Bromcom-PR

Thank you @matt40k reminding me about security auditing question. I thought it is obvious why we haven't been providing response to this or specific technical specification of Bromcom Cloud MIS. This is because this thread it is not about product x or company y. From the outset we started this thread to discuss architectural characteristics, behaviour and suitability of client-server MIS @pwainewright calls it antique - we call it more politely legacy software) vs web based MIS. There are number of MIS suppliers and products that fall under these two type of architectures and hence the arguments apply to all. We have been pleased to be able persuade cloud experts @pwainewright to participate in this thread for 'independent' views and as of today this thread has attracted over 2.5k visits within space of 10 days. I trust it has enlighten many and now we understand why client-server is scalability is severely curtailed by its own characteristics. Hence why it is not economical and advisable to deployment approach. It is not because software has been written badly but because programming tools used in developing client-server applications and executable codes are simply are not 'cloud aware'. If you haven’t yet visited @pwainewright ’s article – it is worth doing so NIST and the cloudwashing of client-server SaaS When we started the thread, we did not have in mind to release the Report on our Tests or the related press release - but because they were requested by the forum members we obliged. I do not think it is then to accuse Bromcom making a sales pitch. In this respect we responded to what has been asked by @matt40k, @GREED and @PhilNeal - no more. What has been sad is that despite you analysis was out by factor of 300, rather than re-visiting and correcting your figures, you suffice to say "I still thing (sic) this is an over estimate". I am not sure how this sits within the premise and viewed by the forum that we agreed to share the Report on the basis of you providing balanced/objective feedback. We need to keep this in mind in similar circumstances in future. Clearly other topics appear flowing from the most recent postings on this thread and we should branch off so to keep this thread for the purpose it set out. Therefore probably this will conclude our posting on this thread and thanks to all participating and visiting.

Of course security is of vital importance. The reason why we are declining to respond to questions for specific technical specification relating to Bromcom Cloud MIS is simple: This thread is not about specific MIS from Bromcom or Company X. It is about two different architecture - legacy (@pwainewright calls "antique") client-server vs web application and how they behave in cloud environment. It is clear how the "Test & Report document" and the press releases have come about on this thread. Bromcom never had intention to circulate Test and Report but it did because forum members asked for it. Bromcom did not want to publish about - but it did (in press release format) because forum members asked for it. We have not sought using this thread for sales pitch. Yet we are accused so. So we can't win with some! Misreading our press release, analysing wrongly with factor of 300, not revisiting to correct your figures in your analysis and then saying "However I still thing this is an over estimate." - this is hardly helpful for constructive discussions.

Hi Phil, When we offered the Tests and Report on this form, we did not have suppliers in mind. We also assumed all knew this was not about Company A against Company B but comparison of two different technologies - client server vs web application in hosted/cloud environment and specifically about RAM Storage and sharing exe etc... We also expected grown up discussions on this very serious subject. Press release link was made available to satisfy calls to have the Test and Report public. It is not even new - dated 2012 and it wasn't put on the form to seek a sales pitch. We welcome to have Capita's (and any other supplier) own review and assessment of our Report and we trust that we will have grown up and objective feedback. We hope this will add value and move forward the discussions. Please PM us to deal with the procedure (NDA etc..) and arrange for you to have a copy.

Matt40, Key discussion subject of this thread and the test / the report you have asked from. Bromcom-PR that you received is about Cloud, SaaS and SoSaaS. The tests were designed to demonstrate the impact of client-server application's inability to share computing resources (specifically executable code and working RAM storage), falling outside NIST Cloud definition and how this manifests itself massively in terms of RAM usage. Performance or any other aspects aren't within the subject matter. Happy to discuss performance and any other aspects but that should be under a new thread. We do not intend to provide blow by blow response to you. We will leave to other forum members to comment, at least first instant. However you have misread (or our press release isn't clear enough) hence we need to correct a gross misquote in your repose in above. "£300,000 for a 300 pupil primary " - £300,000 refers to LA-wide solution with 300 primary schools!!!

Upon his request, we now also provided GREED with the report. So we now have two active members of EduGeek MIS forum on the job and hopefully soon both will enlighten the forum their comments and take on the facts presented in the report re: up to 50-fold memory wastage if client-server MIS is hosted rather than web-based MIS.

We have now provided matt40 report and also guidance how step by step is able repeat the tests. For running the tests matt40 appears to have access to SIMS. We are happy to provide access to Bromcom MIS. So it is down to matt40 to enlighten the forum on the facts of 50-fold memory wastage if client-server MIS is hosted rather than web-based MIS. Press Release: Laboratory tests prove up to 50-fold saving for Web-Based School MIS over legacy Windows ‘fat client’ Meanwhile we have this press release that provides essence of the report: http://www.bromcom.com/press/pdf/130112_Press.pdf - so the findings have been in public domain for sometime.

We have been sharing this report on commercial confidential basis with bono fide interested/relevant parties. Release it public??? On a forum?? Hmmm - we'll need to think about it. Meanwhile our offer to PM me to release to you with restriction on circulation is still on the table. However you will be welcome to share with the forum / community as to your copies and conclusions you draw from the report.

