Breaking News
News & Analysis

Intel backs cloud computing alliance

10/27/2010 09:14 PM EDT
6 comments
NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Silicon_Smith
User Rank
Author
re: Intel backs cloud computing alliance
Silicon_Smith   10/29/2010 5:01:14 AM
NO RATINGS
I feel till 2015, every cloud provider will define their own SLAs, interfaces, performance parameters and security features.However, for interoperability's sake atleast the networking aspect of it needs to be standardized urgently. And what about the different service delivery models?

Mark Wehrmeister
User Rank
Author
re: Intel backs cloud computing alliance
Mark Wehrmeister   10/29/2010 3:37:24 AM
NO RATINGS
Efforts to create standards are always welcome, but often the standards are not completed until the industry has moved on to something else. Cloud computing has unfortunately entered the stage where the phrase is used to describe almost any data center technology so the time left to set standards is shrinking very quickly!

jimcondon
User Rank
Author
re: Intel backs cloud computing alliance
jimcondon   10/29/2010 2:00:01 AM
NO RATINGS
Does it seem to anyone that there are too many cloud based standards? It may have been better for Intel to pass on supporting this group and supporting a pre-existing cloud standard committee.

wilber_xbox
User Rank
Author
re: Intel backs cloud computing alliance
wilber_xbox   10/28/2010 7:30:45 PM
NO RATINGS
Intel is almost everywhere on EE Times. First, new fab in US then investment in lithotool and now in cloud computing.

Dave.Dykstra
User Rank
Author
re: Intel backs cloud computing alliance
Dave.Dykstra   10/27/2010 10:28:40 PM
NO RATINGS
Well, maybe if there are enough working groups providing input to the standards groups they can get it somewhat right. Of course, this usually seems to mean several different sets of desires and inputs to the standards group and a great deal of compromise and, for everyone else, confusion. The mentioned goals of interoperability, flexibility and industry standards would certainly be welcomed.

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed