Last year, by one estimate, the video site YouTube, owned by Google, consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet did in 2000. …While reading the article, it occurred to me that isn't bandwidth going to be the main hurdle in adoption of storage in the cloud. When clients are not happy with 10/100/1000Mbps connection with application/server/data center, how can they be happy with DSL/Cable/T1/T3 connection to the cloud? I am sure everyone has felt the pain of trying to transfer large datasets over the Internet.
In a widely cited report published last November, a research firm projected that user demand for the Internet could outpace network capacity by 2011. …
Moving images, far more than words or sounds, are hefty rivers of digital bits as they traverse the Internet’s pipes and gateways, requiring, in industry parlance, more bandwidth.
If you review the introduction and growth of various Amazon Web Services (AWS), a comparatively established cloud player, you will notice very limited use cases of Simple Storage Service (S3) on its own with clients outside the cloud. Most S3 usage is fronted by another AWS in the cloud such as Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2). Such combinations overcome the challenge of transferring large amount of data between storage cloud and an application/server outside the cloud over Internet. For cloud storage to be successful, it need to be in the same cloud with application/server or connected to application/server cloud with high speed link.
Any technology that can reduce the data transfer between the cloud services and clients outside the cloud will be the big beneficiary in this trend. Caching, Compression, and Data De-duplication will most likely benefit in the near term. And, the future seems to be very much like the past aka mainframe - Desktop Virtualization, Streaming, and On-the-Fly Visualization.
So, how will new cloud players like Nirvanix, EMC Mozy and Rackspace differentiate?