Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Attachments
Bachelor thesis, Accenture and Oslo University College
May 2010
Report part 3
-Page intentionally blank-
ii
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
1
Technical reference........................................................................................................................... 103
2
Product requirements ....................................................................................................................... 108
3
4
2.1
Preface ...................................................................................................................................... 108
2.2
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 108
2.3
Group dynamic .......................................................................................................................... 108
2.4
Employer ................................................................................................................................... 108
2.5
Assignment description............................................................................................................. 108
2.6
Why this assignment? ............................................................................................................... 109
2.7
Goals of this thesis .................................................................................................................... 109
2.8
The Reports ............................................................................................................................... 110
2.9
The Application ......................................................................................................................... 111
Pre-project report ............................................................................................................................. 114
3.1
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 114
3.2
Commissioning party ................................................................................................................ 114
3.3
Assignment description............................................................................................................. 114
3.4
Goals of this thesis .................................................................................................................... 114
3.5
Requirements and restrictions.................................................................................................. 115
3.6
Methodology............................................................................................................................. 115
3.7
Solutions.................................................................................................................................... 115
3.8
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 116
Status reports.................................................................................................................................... 117
4.1
Status report, week 1 ................................................................................................................ 117
4.2
Status report, week 2 ................................................................................................................ 118
4.3
Status report, week 3 ................................................................................................................ 119
4.4
Status report, week 4 ................................................................................................................ 120
4.5
Status report, week 5 ................................................................................................................ 121
4.6
Status report week 6 ................................................................................................................. 122
4.7
Status report, week 7 ................................................................................................................ 123
4.8
Status report, week 8 ................................................................................................................ 124
4.9
Status report, week 10 .............................................................................................................. 125
4.10
Status report, week 11 .............................................................................................................. 126
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
iii
Report part 3
4.11
Status report - week 12............................................................................................................. 127
4.12
Status report - week 13............................................................................................................. 128
4.13
Status report, week 14 .............................................................................................................. 129
4.14
Status report - week 15............................................................................................................. 130
4.15
Status report, week 16 .............................................................................................................. 131
4.16
Status report, week 17 .............................................................................................................. 132
4.17
Status report, week 18 .............................................................................................................. 133
5
Log ..................................................................................................................................................... 135
6
Project plan ....................................................................................................................................... 146
iv
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
-Page intentionally blank-
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
v
Report part 3
-Page intentionally blank-
vi
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
1
Technical reference
1.1.1 API
Application Program Interface, an interface implemented by a software program which enables it to
interact with other software.
1.1.2 ASP.NET
Microsoft’s own web application framework. Helps building dynamic web sites, web applications and
web services.
1.1.3 AWS
Amazon Web Services
1.1.4 Batch job
Execution of a series of jobs on a computer without manual intervention.
1.1.5 C, C++ and C#
Three programming languages with many similarities. C++ and C# is object oriented and the last one
was developed by Microsoft.
1.1.6 CC
Cloud Computing
1.1.7 cURL
A command-line tool used for transferring data using various protocols.
1.1.8 DAL
Data Access Layer, which exposes an API in front of the database.
1.1.9 Eclipse
An open source multi-language software development environment with an extensible plug-in system.
1.1.10 Framework
Special software libraries wrapped in a well-defined application program interface. Helps developers
not wasting time on low-level programming.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
103
Report part 3
1.1.11 GAE
Google App Engine
1.1.12 GQL
Google Query Language, used when querying the Google database.
1.1.13 GUI
Graphical User Interface
1.1.14 HTTP
Hypertext Transfer Protocol
1.1.15 IaaS
Infrastructure As A Service, cloud computing service model.
1.1.16 IIS
Internet Information Services, web-server developed by Microsoft.
1.1.17 Java
High-level object oriented programming language, developed by Sun.
1.1.18 JDO
Java Data Object, also called POJO (Plain old java object)
1.1.19 Jetty
Commonly used web-server for java applications. Is currently an Apache project.
1.1.20 JNI
Java Native Interface, a framework supported in JVM.
1.1.21 JPA
Java Persistence API, a framework that allows developers to manage relational data in applications
using Java.
1.1.22 JRE
Java Runtime Environment, an environment that enables execution of java applications through JVM.
104
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
1.1.23 JSF 2.0
Java Server Faces version 2.0, a web-application framework which specializes in easing development of
java user interfaces for web applications.
1.1.24 JSP
Java Server Pages, a Java technology that helps software developers serve dynamically generated web
pages based on HTML, XML, or other document types.
1.1.25 JVM
Java Virtual Machine parses java applications into java byte-code and executes them in a safe
environment.
1.1.26 MySQL
MySQL is a free relational database system.
1.1.27 PaaS
Platform As A Service, cloud computing service model.
1.1.28 Perl
A high-level programming language.
1.1.29 PHP
Hypertext Preprocessor, high-level scripting language designed for web-development.
1.1.30 phpMyAdmin
A MySQL database management tool with a web-based graphical user interface.
1.1.31 Plug-in
A small snippet of software that extends the capabilities of a larger program.
1.1.32 Proxy
A proxy server is a network service that allows clients to make indirect network connections to other
network services.
1.1.33 Python
A high-level programming language, much like Perl.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
105
Report part 3
1.1.34
1.1.35 REST
Short for Representational State Transfer and is a style of software architecture, such as the World
Wide Web. This term is better described in Report part 2, generally about the application.
1.1.36 SaaS
Service As A Service, cloud computing service model.
1.1.37 Schema-less and non-relational database
New generation of database systems that is often used in cloud environments. They are more scalable
and easier to distribute over servers. These databases are often not bound to a schema, like ordinary
relational databases.
1.1.38 SDK
Software Development Kit
1.1.39 SQL
Structured Query Language, used to query relational databases in general.
1.1.40 SVN
Short for subversion, which is used for revisioning control of multiple text- and code files.
1.1.41 Tomcat
Commonly used web-server for java applications. Is currently an Apache project.
1.1.42 T-SQL
Transact-SQL or Transact Structured Query Language. Is Microsoft’s extension of SQL and is commonly
used to query Microsoft SQL databases.
1.1.43 URI
Uniform Resource Identifier
1.1.44 URL
Uniform Resource Locator, is an URI and is often called link or hyperlink.
1.1.45 Visual Studio
A software development environment, created by and for Microsoft products and programming
106
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
languages.
1.1.46 VM
Virtual Machine, a software implementation of a computer, which executes programs like a physical
machine.
