Open Data Center Alliance Intel Developer Forum 2011 lecture session with: Anna Claiborne ODCA WG Chair, ODCA & Product Manager Security Services, Terremark Ravi Subramaniam Lead Technical Facilitator, ODCA & Principal Engineer, Intel Open Data Center Alliance (ODCA) Overview Overview: Why Should You Care? (How can you participate?) 1st Release Introduction Usage Topics Discussion Ecosystem Opportunities and Engagement

1. The Open Data Center Alliance and
Developing a Usage Model Roadmap for
Cloud Computing
Anna Claiborne
WG Chair, ODCA & Product Manager Security Services, Terremark
Ravi Subramaniam
Lead Technical Facilitator, ODCA & Principal Engineer, Intel
DCCS004

2. Agenda
• Open Data Center
Alliance (ODCA)
Overview
• Why Should You Care?
(How can you participate?)
• 1st Release Introduction
• Usage Topics Discussion
• Ecosystem Opportunities
and Engagement
2

3. ODCA Overview
3

4. The Open Data Center Alliance
Enable delivery of cloud and data
center solutions that meet the
challenges facing data centers today
and tomorrow, support solution
development in an open, industry-
standard and multi-vendor
fashion, and aid in deploying
solutions by defining member
SM requirements through usage
models.
Create Deliver Commit
Unified voice for data Requirements to and Guide internal IT
center requirements with industry deployments
4

5. >300 GLOBAL IT LEADERS
Steering Committee
Contributing Members
Solution Providers Huawei JouleX Philips Technology
Services
Adopter Members AIMS
Data Centre
SDN BHD
Biznet
Networks
Connectria
Hosting
Getronics
NL BV
JARING
Communications
Sdn Bhd
RampRate
Scope Infotech, Inc.
Temperature
Control
Intel serves as Technical Advisor to the Alliance

6. Leadership and Work AREA Structure
Steering Committee
Board of Directors
Standards
Organization
Intel: Technical Coordination Liaisons
Technical Advisor Committee External
Technical
Forums
Regulation
Infrastructure Management Security Services and
Ecosystem
China
Technical Sub- WG invites select members 0.7 roadmap
Active WG review &
Group for consultation. 0.6
participation input
roadmap review & input
Contributor Solution Provider Adopter
Members Members Members
6

7. Why Should
You Care?
7

8. Why Should You Care?
• Cloud is here to stay – 59% of IT decision makers surveyed1
in 2010 indicate cloud is the future model of IT – 49% already
have cloud as part of IT strategy
• Cloud and cloud usage patterns are primarily driven by
end-users
• Need an open ecosystem at many levels in the cloud for the
paradigm to succeed in meeting expectations
• Most IT and other end-users concerned with vendor lock-
in1 – looking for interoperable and interchangeable services
and service components
• Market leadership requires right products and solutions
from deep understanding of customer requirements and
expectations
• ODCA members collectively brings 100+ billion in
purchasing power
8 1KPMG Cloud Computing Survey 2010 – “From Hype to Future”

9. ODCA is Looking to Ecosystem for
Compliant and Open Solutions…
Alliance Focus Ecosystem Focus
Open Data Ecosystem
Center Alliance Integration
Programs
ISV OEM
ISV OEM
ISV OEM
Externally ISV OEM
Usages & published usages
Requirements & roadmap to
ecosystem
(informational) • Reference
architectures
• Platforms
• Solution stacks
Other Industry
Solutions Efforts
Alliance
(e.g. Open Source, System
Working Integrators etc.)
Groups
Ecosystem non-binding feedback & suggestions
9

10. 1st Release
Introduction
10

11. Initial Release Document Map
Released June 7th, 2011 Meta docs
Framework Usages
ODCA Vision Document Implementation Usages
Alliance Technical Usage
Alliance Usage Model Releases
Framework
Initial Release Conceptual Overview and Document Map
Domains
Regulation &
Work
Security Management Services Infrastructure
Ecosystem
Provider Standard Units Virtual
Carbon Security of Measure for Machine
Footprint Assurance IaaS Interoperability
Future release
Security
Regulatory Compliance Service
I/O Control
Framework Monitoring Catalog
11 SM

