebSphere CloudBurst Appliance can be leveraged from within the IBM CloudBurst solution to handle the provisioning of WebSphere middleware environments in your data center. From the included Tivoli Service Automation Manager interfaces in the IBM CloudBurst solution, you can discover and deploy WebSphere CloudBurst patterns that exist on an appliance in your data center. WebSphere CloudBurst will deploy the patterns to the set of hardware resource provided by the IBM CloudBurst solution. Why would you want to integrate the two? If a large portion of your data center provisioning involves WebSphere middleware environments, WebSphere CloudBurst provides quick time to value and low cost of ownership. The WebSphere know-how is baked into the appliance and the virtual images it ships meaning that you don't need to develop and maintain what would be a rather large set of configuration scripts for the WebSphere environments running in your cloud.
I hope this clears the air a bit about not only the difference in IBM CloudBurst and WebSphere CloudBurst, but also about how and why these two can be integrated. I will never answer everyone's question in a simple blog post, so if I didn't address yours please leave a comment or reach out to me on Twitter @damrhein.
The ability to package custom maintenance packages and upload them as emergency fixes is perhaps a lesser known feature of WebSphere CloudBurst, but nevertheless something that's been around since the product's initial release. This is a powerful feature that allows you to build your own fix packages that you can then apply the same way you would use WebSphere CloudBurst to apply a PAK file or fixpack shipped by IBM.
Since IBM is delivering fixes and updates to all of the contents within WebSphere Application Server Hypervisor Edition virtual images (including the OS and IBM software components), you may wonder why you would even want to create your own maintenance packages. One reason would be if you switched out the SUSE Linux operating system shipped with the VMware ESX based images in favor of your own Red Hat operating system. In that case you would be responsible for maintenance to the operating system, and custom maintenance packages would be of interest to you. Another scenario where these custom maintenance packages come in handy would be if you created your own customized images that include non-shipped third-party software in addition to the software shipped in the images. If at some point you have the need to fix or update this software in a running virtual machine, custom maintenance packages provide you the vehicle with which to do just that.
What do these custom maintenance packages look like? In short, they are simply archives or ZIP files. The contents of the archive are largely decided by you, but there is one piece of metadata that is necessary if you want to use WebSphere CloudBurst to apply the maintenance. A file called service.xml is inserted into the root of the archive and tells WebSphere CloudBurst critical information about the custom fix archive. Here's an example of a service.xml file:
Most notably, this metadata tells WebSphere CloudBurst what module or script to invoke to apply the maintenance (Command, this executable is supplied by you), what image versions the fix is applicable to (ImagePrereqs), and the location of the working directory on the virtual machine (Location). In addition to the service.xml file and the executable, you can package up anything else, such as product binaries, which are needed to successfully apply the fix/upgrade/maintenance.
If you haven't noticed, this is an extremely flexible mechanism and can be used for just about anything. I should point out that you can only apply a given fix once per virtual machine, so it's not good for something that you want to run repeatedly against a given machine (check out user-initiated script packages instead). Also, there is a 512MB size limit on the archives. Keep these restrictions in mind when you are deciding how to use custom maintenance packages. If you are interested in learning a bit more about custom maintenance packages or other maintenance techniques, check out this article I co-authored along with Xiao Xing Liang from the IBM SOA Design Center in the China Development Lab.
In my last post, I concentrated on the new enhancements to WebSphere CloudBurst 184.108.40.206. One of the major new additions was the introduction of Environment Profiles, and I promised a developerWorks article would be forthcoming. The article is now live along with a demo that showcases the capability of environment profiles.
As I mentioned in my last post, environment profiles center around giving you more customization capability during the pattern deployment process. In WebSphere CloudBurst, the pattern deployment process consists of the five main steps depicted below.
Traditionally, WebSphere CloudBurst controlled the entire deployment process, thus closing it off to the deployer. Environment profiles extend the customization reach of users to be able to effect steps 1-3 in the above diagram. Specifically, environment profiles give you the following control:
Control over the assignment of IP addresses and hostnames to pattern parts: Instead of having WebSphere CloudBurst automatically assign IP addresses, and thus hostnames, to virtual machines during deployment, you can explicitly set both values during the deployment process.
Ability to deploy single patterns to multiple cloud groups: Previously, when deploying a pattern you selected a single cloud group and WebSphere CloudBurst deployed all the parts in the pattern to machines within that cloud group. While this may be okay for many cases, other cases may require you to deploy some parts of the pattern to one group of machines while other parts map to a separate set of machines. Before environment profiles, you could accomplish this with multiple patterns. With environment profiles, you can accomplish it with a single pattern.
Ability to supply virtual machine naming standards: As part of deploying a pattern, WebSphere CloudBurst creates one to many virtual machines with distinct names. Environment profiles allow you to supply a naming standard that WebSphere CloudBurst will use when creating the machines as opposed to default naming schemes previously used.
It is important to note that the use of environment profiles is completely optional, and you can continue to use the traditional deployment process, thereby leaving WebSphere CloudBurst in control. That said, the introduction of environment profiles is a direct response to consistent user feedback we received regarding the need for more control during the deployment process. Based on my user conversations, these profiles address many of said needs in an easy to use, straightforward manner. We are, of course, eager to know what you think. As always, you can let me know right here, through email, or on Twitter (@damrhein).
I write a lot about WebSphere CloudBurst script packages. Typically, I write about what they are, how to create them, and even provide some samples from time to time. I find that most of the time I'm either writing or talking about script packages from the standpoint that they allow you to automate the delivery of customizations to environments you deploy with WebSphere CloudBurst. More specifically, I usually explain how you can include these script packages in your patterns to ensure that your custom scripts execute as part of every pattern deployment. The truth is, that is not the whole story. In fact, it's only 1/3 of the story.
In WebSphere CloudBurst, when you define a script package you also define its execution mode. The execution mode can be one of three values, and it indicates the invocation time for the script. The default value is at virtual system creation, and that tells WebSphere CloudBurst to automatically invoke the script as part of the deployment process. This seems to be the most commonly used execution mode, and in the original version of WebSphere CloudBurst it was the only available mode (which probably attributes to why I only usually tell 1/3 of the story here). As you may expect, there is a wide range of usage scenarios for this class of script packages including installing applications, activating monitoring agents, registering cells with an externally managed DNS server, and much more.
If you are like me (and many humans), you enjoy and actually expect symmetry. In that regard, it probably comes as no surprise that there is a script package execution mode called at virtual system deletion. As the name indicates, this class of script packages executes as an automatic part of the virtual system deletion process. When a user tells WebSphere CloudBurst to remove a virtual system, before it shuts down the machines in the system, it will run each script package marked to execute at virtual system deletion. Typical use cases for these scripts include removing information about the cell from externally managed DNS servers, freeing up connections with external systems, and other external 'clean up' activities.
So this leaves the final execution mode for script packages, the when I initiate it mode to be precise. This class of script packages executes when explicitly triggered by a user. In the virtual machine detail section for a deployed virtual system, you can see a list of user-initiated script packages for a given machine. There is a start button by each of the user-initiated script packages that allows you to invoke the script when, and as many times as you need to. While these script packages have many different use cases, the most common use case is to deploy application updates. Users build these application update scripts, attach them to a pattern, and invoke them whenever they want to deliver an updated application into their already deployed environment.
WebSphere CloudBurst script packages are one of the main vehicles for delivering your customizations to your cloud environments. The three execution modes mentioned above allow you to determine when the right time to deliver those customizations is.
One of the fundamental tenants of IBM Workload Deployer is a choice of cloud deployment models. Starting in v3.0, users will be able to deploy to the cloud using virtual appliances (OVA files), virtual system patterns, or virtual application patterns. The ability to provision plain virtual appliances is a way to rapidly bring your own images, as they currently exist, into the provisioning realm of the appliance. As such, I think the use cases and basis for deciding to use this deployment model are fairly evident. However, when comparing the two patterns-based approaches, virtual system patterns and virtual application patterns, the decision requires a bit more scrutiny.
Our pattern approach is a good thing for you, the user. Basically, when we refer to patterns in the context of cloud, we are referring to the encapsulation of installation, configuration, and integration activities that make deploying and managing environments in a cloud much easier. Regardless of what kind of pattern you end up using, you benefit from treating a potentially complex middleware infrastructure environment or middleware application as a single atomic unit throughout its lifecycle (creation, deployment, and management). In turn, you benefit from decreased costs (administrative and operational) and increased agility via rapid, meaningful deployments of your environments. That said, it is imperative to understand the differences between virtual system and virtual application patterns, and more importantly, it is important to understand what those differences mean to you. Let's start by considering the admittedly simple 'Cloud Tradeoff' continuum below.