1.1.47 WAS
Windows Azure Platform
1.1.48 Whitelist
A list of approved entities. In this case approved java classes.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
107
Report part 3
2
Product requirements
2.1 Preface
The motivation for this document is to create a unity between Accenture as the commissioning party,
and the student group on points vital to direct our focus onto areas Accenture care about. Furthermore
the product requirements have defined project boundaries and requirements for quality assurance and
project outcome.
The initial project specifications given by Accenture have been the basis for this project. Some of the
requirements were rigid and others were more up to the project group to decide. This document can be
adjusted as time goes by, based on new findings, requirements or technical difficulties.
This document is also intended to give the reader insight into our thesis, both on a superficial level and
in greater detail.
2.2 Introduction
This introduction contains some background information about the project, along with some more
details regarding the assignment. First we start off with who we are, a short note about our employer
before going more deep into the assignment and its goals.
2.3 Group dynamic
The group consisted of Harald B. Kleppe, Hans R. Løvland and Karl Gustav Røksund.
All group members knew each other from earlier projects and assignments at HiO, and knew what to
expect from one another.
Because of good communication, a great group dynamic and same level of ambition, we decided to form
this group.
2.4 Employer
The employer on this bachelor thesis is Accenture Norway. Accenture is a consulting and outsourcing
company with more than 170,000 employees globally.
Our technical advisor, Ole Hansen is a Senior System Analyst at Accenture, and is leading the ”emerging”
capability. In this capacity, he has a great interest in measurable and hands-on experiences with the
different vendors of cloud computing. Ole also has experience from both a developer and application
architect perspective at various large projects. Thus he is well equipped to act as the project advisor in
as well as the commissioning party.
2.5 Assignment description
The assignment itself was defined pretty much from top to bottom when received from employer and is
basically it is an analysis assignment with a smaller programming part.
108
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
What we are going to do is to develop a Proof of Concept (PoC) application, which will be deployed on
different cloud computing environments.
We will along the way produce reports on how we have experienced development of the PoC
application, migrating it and testing it. These reports will be our final product delivered to our employer.
2.6 Why this assignment?
We agreed that we wanted something "more" than an assignment to develop a random website, and
went on to look for an assignment which was a few steps away from ordinary.
Our reasons to choose this assignment over any other were partially because Cloud Computing is a very
"hot" and trendy in the IT world, and the fact that it is also a less explored felt tempting. We also
appreciated that this assignment not only required brute programming skills but also analytical skills and
abilities to see both opportunities and limits in different aspects of the field. Both the opportunity and
the possibility to make new discoveries urged us to want this thesis.
2.7 Goals of this thesis
The goal of this thesis is to compare different cloud computing vendors. Cloud Computing is an area of
focus for Accenture, and want practical experience with the utilization of these platforms on a real
application. Our final product to Accenture will be reports containing information about different
possibilities of the platforms, development factors, how they perform, scale and how their pricing
schemes compare. The application we develop is in other words just a tool we will use to compare these
platforms and not itself the goal of the thesis.
To differentiate the stages in the thesis, the assignment will be split into three parts. Where each part
goes in depth of different aspects and end in a report.
The result of this thesis will be used as an in-depth resource internally at Accenture to take more
educated decisions while choosing cloud computing providers.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
109
Report part 3
2.8 The Reports
As earlier mentioned, our final product delivered to our employer Accenture will be three stand-alone
reports regarding three different aspects of utilizing cloud computing. Every report will be finished
before starting on the next part of the project and a new report. This way we can focus more specific on
each part. Time wise part two and three will each have double the amount of time spent on part one.
2.8.1 Part 1 - Vendor analysis and comparison
As a requirement from Accenture, the first part in our assignment is to write a report on analysis and
comparison regarding cloud computing in general. This includes an introduction to what cloud
computing is, pros and cons, today's situation, but our main focus will be the research around these
three cloud vendors, and a general comparison of them. Because we have not used and tested the
different vendors yet, this report will analyze and compare based on information on a more superficial
level than part B and C. Typically the vendors documentation, pricing schemes and third party articles.
2.8.2 Part 2 - Hands on development
Report part B will be all about "Hands on Cloud Computing"
In this part we actually develop a proof of concept application on one of the cloud vendors, and then
migrate this application onto the two other vendors. This report will not have documentation on the
PoC application itself but more on how to get started developing, deployment, user friendliness, pitfalls
we discover and general development experiences using the different clouds. For Accenture this report
will be almost like a user guide to developing an application on cloud computing.
2.8.3 Part 3 - Performance comparison
"Cloud performance" is the keyword best describing this report. A series of tests will be run on each
cloud vendor using our PoC application developed in "part B", and the results will give us a fair chance to
compare the cloud vendors.
The report will contain performance numbers for different scenarios when using the PoC application in
the three clouds. Costs for the different scenarios will also be considered along with how elastic the
clouds are and suggestions of how to optimize the costs.
110
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
2.9 The Application
To help us analyze and compare the different cloud vendors, as mentioned earlier, a proof of concept
application must be developed. It is Accenture’s desire that the application will be developed using Java
programming language and include the functional requirements listed below.
2.9.1 Functional requirements
The initial requirements from the assignment:
1. The web page should use CSS and contain a minimum of one picture.
2. The GUI should contain:





Se a list of all arrangements.
Complete a booking of a ticket for a given arrangement (both specified and unspecified tickets).
Create/edit/delete a user profile.
The possibility to make a reservation with an existing user profile, or to make one when you
make the order.
An administration page where you can add arrangements, so that you don't need to manipulate
the database directly.
The final requirements we and Accenture have agreed upon regarding the PoC is this:
Nr.
Business Topic
Requirement
1.1
User Account
User registration is available
Priority
H/M/L
H
1.2
User Account
User can log in
H
2.1
Navigation
A user can list all available events
H
2.2
Navigation
A user can list top 10 events
M
2.3
Navigation
A user can sort events by category
L
2.4
Navigation
A user can view all event info given
certain event
H
2.5
Navigation
A user should only be presented with
a given number of arrangements at a
given page
L
3.1
Ordering
Reserving tickets
H
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Validation Conditions
a new user can be
stored in the database
system can check if
user is valid
events will be fetched
from database and
presented to user
top 10 events will be
fetched from db and
presented to user
events will be fetched
and sorted by selected
category
all event info is
presented when event
is selected
the system will fetch
and present 10 events
at one page
A user (logged in or
not) can reserve
111
Report part 3
tickets, to confirm them
later
A user can reserve
tickets to an event
before logging in. The
unconfirmed ticket
shall be made
available for the
customer to confirm
when he/her is
registered and logged
in
A user can reserve
tickets to an event.