12. Open Data Center Usage Model
Overview
SECURE & COMMON MGMT
AGILITY TRANSPARENCY
FEDERATED AND POLICY
Service
Provider Virtual Regulatory Catalog
Assurance Machine Framework Compare service
Industry Interoper- Guide industry features & price
standard ability in requirements across providers
provider Standard, & compliance
security tiers: interoperable VM management Standard Unit
bronze-platinum deployment & best practices of Measure
management Standardized
Compliance cloud performance
Monitoring IO Control comparison
Transparent Extend QoS
oversight of guarantees from Carbon
provider system to Footprint
security network Cloud services
become “CO2
aware”
12 SM

13. Usage Topics
Discussion
13

14. Usage Model: PROVIDER SECURITY ASSURANCE
Use Case
Challenges
• Security stance of a Cloud
Provider is a big concern and
impediment to enterprise cloud
adoption
• Need consistent and simple
ways to define the level of
security of a cloud – need
standard requirements and
semantics
Usage A Usage Model providing standard definitions of security levels for
Summary cloud services. This will allow users to:
Ensure providers meet certain security standards.
Compare security between providers.
Allow users to make more informed choices.
Levels: Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum
Expectations • Consistent definitions of security to increase transparency of
offerings
• Allow programmatic and user-driven methods to determine the
security stance
• Allow independent validation of SP security claims
14 SM

15. Usage Model: SECURITY COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Use Case
Challenges
• Need reliable mechanisms to
assess the security stance of a
Cloud
• Need a simple and standard way
to qualify security both
a) initially and
b) at any other time instant
that is determined by
subscriber
Usage A Usage Model designed to provide cloud users with a standard
Summary monitoring framework, format, and syntax that will let them query
the status of security and compliance on a continuous basis.
Expectations • Provide standardized definitions of security for cloud-based (Provider
Security Assurance)
• Give cloud providers the ability to demonstrate compliance to an agreed
standard through certification processes maintained by a cloud
compliance agency
• Give cloud-subscribers the ability to validate adherence to cloud security
standards (direct assessment or third-party accreditation)
• A standard API or mechanism to monitor security levels
15 SM

16. Usage Model: CARBON FOOTPRINT
Use Case
Challenges
• Organizations are under pressure
to report and reduce their
environmental impact
• Reduce wastage and reduce
operational costs
• Difficult to evaluate and predict
the carbon footprint from current
methodologies – additional
capabilities are required especially
in the cloud
Usage A Usage Model designed to ensure organizations can predict CO2
Summary emissions and track actual emissions through technical capabilities
instituted by providers of cloud services. Discuss requirements and
use of metrics like CUE and PUE.
Expectations • Establish an open standard approach for measuring carbon footprint for cloud
services (focus on the execution footprint; wider aspects in future
documents)
• Allow the organization subscribing to the cloud services to:
– Consider shifting the workload to other suppliers with a lower footprint
– Analyze carbon production over time to aid in driving green IT policies
– Provide audits and reports to corporate and regulatory bodies on its green
and carbon profile
16 SM

17. Usage Model: REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Use Case
Challenges
• Technology is not the only enabler
or impediment to cloud adoptions –
regulations and policies and the
burdens to meet these are major
aspects
• Penalties for non-compliance are
very heavy
• Need strong education to drive
right compromises into regulators,
technologies & providers
Usage A Usage Model aimed at helping organizations assess and monitor
Summary their regulatory obligations when engaging and acquiring cloud
services.
Expectations • Ensure subscriber obligations, define requirements for providers
to meet regulatory obligations and audit the compliance to
regulatory obligations
• Do a reasonable job of cataloging global regulatory
organizations (not an endeavor to be absolutely comprehensive)
• Build consistent framework and agendas for influence and
identify implications to regulatory bodies (across geographies),
regulations, applicable laws, and standards
17 SM