In the above graph, the X-axis represents the degree to which you have customization control over the resultant environment. The degree of control gets lower as we move from left to right. The left Y-axis represents total cost of ownership (TCO), which decreases as we move up the axis. The right Y-axis represents time to value, which similarly decreases as we go up the axis. Naturally, enterprises want to move up the Y-axis, but, and it can be quite a big but, they are sometimes hesitant to relinquish much control (move to the right on the X-axis) in order to do so. In that light, I think it helps to explore our two patterns-based approaches a bit more.
The most important thing to understand about this continuum is that the X-axis really represents the customization control ability from the point of view of the deployer and consumer of the environment. An example is probably the best way to explain. Let's consider a fairly simple web service application that we want to deploy to the cloud. If we were to use a virtual system pattern to achieve this, we would probably start by using parts from the WebSphere Application Server Hypervisor Edition image to layout our topology. We may have a deployment manager, two custom nodes, and a web server. After establishing the topology, we would add custom script packages to install the web service application and then configure any resources the application depended on. Users that wanted to deploy the virtual system pattern would access it, provide configuration details such as the WAS cell name, node names, virtual resource allocation, and custom script parameters, and then deploy. Once deployed, users could access the environment and middleware infrastructure as they always have. That means they could run administrative scripts, access the administrative console provided by the deployed middleware software, and any other thing one would normally do. The difference in using virtual system patterns is not necessarily the operational model for deployed environments (though IBM Workload Deployer makes some things, like patching environments, much easier). Instead, the difference is primarily in the delivery model for these environments.
Using a virtual application pattern to support the same web service application results in a markedly different experience from both a deployment and management standpoint. In using this approach, a user would start by selecting a suitable virtual application pattern based on the application type. This may be one shipped by IBM, such as the IBM Workload Deployer Pattern for Web Applications, or it may be one created by the user through the extensibility mechanisms built into the appliance. After selecting the appropriate pattern, a user would supply the web service application, define functional and non-functional requirements for the application via policies, and then deploy. The virtual application pattern and IBM Workload Deployer provide the knowledge necessary to install, configure, and integrate the middleware infrastructure and the application itself. Once deployed, a user manages the resultant application environment through a radically simplified lens provided by IBM Workload Deployer. It provides monitoring and ongoing management of the environment in a context appropriate for the application. This means that there are typically no administrative consoles (as in the case of the virtual application pattern IBM ships), and users can only alter well-defined facets of the environment. It is a substantial shift in the mindset of deploying and managing middleware applications.
Okay, with that explanation in the bag, let's revisit the diagram I inserted above. I hope it's clear that, all things being equal, virtual application patterns indeed provide the lowest TCO and shortest TTV because of the degree to which they encapsulate the steps involved in setting up complex middleware application environments. So, let's get back to my assertion that the customization control continuum really applies to the deployer and consumer. Why do I say that? It's simple. In the case of either the virtual system pattern or the virtual application pattern, the pattern composer has quite a bit of liberty in how they construct things. Sure, we enable you right out of the chute by shipping pre-built, pre-configured IBM Hypervisor Edition images, as well as pre-built virtual system and virtual application patterns. The key is though, that the IBM Workload Deployer's design and architecture also enables you to build your own patterns -- be they the virtual system or virtual application type. With anywhere from a little to a lot of work, you can build virtual system and virtual application patterns tailored to your use cases and needs.
At this point, you may be saying, "Well now you have really confused things! How am I supposed to decide what kind of patterns-based approach fits my needs?" I have some advice in that regard. First, map your needs to things that we enable with the assets you get right out of the box with IBM Workload Deployer. If your application fits into the functional scope of one of the virtual application patterns that we ship, use it. If you can support the application by using IBM Hypervisor Edition images, virtual system patterns, and custom scripts, do it. In this way, you benefit most from the value offered by IBM Workload Deployer. However, if you find that you cannot use any of the assets we provide right out of the box (e.g. you want to deploy your environment on software not offered in IBM Hypervisor Edition form or in a virtual application pattern), then ask yourself one simple question: "What do I want my user's experience to be?"
In this sense, I primarily mean a user to be a deployer or consumer of your patterns. You need to decide whether you favor the middleware infrastructure centric approach afforded by virtual system patterns, or if you prefer the application centric approach proffered by virtual application patterns. There is no way to answer this generically for all potential IBM Workload Deployer users. Instead, you have to look at your use case, understand what's available to help you accomplish that use case, and finally, decide on what you want your user's experience to be. I hope this helps!