They will be available
for the given customer
to confirm within a
given time
A user can confirm a
reservation when
he/she is registered,
logged in and the
tickets are paid for
When a sale is full
filled, the user will be
presented with a
confirmation
3.1.1
Ordering
An unregistered/not logged in user
can reserve tickets
H
3.1.2
Ordering
A registered/logged in user can
reserve tickets
H
3.2
Ordering
A registered/logged in user can
confirm and order already reserved
tickets
H
3.3
Ordering
A registered/logged in user will get a
order confirmation page
H
4.1
Technical
Architecture
Communication between the layers
shall be RESTfull
H
A stateless system.
Layers shall be loosely
coupled.
5.1
Administration
An admin can add an event
H
5.2
Administration
An admin can edit an event
H
5.3
Administration
An admin can delete an event
H
5.4
Administration
An admin can list the time from
opening till all tickets sold
M
add a new event and
save it in the database
edit details on a event
in the database
delete an event from
the database
see the time it took to
sell out all tickets for
an event
For instance has edit and delete user requirements been dropped, because they have no impact on the
tests we are going to run anyway.
112
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
2.9.2 Other requirements
To fulfill the requirement of the application being
restful, we need to split the application in half. First
part being the graphical user interface (the webpage),
loosely coupled with the back-end logic layer.
As a requirement not listed from Accenture but from
ourselves, is that the application must be useable via
the command-line tool cURL. This is because we want
to have the ability to reach/manipulate the logic layer
of the application, without having to go through the
front-end GUI layer.
2.9.3 Testing
The actual testing of the application can be viewed as
the final destination, where we utilize the application to
compare the platforms in a way that is as close as
possible to a real world use case.
The default test scenario is displayed in the flowchart to
the right.
The plan is to run the test on different levels of
intensity, to see how the cloud scales and handles
different load. We will also do a cost calculation on the
different levels, and maybe suggest how this can be
optimized.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
113
Report part 3
3
Pre-project report
3.1 Summary
This project is our bachelor thesis at Oslo University College, spring of 2010. The assignment given to us
by our employer is to utilize and test three different Cloud Computing vendors. The assignment will
include how it is to develop for the different vendors, how easily you can migrate an application from
one vendor to the next and finally testing how well the vendors cope under massive stress testing. The
background for this thesis is the building hype around cloud computing services. We will take a look at
what some of these service providers actually deliver.
3.2 Commissioning party
Accenture is the commissioning party of this thesis, and the final report and conclusion will be made
available for Accenture-employees internationally. The basis of the thesis is to compare a few chosen
service providers in this market and get an overview of how their services can be utilized.
Accenture is a consulting and outsourcing company with 177,000 employees globally (2009 - wikipedia).
3.3 Assignment description
The assignment itself is basically an analysis assignment with a smaller programming part.
What we are going to do is to develop a Proof of Concept (PoC) application, which will be deployed on
different cloud computing environments.
We will along the way produce reports on how we have experienced development of the PoC
application, migrating it and testing it. These reports will be our final product delivered to our employer.
3.4 Goals of this thesis
The goal of this thesis is to compare different cloud computing vendors. Cloud Computing is an area of
focus for Accenture, and want practical experience with the utilization of these platforms on a real
application. Our final product to Accenture will be reports containing information about different
possibilities of the platforms, development factors, how they perform, scale and how their pricing
schemes compare. The application we develop are in other words just a tool we will use to compare
these platforms, and not itself the goal of the thesis.
To differentiate the stages in the thesis, it will be spilt into three parts. Where each goes in depth of
different aspects and end in a report.
The result of this thesis will be used as a in-depth resource internally at Accenture to take more
educated decisions while choosing cloud computing providers.
114
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
3.5 Requirements and restrictions
We are relatively free to make our own decisions within the nature of this thesis. The most significant
restriction was that Google App Engine and Amazon Web Services were decided while we chose the
third and last provider to be Microsoft's Windows Azure platform.
Our choice of programming language was narrowed down to a few by Google App Engine, which
primarily supports Python and Java. Java is also supported by Azure. Also Ole (our technical advisor)
preferred us using Java because that's a programming language he had a lot of experience with.
3.6 Methodology
Our development method is going to be Unified Process (UP). This because we are going to have part
deliveries on our weekly status meetings, and this methodology gives us the opportunity to change the
program as we go along and get input from our employer.
3.7 Solutions
Now, some rather big decisions was made during our planning period, although some of them was
already made from the start, like the two preselected CC providers Google App Engine and Amazon Web
Services.
Since the third CC provider was not pre-selected, we had to make a decision. We picked the Windows
Azure platform as our third. Why? Because we want to check if Microsoft can compete with future
technology, and the Windows Azure platform did have support for Java, which brings us to another
important decision we've made.
We have chosen to develop our application using Java, since it is the only programming language
supported by all three CC vendors.
Having to develop our application using different programming languages on the three CC providers
would cause us to rewrite the whole application for migration to the next CC provider, and that is a lot
of extra work and would not give us the same possibility to compare the benchmark results in the final
tests.
Java is also free of charge and works great with open-source developing tools. Java is used daily in
development and will give good experience in later developing projects.
Eclipse is the most likely candidate to be our developing tool. This is because we have a lot of good
experiences with this program and it is also what our technical advisor suggested we use.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
115
Report part 3
3.8 Conclusion
Since we have much freedom in this project and can choose much of the programming principles and
technologies we want to use, we try not to lock ourselves in to a corner by already now saying
definitively what technologies and programming principles we want to use. We have a lot of research to
do before deciding what we can use concerning the different cloud computing platforms and services.
116
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4
Status reports
4.1 Status report, week 1
This week was mostly about planning. We've made a project plan covering both big and small
milestones throughout the project. We also decided to choose Windows Azure as the third cloud
computing service provider.
We choose Azure because of Microsoft's general position in the market - they are huge, but struggling to
keep up. In addition, their platform was release to the general public January 1st 2010, so the platform
is fairly new and "unexplored".
Others things we've done this week is taking a closer look at the RESTful architecture, JavaServer Pages
and what the three cloud service providers have to offer. All three of us completed Google's AppEngine
introduction tutorial.
We also decided to develop the application for Google App engine, and when it's working we'll start and
transform the application over to AWS and Azure simultaneously. The reason behind this decision is
partly to have one platform initially, and to test how it is to move an application from App Engine to
another provider. (Google say App Engine is designed to make this operation feasible.)
4.1.1 Plans for the next week
The main task next week will be to start on the comparison of the three services we have chosen. We'll
look at all aspects of all three and look for pitfalls we could run into during both development and
testing.