18. Use Case
Challenges
• Need better management and
allocation of capacity
• VM density increase on host
creates increase potential for
I/O conflicts
• Need to eliminate contention
to meet SLA and QoS
expectations
Usage A Usage Model aimed at ensuring organizations can create and
Summary launch virtual machine (VM) with workloads that meet their
storage and network IO performance requirements and
effectively manage IO performance and inter-VM contentions.
Expectations • Need to manage allocation of instantaneous bandwidth and
total bandwidth (quota)
• Monitor network use and allow throttling and limiting where
required
• Mechanisms to map workload requirements to capabilities
initially and at runtime and controls to manage and deliver
the right QoS
18 SM

19. Usage Model: INTEROPERABILITY OF HYPERVISORS
Use Case
Challenges
• Realizing full cloud benefits need:
a) Seamless use & management
of any cloud hypervisor –
ability to choose SP on ROI
b) Manage linked Private and
Public clouds consistently
• For IaaS, need consistent VM &
VMM interoperability – mgmt.
interfaces, format and configuration
Usage A Usage Model specifying actions and process to spur development
Summary of interoperable, VM management solutions aimed at lowering
management complexity and costs, especially in heterogeneous,
multi-vendor environments.
Expectations • Given hypervisor/VM heterogeneity, minimize constrains to
customer choice of SPs and ease management across multiple
SPs (including public <-> private)
• Consistent command sets and semantics between hypervisor
implementations – require consistent management interfaces,
policy enforcement and IT practices
• OVF (DMTF) great for packaging VMs for migration – need
additional standards for “true” interoperability
19 SM

20. Usage Model: SERVICE CATALOG
Use Case
Challenges
• Users need standard and
comprehensive mechanism to
select and assess offered services
• Service Catalogs aid users in
identifying services, their
capabilities, configurations and
constraints in a normalized manner
over many and different providers
– allows for comparisons
Usage The Usage model describes a standard programmatic
Summary
interface to securely interrogate catalogs, a data model for
representing service characteristics and requirements and
mechanisms to negotiate, reserve and provision services.
Expectations • Services offered will be defined in a standard (programmatic) way
• Enable a global services marketplace - open discovery and free
market principles for selling and buying cloud services
• Ensure that a base set of service information be available
ubiquitously (allows for consistent differentiation, customization
and/or extension beyond this set)
20 SM

21. Usage Model: STANDARD UNITS OF MEASURE (IaaS)
Use Case
Challenges
• Enterprises need to quantitatively
compare service offerings and
measure against internal
requirements and offerings
• Need relevant, consistent and
accurate measures of service
characteristics and QoS that is
meaningful to end-users
• Current metrics and measures are
too granular and low level
Usage The Usage model defines requirements for quantitative macro measures for
Summary compute, network and storage along linear, throughput, consumption-based,
time and block scale dimensions. Also defines requirements for qualitative
measures. Identifies 4 standard levels: Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum
and requirements for each of these levels.
Expectations • SUoM for quantitative and qualitative measures to describe the capacity,
performance and quality of the service components
• Define metrics for:
– Before Use: within a Service Catalog prior to service delivery; for
defining SLA
– During Use: as a definition of the expected service capabilities and
monitoring while services are in use to manage SLA and
– After Use: as a usage measure for billing after consumption
SM
21

22. Ecosystem
Opportunities
and
Engagement
22

23. New Industry Collaborations
ECLC
Advance the description of cloud services features with ECLC.
OASIS
Drive standards for service transparency with OASIS.
DMTF
Define IT infrastructure management requirements with DMTF.
CSA
Define cloud security and audit requirements with CSA.
23

24. Solution Provider Members
24

25. Call to Action
25

26. The Time is Now … Call to Action
Enterprise IT & Service Providers
• Review: Read all Alliance publications (provide feedback)
• Commit: Use usage models within your organizations
• Accelerate: Join the Alliance to help shape the future of cloud
IT Standards Bodies & Solutions Vendors
• Review: Read all Alliance publications for relevant requirements
• Commit: Integrate requirements into your roadmap
• Accelerate: Join as a Solutions Provider to engage with over
280 global cloud customers
Visit www.opendatacenteralliance.org for more details
26