We'll also take a closer look at architectures and design patterns. And maybe a peek at Jmeter to get a
little insight on what we should expect of the testing.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
117
Report part 3
4.2 Status report, week 2
This week our main goal was to start working on Part 1 of our project, which is all about Cloud
Computing analyses and comparison. A lot of information was gathered around the three different CC
providers this week, and our pre-project report is starting to take shape.
We had a meeting with our project advisor, Eva, on Monday this week. And there we agreed on having a
weekly meeting with her every Monday from here on out. Based on that have we decided to work at
school on Mondays.
Other things that we’ve done this week are fully finishing our project site with hour-registration, to-do
list function, project-files upload and daily log function.
4.2.1 Plans for the next week
Primary goal next week is finishing our pre-project report which is due the 29th of January 2010. If we
finish early we'll use the rest of the week to work on the report for part one of our project: "Analyses
and Comparison".
4.2.2 Missing from Status report, week 1
What we missed in our first report was that we have decided to try and program the test-website in a
RESTful way. We did this because our Accenture technical advisor suggested it as a neat way to get the
website to scale more easily. We also decided to use Eclipse as our programming platform. And this was
because most of the CC suppliers supported Eclipse plugins to make the programming easier.
118
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4.3 Status report, week 3
This week we did reach our primary goal which was finishing our pre-project report. We also got
working on the report about "Analysis and Comparison". Still have a lot left to do on this report which
will be the only thing we focus on next week.
On the meeting with our project advisor, Eva, on Monday we mainly discussed the pre-project report.
We also discussed the possibility to have a server on the school to run our tests from. Other things we
discussed was references to text we copy from different sites/books and when to arranging a meeting
between Eva and Accenture.
4.3.1 Plans for the next week
Primary and only goal next week is finishing part one of our project, the report on "Analysis and
Comparison" which will be sent to our technical advisor Ole on Friday the 5th of February. If we should
finish early, we will start preparing for part two, developing.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
119
Report part 3
4.4 Status report, week 4
We did reach this week’s only goal, Part one- the "Analysis and Comparison" report is finished and handed
in to our technical advisor Ole. We did get to borrow a server from school, which will be used for testing.
The machine is now configured and ready.
Eva didn't have time to have meet us this week for our weekly meeting, so issues or questions will be
taken care of in next week’s meeting on Monday.
4.4.1 Plans for the next week
Next week we start preparing for part two "Developing". This means a lot of planning and studying
different programming architectures + methods. We also have to hold a short presentation of our
finished pre-project report at school.
120
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4.5 Status report, week 5
This week presenting the pre-project report on our school and researching different frameworks for our
application has been the main focus. The reason for framework research is to develop the application
more trouble free.
On other notes we are having trouble uploading and testing our application to the Google App Engine
server because of the PROXY here at Accenture Oslo office.
4.5.1 Plans for the next week
Next week is scheduled for programming start, but first we have to be done planning the app. So we
hope by the end of next week, the application is under development.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
121
Report part 3
4.6 Status report week 6
We worked with the Part one report and a requirement specification on Monday this week. Tuesday
went to further learning about JSP, RESTlet etc. We also had a session where we went through planning
of the graphical interface of the site (different pages etc). We have also set up a SVN server at our
machine at school and are getting ready to start writing code.
There are still a few questions to be answered regarding the report for part one.
We are way more confident to start developing today then we were last week or even on Monday.
4.6.1 Plans for next week
Karl Gustav and Harald are quite busy with exams at school next week and Hans are out of Oslo. We will
see what we can get done but our main focus will be elsewhere.
We will start development of the PoC application with 100% focus on Monday 1st March.
122
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4.7 Status report, week 7
This week we have come to a few conclusions. We are going to use Java Server Faces framework to build
the GUI part of the application.
We have also decided to put the data access layer and the logic layer in the same application instead of
having them in two separate layers. The background for this decision is to minimize overhead and cut
one link to reduce latency. We also expect the total codebase to be smaller with this solution.
The parts of the data access & logic layer that is unique for each platform will be isolated into separate
packages to ease the migration to other vendors.
We are also running behind schedule on development for app engine, and are afraid we won't be done
before the end of next week. The background for this is the time we have spent testing frameworks that
we have ended up not using. Either due to compatibility problems with AppEngine or that the
framework was overkill for our use.
4.7.1 Plans for the next week
We will do our best to work in the time we have lost to meet next week’s deadline. We believe we have
overcome many of the uncertainties and challenges of the implementation for App Engine. So we are
confident about the future.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
123
Report part 3
4.8 Status report, week 8
This week we have used all the time available to try and catch up with the project plan. The GUI layer of
our application is up and running and so is the BLL/DAL layer, but they're missing some logic to handle
ordering of tickets and so forth. The BLL/DAL layer is giving out JSON strings but we have problems
parsing the data back to JSON objects.
The fact that we have been using all of our time to program has come at the cost of other work. Like
"product requirements" and other documents.
4.8.1 Plans for the next week
The plans for next week will be the same as this week. Take back the time lost on trying and rejecting
java frameworks.
124
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4.9 Status report, week 10
The plan for this week was to get the application running on AWS and Azure. AWS are almost done, the
application is working properly in Tomcat and the database class to handle users are up and running
with a MySQL database.
We looked at the possibilities of dropping JDO as datastore base on App Engine in favor of JPA (because
we wanted to use hibernate on AWS). But doing this will not make the transition between these
platforms any easier, since we still will have to rewrite the Store-classes when moving to AWS. We are
also keen on get this application running on AWS, to at least have something to compare.
Hans have spent quite some time on working with Azure, without any luck. There are actually very few
examples or articles to be found about Java in Azure. And those we have been able to dig up are not
very helpful. The closest are a video of a Microsoft-guy giving a keynote on PDC last autumn, where he
presents a walkthrough on a "Hello world"-application. Hans have followed this walkthrough step by
step without any luck. He also promises to publish this code on his blog, but the code is not to be found
anywhere.
4.9.1 Next week
Hans and Karl Gustav will be gone in the Easter holyday. Harald are planning to work further with AWS
at least Monday and Tuesday.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
125
Report part 3
4.10 Status report, week 11
There have not been the biggest efforts put down this week due to the Easter vacation. Hans have put
some work into the database classes of the AWS application while Harald have done some work on
different aspects of the AWS deployment and the report for part 2.
4.10.1 Plan for next week
Complete the application for AWS and Start to look at testing methods.
126
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4.11 Status report - week 12
This week we've encountered several new problems, which is obviously not a good thing since we
already are behind schedule. The first problem we've found is that our front-end GUI (JSF) doesn't keep
track of sessions. Second problem; we're having some difficulties running the front-end app on AWS and
back-end for AWS is still not completely done. Our third focus is Azure. We have got in touch with some
people from Avanade/Accenture (in Seattle) and hopefully we will get it working as soon as possible.
Other than a lot of discoveries this week, we've also started working on Report part 2 - Development for
the cloud.
4.11.1 Plans for next week
This week’s problems will be next week’s goals, plus we have to start working out some test methods for
the application.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
127
Report part 3
4.12 Status report - week 13
This week has been used to finish up development. And the logic-application is ready on all three
platforms. We are still working on database hosting on Azure, but AWS and GAE are ready.
The issues we experienced with session handling in the GUI layer are solved as well, and we are getting
closer to a running GUI layer in Jetty on EC2.
We have also started to get familiar with JMeter and will spend some more time on it this week.
The draft for Report Part 2 is taking shape and will be handed in this Friday.
4.12.1 Next week
Next week will hopefully be used for testing exclusively.
128
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4.13 Status report, week 14
All though we said this week was all about testing exclusively, planning and making the test-scenarios
took a bit more time than expected. This week we have successfully tried our testing tool JMeter in
master/slave mode on several Rackspace Cloud Servers. This means we are ready to get the results for
part 3 of the project.
Due to planning/billing, we've made a price-matrix for our project advisor (Ole) which did help us create
reasonable/affordable test-scenarios.
4.13.1 Next week
First off next week we're having yet another presentation for our student advisor Eva. The presentation
will be a short wrap-up of how far we've come, and hopefully include some test-results. Testing will be
first priority the rest of next week and we hope to have results for all test-scenarios by the end of next
week. And if we've got some time to spare, report part 3 will be the main focus.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
129
Report part 3
4.14 Status report - week 15
We have experienced quite a bit of trouble with scaling on Google App Engine this week. The problems
are related to datastore activities, and we have done both research and code modifications to work out
the issue. We are not where we want yet, but we are closer to the target.
Specifically the issues are that we run out of quota on API call to the datastore, without any warnings
showing up in the dashboard! This results in blocking of queries, and therefore no tickets sold (or just a
low number of tickets in a long time).
In other words, these problems are related to our knowledge/skills on how the GAE datastore works
under pressure. (Things that have worked smoothly before are not working under stress)
Amazon on the other hand is performing well over our expectations without any problems so far.
This means that we have no tests to base fear performance comparisons on at the moment.
4.14.1 Next week
Finish up testing and continue documenting.
130
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4.15 Status report, week 16
What we’ve done this week is exactly what was planned for last week; finishing up testing and continue
documenting! We’ve successfully ran almost 15 official tests on different levels this week and we finally
begin having some real data we can conclude with in report part 3. As for documentation, report part 1
is grammar/spelling checked and is very close to final and report part 2 is grammar/spelling checked and
almost finished. We have also started working on report part 3.
4.15.1 Next week
Finishing up report part 3 along with further tests. We also have to start working on the main bachelor
report, which we should have done this week.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
131
Report part 3
4.16 Status report, week 17
This week we have analyzed the data from the previous tests. We have also begun writing on
the final documents for the school and for Accenture. This is the final progress report and
Report part 3.
4.16.1 Next Week
Since we are rapidly closing in on the due date for this project, all efforts are going in to
completing the reports in time for delivery.
132
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
4.17 Status report, week 18
Reports have been in focus this week. Both the reports we have to deliver at school and report part 3.
All of them are starting to take shape, but there is still some work left. We are also eager to get feedback
on the work we have put into report part 3.
We have arranged a graphics designer to create a logo for our project. (A friend of Hans who is studying
graphical design in Australia)
4.17.1 Plans for next week
We will continue to work with the completion of the reports, they should be done by Friday next week.
(Deadline is Monday 31th at 12:00, but we have to get them printed before that)
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
133
Report part 3
Status report - week 19
This week we have finished the school report and all the different parts that go into it. We are hoping to
finish early to get the report printed at Accenture's own printing department.
4.17.2 Plans for next week
Next week we are going to prepare our oral presentation to our appointed examiner and for Accenture.
134
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
5
Log
(Written in our native language, Norwegian)
Distribution of working hours
Date: 25.05.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans (4.5 timer): hjemme: rapport rapport rapport
Hans (8.5 timer): rapportskrivning!
Harald (7 timer): rapport arbeid
Karl Gustav(8 timer): HIO: rapport skriving
Date: 24.05.2010 (Monday)
Hans (5 timer): hovedprosjekt jobbing!
Harald (5 timer): rapport
Karl Gustav (5 timer): HIO: Rapportskriving
Date: 21.05.2010 (Friday)
Hans(6 timer): hovedprosjektrapport, teknisk ordbok, ferdigstilt rap.del 1, kravspek og ordbok
Harald(6 timer): rapport del 3
Date: 19.05.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(9.5 timer): rapportskrivning
Harald(10.5 timer): rapport del 3, møte med ole
Karl Gustav(9.5 timer): Fornebu: Rapportskriving. Statusmøte med Ole.
Date: 18.05.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(10 timer): hovedprosjektrapport, statusmøte med eva
Harald(10 timer): rapport del 3, møte med eva
Karl Gustav(8.5 timer): HIO: Hovedprosjekt rapprot. Status møte med Eva
Date: 17.05.2010 (Monday)
Harald(3 timer): rapport del 3 og jobbing med resultatene fra testene
Date: 16.05.2010 (Sunday)
Harald(4 timer): rapportskriving og tallknusing
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
135
Report part 3
Date: 13.05.2010 (Thursday)
Hans(1.75 timer): prosessrapport
Date: 12.05.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(7.5 timer): prosessrapport,statusmøte med ole
Karl Gustav(4.5 timer): Hovedprosjektrapport. Måtte gå før statusmøte med Ole, ppga krise på jobben.
Date: 11.05.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(9 timer): skrive rapporter
Harald(9 timer): Rapport er gøy
Karl Gustav(9 timer): HIO: Skriving på rappoter.
Date: 10.05.2010 (Monday)
Hans(9 timer): report part 3, evamøte, hovedprosjektrapport
Harald(10 timer): rapport 3 arbeid (analysering av tester og jobbing med grafer og stuff)
Karl Gustav(9 timer): HIO: skrev rapport og hadde møte med Eva om rapportskriving.
Date: 09.05.2010 (Sunday)
Harald(2 timer): litt justeringer på perl-scriptet
Date: 08.05.2010 (Saturday)
Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: Skriving.
Date: 07.05.2010 (Friday)
Harald(1 timer): perl-scriptet som analyserer jtl-filene
Date: 06.05.2010 (Thursday)
Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: Skriving.