27. This Week’s News
Solutions Providers Respond To Alliance Usage Models
Today’s panel theme
Collaboration with Facebook-led Open Compute Project
Focus on acceleration of efficient data center
infrastructure and open, scalable systems management
Alliance kicks off “Conquering the Cloud Challenge”
Best practice competition with $10,000 top prize

28. Additional Sources of
Information on This Topic:
• Stay right here for the Open Data Center
Alliance Solutions Provider Panel – 11:20 AM
in this room
– Host: Marvin Wheeler, ODCA Chairman
– Panelists: Citrix, Dell, EMC, Red Hat, Vmware
• Visit the tech showcase to see solutions
provider usage model POCs
– Demos of Carbon Footprint, I/O Control, Security
Compliance, Service Catalog, & VM Interoperability
28

29. Other Technical Sessions
Company Description Time RM
DCCS001 Build Your Own SMB Hybrid Cloud Using Pay-As-You-

DCCS002
Intel
Go Intel AppUpSM Small Business Service
13:05 2001
Intel Cloud Trends – Harnessing Innovation in IT 14:10 2002

DCCS003 Intel, Improving Data Center Efficiency with Intel®

16:25 2002
Facebook Products, Technologies and Solutions
Wednesday
DCCS004
Intel, The Open Data Center Alliance and Developing
10:15 2002
 Terremark a Usage Model Roadmap for Cloud Computing
Panel: Open Data Center Alliance Solution
DCCP001 Intel, 11:20 2002
Provider
Intel, Intel® Cloud Builders Reference Architecture:
DCCS005 13:05 2002
HyTrust Inc Enabling Policy-based Trusted Clouds
Hot Topic Q&A: Cloud Computing: Evolution of
DCCQ001 Intel 16:25 2002
the Data Center Track
29
= DONE

30. Please Fill out the Online
Session Evaluation Form
Be entered to win fabulous prizes
every day!
Winners will be announced at 6pm (Day 1/2)
and 3:30pm (Day 3)
You will receive an email prior to
the end of this session.
30

31. Q&A
31

32. Legal Disclaimer
• INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH INTEL PRODUCTS. NO LICENSE,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY ESTOPPEL OR OTHERWISE, TO ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IS GRANTED BY
THIS DOCUMENT. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN INTEL'S TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE FOR SUCH PRODUCTS,
INTEL ASSUMES NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER AND INTEL DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY,
RELATING TO SALE AND/OR USE OF INTEL PRODUCTS INCLUDING LIABILITY OR WARRANTIES RELATING TO
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, MERCHANTABILITY, OR INFRINGEMENT OF ANY PATENT, COPYRIGHT OR
OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT.
• UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING BY INTEL, THE INTEL PRODUCTS ARE NOT DESIGNED NOR INTENDED
FOR ANY APPLICATION IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE INTEL PRODUCT COULD CREATE A SITUATION WHERE
PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH MAY OCCUR.
• Intel may make changes to specifications and product descriptions at any time, without notice. Designers must
not rely on the absence or characteristics of any features or instructions marked "reserved" or "undefined". Intel
reserves these for future definition and shall have no responsibility whatsoever for conflicts or incompatibilities
arising from future changes to them. The information here is subject to change without notice. Do not finalize a
design with this information.
• The products described in this document may contain design defects or errors known as errata which may cause
the product to deviate from published specifications. Current characterized errata are available on request.
• Contact your local Intel sales office or your distributor to obtain the latest specifications and before placing your
product order.
• Copies of documents which have an order number and are referenced in this document, or other Intel literature,
may be obtained by calling 1-800-548-4725, or go to: http://www.intel.com/design/literature.htm.
• Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel
microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark* and MobileMark*, are measured using specific computer
systems, components, software, operations and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the
results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your
contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products.
• Intel processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each
processor family, not across different processor families. Go to:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number.
• Intel product plans in this presentation do not constitute Intel plan of record product roadmaps. Please contact
your Intel representative to obtain Intel's current plan of record product roadmaps.
• Intel, Sponsors of Tomorrow and the Intel logo are trademarks of Intel Corporation in the United States and other
countries.
• *Other names and brands may be claimed as the property of others.
• Copyright ©2011 Intel Corporation.
32