Date: 05.05.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(1 timer): satt opp og kjørt ny gae test,lasta opp res.
Hans(5 timer): rettskrivning rapport 1 og 2, azure rapport 2, statusrapport
Harald(5.5 timer): perl script som tolker jtl filer
Karl Gustav(2.5 timer): Fornebu: Jobbet med prosjektet etter kurs. Testing, sriving og møte med Ole.
Date: 04.05.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(8 timer): testing, rapport 1 og 2 rettskrivning
Harald(8.5 timer): stort sett rapport nummer 2
Karl Gustav(4 timer): Syk hjemme: testing.
Date: 03.05.2010 (Monday)
Hans(9.5 timer): test/testresultater, rapport 2
Harald(10.5 timer): testing og rapport-greier. En del på rapport del 2, og en del jobbing med organisering
136
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
av data / grafer til part 3
Karl Gustav(4 timer): Syk hjemme: testing.
Date: 28.04.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(8 timer): møte med ole, jmeter testing/feilsøking
Harald(8.5 timer): rapport, testing, gae optimalisering, møte med ole
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Fornebu: møte med ole, jmeter testing/feilsøking
Date: 27.04.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(8 timer): jmeter testing
Harald(3 timer): hjemme: sharded counters, andre måter å fikse GAE på
Harald(8 timer): rapport, testing, gae ytelsesproblemer. amazon <3
Karl Gustav(9 timer): HIO: Testing og feilsøking i dal laget. På slutten av dagen prøvde jeg meg å lære
meg hvordan jeg laget en shared counter til GAE.
Date: 26.04.2010 (Monday)
Hans(10 timer): jmeter testing, fremføring, kjørt tester
Harald(8 timer): testing og tweeking. Fremføring for eva&co
Karl Gustav(8.5 timer): HIO: Presentasjon av prosjektet for Eva. Feilretting og testing m.Jmeter.
Date: 23.04.2010 (Friday)
Karl Gustav(4 timer): Hjemme: Fikk jetty til å kjøre på en Amazon maskin.
Date: 21.04.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(11.25 timer): hva har jeg ikke gjort? statusrapport,rackspace slaver,jmeter,prismatrise,endring
startupscripts++
Karl Gustav(11.5 timer): Fornebu: Testing med Jmeter. Status møte med Ole. Fiksing av feil i DAL laget.
Få GUI laget opp å kjøre på AWS.
Date: 20.04.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(7 timer): rackspace install script, testplannlegging
Karl Gustav(6.5 timer): HIO: Jmeter og litt rapport skriving
Date: 19.04.2010 (Monday)
Hans(8 timer): report part 2 redigering til førsteutkast levert,leste litt om jmeter og testscenarioer
Harald(10 timer): jmeter, begge testene ser ut til å funke nå (på lokalmaskin). Fiksa sessions problemene
ved å lage testen vha jmeter sin proxy
Karl Gustav(8 timer): HIO: Jmeter og litt JSF fiksing
Date: 16.04.2010 (Friday)
Harald(4 timer): jmeter styr
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
137
Report part 3
Date: 15.04.2010 (Thursday)
Hans(6 timer): report part 2 about Azure!
Harald(2 timer): jmeter. ser ut til at vi sliter litt med jsf sine sessions. distribusjon av testing i jmeter
funker kun i samme subnet. =problem for oss
Date: 14.04.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(10.5 timer): azure sql legges på glattisen, report part 2 fokus!
Harald(11 timer): fant ut at jeg hadde fikset feilen med bekretelse. Og at den funket lokalt, men ikke
skyen tirsdag ettermiddag hadde fikset seg. mye Jmeter og bittelitt rapport
Karl Gustav(2 timer): Hjemme: Skrev mer i statusrapporten.
Karl Gustav(9 timer): Fornebu: Fikset \\\"ferdig\\\" JSF. Skrev litt i rapport del 2. Statusmøte med Ole.
Date: 13.04.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(8 timer): azure, report part 2, jmeter
Harald(8 timer): aws og gae. oppdaget en feil med bekreftelse av ordre som spiste noe tid.
Karl Gustav(3 timer): Hjemme: Satt og fikk endelig JSF opp å kjøre. Virker som alt utenom bruker
registrering fungerer.
Karl Gustav(8 timer): HIO: Gikk tilbake til en tidligere versjon av JSF for å se om det hjelpte. Det ser det
ut til å ha gjort.
Date: 12.04.2010 (Monday)
Hans(10 timer): Azure, Jmeter
Harald(11 timer): DAL på GAE og AWS er blitt veldig ferdig. Også en del tid til Azure (snakk med Arvin
osv)
Karl Gustav(9.5 timer): HIO: Sessjons JSF
Date: 11.04.2010 (Sunday)
Karl Gustav(4 timer): Hjemme: Fant ut av det med sessions i JSF
Date: 10.04.2010 (Saturday)
Karl Gustav(1.5 timer): Hjemme: Fant ut av det med sessions i JSF
Date: 09.04.2010 (Friday)
Hans(4 timer): jmeter/azure
Harald(4 timer): AWS og selenium/jmeter. Selenium ser ikke ut til å være det vi er på jakt etter..
Karl Gustav(3 timer): HIO: Sessions JSF
Date: 07.04.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(10.5 timer): aws backend classer, statusrapport + azure studering
Harald(10.5 timer): AWS databaseklasser, frem og tilbake med azure-gutta i Seattle, møte med Ole,
Karl Gustav(10.5 timer): Fornebu: Satt og fikset AWS opp på jetty. Fikk inn sessions i JSF for etterpå å få
vite at sessions bibiloteket ikke fungere på GAE...
138
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
Date: 06.04.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(2 timer): mail svar, azure, SYK
Harald(9.5 timer): aws-dal, rapport part 2, en del rundt azure og frem og til bake med gutta fra seattle
osv
Karl Gustav(8.5 timer): HIO: Skrev på del 2 av rapporten til Accenture.
Date: 05.04.2010 (Monday)
Karl Gustav(3 timer): Videre med feilsøking og oppdatering til GAE SDK 3.2.1-->3.2.2
Date: 04.04.2010 (Sunday)
Karl Gustav(4 timer): Hjemme: Jobbet videre med siden. Funnet en feil med at det virker som om jeg har
samme sessjonnen når jeg logger på med to forskjellige Browsere. Brukte noe tid på å feilsøke dette.
Date: 03.04.2010 (Saturday)
Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: Satte meg inn i hva jeg hadde gjort sist og hvor jeg skulle begynne igjen.
Fikk gjort litt med "nytt arrangement".
Date: 31.03.2010 (Wednesday)
Harald(7.5 timer): aws greier, litt rapport 2, møte med ole
Date: 30.03.2010 (Tuesday)
Harald(2 timer): arbeid ifm deploying til aws
Date: 29.03.2010 (Monday)
Harald(3 timer): prøvde å gjøre noen triks i ludo for å samkjøre svn for aws og gae. det funka for aws,
men desverre ikke så bra for gae
Date: 24.03.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(10 timer): aws mysql -lag, statusmøte med ole
Harald(8 timer): full fart med aws og litt utvikling på gae
Karl Gustav(10 timer): HIO: Jobbet med JSF, site biten av siden + statusmøte med Ole.
Date: 23.03.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(11.5 timer): windows azure (feilet), derfor aws db lag
Harald(10 timer): litt aws og brukt alt for mye tid på gae db-laget. (justeringer etter rot fra min egen
side) og mer piss
Karl Gustav(11.5 timer): HIO: Jobbet med JSF, site biten av siden.
Date: 22.03.2010 (Monday)
Hans(9.5 timer): windows azure deployment!
Harald(11.5 timer): en del utforsking på AWS. Fått i gang instanser, fått Restlet-applikasjonen til å kjøre
på tomcat og en del tid til GAE
Karl Gustav(11.5 timer): HIO: Jobbet med JSF, site biten av siden.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
139
Report part 3
Date: 19.03.2010 (Friday)
Hans(7 timer): ferdigstilt førsteutkast kravspesifikasjon
Harald(7 timer): KRAVSPEC
Karl Gustav(6 timer): Kravspek
Date: 17.03.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(11 timer): fagdag,statusmøte og kravspek
Harald(11 timer): fagdag og møte med Ole. Litt kravspek på slutten
Karl Gustav(9 timer): Fornebu: JSF2.0 workshop +Møte med Ole.
Date: 16.03.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(8 timer): kravspek, gui-backend
Harald(8 timer): db-laget, begynner å nærme seg
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Kravspek + JSF programering
Date: 15.03.2010 (Monday)
Hans(11.5 timer): restlet gui-db lag
Harald(12 timer): restlet/db-lag. fått på plass en del funksjonalitet
Karl Gustav(12 timer): JSF, og jobbet litt på den nye kravspesifikasjonen.
Date: 14.03.2010 (Sunday)
Harald(2 timer): hjemme: jobbing med restlet/databaselaget
Date: 13.03.2010 (Saturday)
Harald(1 timer): litt jobbing hjemmefra. videre på reslet
Karl Gustav(2 timer): JSF adminArrangements.xhtml
Date: 12.03.2010 (Friday)
Karl Gustav(4 timer): JSF GUIUserLogic GUIAdminLogic
Date: 11.03.2010 (Thursday)
Hans(1.5 timer): hjemme: lagd 2 gui-backend metoder
Karl Gustav(3 timer): JSF
Date: 10.03.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(8 timer): reslet client/json metoder
Harald(8 timer): videre på DB-laget
Date: 09.03.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(8.5 timer): reslet client/json
Harald(8 timer): db-lag
140
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
Date: 08.03.2010 (Monday)
Hans(8 timer): restlet client/json
Harald(9.5 timer): DB/logikklag. Ting begynner å skje her nå. Men det gjennstår forsatt en del arbeid
Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: Fikk en redirect til å endre på adressen i adressefeltet.
Karl Gustav(2 timer): Hjemme: Har nå fått til *conditional redirect*.(+ at login fungerer)
Karl Gustav(5 timer): HIO: satt og jobbet med å få brukerinnlogging til å fungere i JSF.
Date: 07.03.2010 (Sunday)
Harald(2 timer): hjemme: videre med samme som lørdagen
Karl Gustav(5 timer): Hjemme: Fikk linking innad i siden til å fungere. Nå kan du gå ifra forsiden til et
spesifikkt arrangement med link.
Date: 06.03.2010 (Saturday)
Hans(3.5 timer): logikklag/planlegging
Harald(5 timer): Database/loggikklag. Ingen syk fremgang, bare mye mikk
Karl Gustav(4 timer): HIO: jobbet med JSF og organisering/planlegging av klasser
Date: 04.03.2010 (Thursday)
Hans(1 timer): Hjemme: lest mer om JSON/restlet
Karl Gustav(5 timer): HIO: Jobbet med å endre navn på pakkene og å planlegge sturkturen på selve GUI
laget(klasser og metoder)
Date: 03.03.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(9.5 timer): presentasjon,lunsj,json/restlet,pakke-klasse-metode oversikt
Harald(9.5 timer): foredrag osv. Jobbing med db-laget
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Fornebu: Presenterete prosjektet vår for styringsgruppen. Jobbet videre med å
planlegge GUI biten og å lære meg JSF.
Date: 02.03.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(0.5 timer): Hjemme: presentasjon speaker-notes
Hans(6 timer): jsf dummysite, presentasjon for styringsgruppen
Harald(8 timer): restlet og databaselag. forbredelser til presentasjon for styreingsgruppen
Karl Gustav(0.5 timer): Hjemme: Jobbet med Presentasjonen for styringsgruppen.
Karl Gustav(7.5 timer): HIO: Jobbet med presantasjonen for styringsgruppen og jobbet mer med JSF.
Date: 01.03.2010 (Monday)
Hans(8.5 timer): kravspek, java server faces
Harald(0.75 timer): hjemme: layout til nettstedet
Harald(8.5 timer): restlet og kravspec på skolen
Karl Gustav(9.5 timer): jobbet med å få til JSF og få til code behind filer
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
141
Report part 3
Date: 28.02.2010 (Sunday)
Karl Gustav(5 timer): Fikk et JSF prosjekt til å kjøre på GAE. Begynner å få tiles til å kjøre på det
prosjektet i måren.
Date: 23.02.2010 (Tuesday)
Karl Gustav(3 timer): Undersøkelser rundt rammeverk. JFS osv.
Date: 19.02.2010 (Friday)
Karl Gustav(3 timer): jobbing med å få til apache tiles
Date: 17.02.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(8 timer): websider gui, json, møte med ole
Harald(7 timer): RESTlet, møte med Ole
Karl Gustav(8 timer): startet på å lage noen klasser og websider til gui delen
Date: 16.02.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(7 timer): planla websia,jsp og eclipse fiks
Harald(8 timer): Planlegge utforming av GUI, RESTlet på DB laget
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Planla utformingen av GUI delen av websiden og holdt på med å få SVN til å
fungere.