33. Risk Factors
The above statements and any others in this document that refer to plans and expectations for the second quarter, the year and the
future are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Words such as “anticipates,” “expects,”
“intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “may,” “will,” “should,” and their variations identify forward-looking statements.
Statements that refer to or are based on projections, uncertain events or assumptions also identify forward-looking statements. Many
factors could affect Intel’s actual results, and variances from Intel’s current expectations regarding such factors could cause actual
results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Intel presently considers the following to be the
important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the company’s expectations. Demand could be different from
Intel's expectations due to factors including changes in business and economic conditions, including supply constraints and other
disruptions affecting customers; customer acceptance of Intel’s and competitors’ products; changes in customer order patterns
including order cancellations; and changes in the level of inventory at customers. Potential disruptions in the high technology supply
chain resulting from the recent disaster in Japan could cause customer demand to be different from Intel’s expectations. Intel
operates in intensely competitive industries that are characterized by a high percentage of costs that are fixed or difficult to reduce in
the short term and product demand that is highly variable and difficult to forecast. Revenue and the gross margin percentage are
affected by the timing of Intel product introductions and the demand for and market acceptance of Intel's products; actions taken by
Intel's competitors, including product offerings and introductions, marketing programs and pricing pressures and Intel’s response to
such actions; and Intel’s ability to respond quickly to technological developments and to incorporate new features into its products.
The gross margin percentage could vary significantly from expectations based on capacity utilization; variations in inventory valuation,
including variations related to the timing of qualifying products for sale; changes in revenue levels; product mix and pricing; the
timing and execution of the manufacturing ramp and associated costs; start-up costs; excess or obsolete inventory; changes in unit
costs; defects or disruptions in the supply of materials or resources; product manufacturing quality/yields; and impairments of long-
lived assets, including manufacturing, assembly/test and intangible assets. Expenses, particularly certain marketing and compensation
expenses, as well as restructuring and asset impairment charges, vary depending on the level of demand for Intel's products and the
level of revenue and profits. The majority of Intel’s non-marketable equity investment portfolio balance is concentrated in companies
in the flash memory market segment, and declines in this market segment or changes in management’s plans with respect to Intel’s
investments in this market segment could result in significant impairment charges, impacting restructuring charges as well as gains/
losses on equity investments and interest and other. Intel's results could be affected by adverse economic, social, political and
physical/infrastructure conditions in countries where Intel, its customers or its suppliers operate, including military conflict and other
security risks, natural disasters, infrastructure disruptions, health concerns and fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Intel’s results
could be affected by the timing of closing of acquisitions and divestitures. Intel's results could be affected by adverse effects
associated with product defects and errata (deviations from published specifications), and by litigation or regulatory matters involving
intellectual property, stockholder, consumer, antitrust and other issues, such as the litigation and regulatory matters described in
Intel's SEC reports. An unfavorable ruling could include monetary damages or an injunction prohibiting us from manufacturing or
selling one or more products, precluding particular business practices, impacting Intel’s ability to design its products, or requiring
other remedies such as compulsory licensing of intellectual property. A detailed discussion of these and other factors that could affect
Intel’s results is included in Intel’s SEC filings, including the report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.
Rev. 5/9/11
33

34. Backup Slides
34

35. Establishing a Vision for Cloud
Computing
Drive new levels of IT agility through delivery of
unified customer requirements for cloud computing
enabling secure & federated cloud services,
agility of IT infrastructure, common
management and policy for data center
resources, and transparency in cloud service
capability and metrics.
35