Date: 15.02.2010 (Monday)
Hans(8 timer): report 1 finpussing + undervisningsmøte med eva
Harald(8 timer): Report 1 og møte med Eva
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Fellesmøte med Eva der vi fikk hvite hva som var forventet av kravspesifikasjonen.
Videre så jobbet vi med å lære oss jsp
Date: 10.02.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(8 timer): rammeverk + møte med ole
Harald(5.5 timer): RESTlet og møte med Ole
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Rammeverk og status møte med ole
Date: 09.02.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(7 timer): forskning på rammeverket wicket, og litt testing
Harald(7 timer): forskning på rammeverker. RESTlet
Karl Gustav(2 timer): Hjemme: testing av rammeverket Wicket
Karl Gustav(6.5 timer): Acceture: Undersøkelser rundt og testing av rammeverket Wicket
Date: 08.02.2010 (Monday)
Hans(7 timer): forprosjektrapport forbredelser + fremføring
Harald(7 timer): stort sett forbredelser til fremføring av forprosjektrapporten
Karl Gustav(7.5 timer): HIO: Forbredelse til framføring av forprosjekts rapport
142
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
Date: 05.02.2010 (Friday)
Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: rapportskriving
Date: 04.02.2010 (Thursday)
Karl Gustav(1.5 timer): Hjemme: rapport skriving
Date: 03.02.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(1 timer): Hjemme: rapport del 1 + litt rettskrivning
Hans(8 timer): rapport del 1 + møte med ole
Harald(1 timer): hjemme: retting osv i rapport
Harald(8.5 timer): fornebu: rapportskriving og møte med ole.
Karl Gustav(1 timer): Hjemme: rapportskriving
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Møte med ole og rapportskriving
Date: 02.02.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(4 timer): planlegging, div rapport del 1, ukas statusrappot
Harald(8.5 timer): rapport del 1
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Rapportskriving Del 1
Date: 01.02.2010 (Monday)
Hans(4 timer): rapport del 1 jobb + azure endringer
Harald(2 timer): hjemme: lest om rest i bokami
Harald(4 timer): skolen: organisering/oppsett av maskin på skolen. noe på rapporten til del 1
Karl Gustav(0 timer): Borte: Var borte denne dagen etter avtale.
Date: 27.01.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(8 timer): skrevet ferdig (?) om windows azure platform, til del 1 av prosjektet.
Harald(8 timer): om aws til 1. del av rapporten, forprosjektrapport, møte med Ole
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Møte med ole. Skrevet forprosjekt rapport.
Date: 26.01.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(8 timer): jobbet med forprosjektrapporte og gjort litt research rundt windows azure platformen
generelt. + statusrapport
Harald(8.5 timer): forprosjektrapport, amazon-sjekking, testing mot appengine
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Jobbet med forprosjektrapport.
Date: 25.01.2010 (Monday)
Hans(7.5 timer): Skrevet i forprosjektrapporen, skrevet innledning til del 1 om Azure, studert litt rundt
azure. Jobbet hjemmefra
Harald(7.5 timer): forprosjektrapport, møte med eva, prosjekthjemmesiden
Karl Gustav(5 timer): HIO: Skrevet på forprosjekt rapporten. Lest littegranne om appengine i pausene. Kl
13:00 hadde vi møte med Eva. Gikk kl 14:00, etter avtale.
Karl Gustav(0.5 timer): Hjemme: Skrev mer på sumary i forprosjekt rapporten
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
143
Report part 3
Date: 20.01.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(1 timer): statusmøte med ole
Harald(8 timer): statusrapport, forprosjektrapport, møte med ole, litt lasttesting mot app engine
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Statusrapport, forprosjektrapport, møte med ole, litt lasttesting mot
app engine
Date: 19.01.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(8 timer): endel research rundt azure, møte om forprosjekt og ukas statusrapport
Harald(8 timer): litt prosjekthjemmeside, en del research
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Research og møte om research/forprosjekts rapport.
Date: 18.01.2010 (Monday)
Hans(6 timer): statusrapport, møte med eva og datatrøbbel!
Harald(6 timer): skrevet statusrapport for forrige uke, "møte" med eva, litt smålesing her og der
Karl Gustav(6 timer): HIO: Føstedelen av dagen gikk til videre undersøkelser og på slutten av dagen
hadde vi eit møte med den interne veilederen vår, Eva.
Date: 13.01.2010 (Wednesday)
Hans(8 timer): fiksa tomcat lokalt! lekt litt med jsp og lest endel om windows azure!
Harald(9 timer): prosjektplan og amazon-forskning
Karl Gustav(2 timer): Hjemme: Lagde TODO listen til websiden.
Karl Gustav(8.5 timer): Accenture: Snakket om hvordan testingen av Google Apps hadde gått. Mer
undersløkelse. På slutten av dagen hadde vi et statusmøte med Ole
Date: 12.01.2010 (Tuesday)
Hans(8 timer): prøvde å løse tomcat problemer. appengine study og dens introduksjonsguide fullført
(fikk ikke lastet opp pga proxy)
Harald(2.5 timer): prosjektplan-styr hjemmefra med fatter på øret
Harald(8 timer): appengine, prosjektplanlegging og litt jmeter
Karl Gustav(3 timer): Hjemme: Testet google app engine med å fullføre en av torturialene deres for java.
Karl Gustav(8.5 timer): Accenture: Planla mer prosjektplan og leste videre om de forskjellige
leverandørene.
Date: 11.01.2010 (Monday)
Hans(7.5 timer): stort sett planlegging, litt lesing om rest
Harald(7.5 timer): stort sett planlegging. Litt java-utforsking
Karl Gustav(8 timer): Accenture: Første vanlige dag på Accenture. Fant mer ut hva rest er og fordelte
hvilke leverandører vi skulle konsentrere oss om.
Date: 10.01.2010 (Sunday)
Harald(5 timer): laget websiden
144
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
Date: 07.01.2010 (Thursday)
Hans(7.5 timer): inngangspass, pc-er, møte med ole, startet å planlegge prosjektet
Harald(7.5 timer): første dag hos accenture på fornebu
Karl Gustav(7.5 timer): Accenture: Først fikk vi inngangspass og pc-er så. Så hadde vi eit møte med Ole.
Etter det så jobbet vi litt med å starte prosjektet og lastet ned noen programer vi trengte.
Date: 02.11.2009 (Monday)
Hans(1 timer): Møte med accenture
Harald(1 timer): møte hos accenture
Karl Gustav(1 timer): Accenture: Første møte med Accenture.
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
145
Report part 3
6
146
Project plan
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
Report part 3
-Page intentionally blank-
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison
147
Report part 3
-Page intentionally blank-
148
Cloud Computing Vendor Comparison