Client exe: SIMS.net or Facility CMIS will do. Web-based application: You are welcome to use Bromcom Cloud MIS or any other web based MIS. It will not be practical to guide you on this forum to simulate a 'hosted' environment', adding in users and memory measurements etc... But in essence you need to measure "free memory" in the 'hosted environment' after initial a cold start then after each time a user is log. PM me and I will provide you with the test report/procedure followed and the results.

Hi matt40k, The comparison RAM storage requirement is up to 50-fold more for client-server application is not from stats. They are results of tests. You can repeat reasonable easily if you want to check as follows: Simulate any client-server based MIS application (or any other application for that matter) running in hosted environment. Measure the memory is being been taken each time you sign in via client application as an extra user or even open a new session for the same user. You will see that client exe will capture 250 MByte RAM for the exe code and working RAM storage. This is because the exe behaves just as it would have behaved in workstation/PC in a local network connected to the server - client exe is not aware of multi-tenancy demands in cloud and hasn't been designed for the exe code to be shared - ie in computing terms it is non re-entrant. Hence failing to meet NIST cloud definition at fundamental level in sharing resource. If you repeat the same tests with a web-based application, you will find that because code is shared (re-entrant), each user takes only 5 MByte RAM and this is for extra users own working storage area. Web backend and client has been designed from outset as a resource to be shared - meeting NIST cloud definition. That is why you can massively scale up and host thousands/millions of users with web applications economically. I hope the above helps.

Hi Philip, If you ask G-Cloud Team, they will confirm readily that any cloud/SaaS offering that relies on application software that falls outside NIST defintion of cloud will be be allowed on G-Cloud. G-Cloud Team confirmed that client-server applications fall outside NIST cloud definition and will not be allowed on G-Cloud store. If you have any different formal information please share with us.

Extract from UK Government Cloud Strategy Paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-cloud-strategy The US National Institute of Standards and Technology‟s (NIST) definition of cloud computing is the most widely adopted one, and has been adopted for G-Cloud; it states that: “Cloud computing is a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g. networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or cloud provider interaction.” This cloud model promotes availability and iscomposed of five essential characteristics (On-demand self-service, Broadnetwork access, Resource pooling, Rapid elasticity, Measured Service); threeservice models (Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS), Cloud Platform as a Service(PaaS), Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)); and, four deployment models(Private cloud, Community cloud, Public cloud, Hybrid cloud). Key enablingtechnologies include: (1) fast wide-area networks, (2) powerful, inexpensiveserver computers, and (3) high-performance virtualization for commodity hardware. SaaS is part of cloud definition and hence SaaS application needs to meet NIST definition of cloud. As to key the subject matter in this thread, Cloud, SaaS vs SoSaaS - client-server applications when hosted as SoSaaS, fail to meet cloud definition in its severe shortcoming in characteristics to share executable code and RAM working storage; client-server application behave as originally designed in an environment that (a workstation) where such resource sharing would have never been needed to be considered. This non-resource-sharing characteristic curtails scalability of such application. Therefore client-server application is not viable as a commercial proposition for scaling beyond minimal to moderate size users against native web-application. The comparison RAM storage requirement is up to 50-fold more for client-server application compare to same application written as web application. You need to add also the extra cooling, electricity supply and of course rack space needed!

Usually schools question whether data is in within UK, EU or elsewhere. Yes, Bromcom's data is within UK. LA's in tenders even ask to inspect the data-centres. Yes, they are welcome to inspect.

Thank matt40k

Scaling up: We totally agree with matt40k on scalability. We tested and checked that any client-server 'thick application' in cloud will require up to 50 fold more RAM against an equivalent web application (written with SaaS in mind!). Hence scaling is not viable or prohibitively expensive! With MIS Bromcom's deployment philosophy has been that all teachers and staff are on line at least some part of the day and at least once all together simultaneously - including in primary schools. In an LA this adds up to a good few thousands of simultaneous user session! Otherwise Microsoft would have had all their Office applications in Azure rather launching Office365! That would have been SoSaaS - wouldn't it?

We support either way depending on the relationship built with the 3rd party. IP: Of course, APIs aren't the worry. Yes, let's not read too much into APIs. However once the relationship with 3rd starts, it sometimes lead to other technical information that we would not want to share with 3rd parties/schools without NDA. Hence we want to get the process right from the outset. NDA does allow us to track the 3rds parties and schools that have knowledge of Bromcom APIs and avoid use APIs by 3rd parties that are not vetted.

Why ask for Sponsor? To vet 3rd parties; provides the Company reference for bono fide need and comfort about the 3rd parties. Why ask for NDA? To protect our Company's IP and account for the 3rds parties that have knowledge of Bromcom APIs; avoid use APIs by 3rd parties that are not vetted. Surely what we are asking is very reasonable and responsibly. We are asking for no money or no commitment.

Yes, no charge! Yes, no on-going fees!

No development system. Each vendor will have built their own ways of dealing with the challenge.

You need to get a sponsor and be prepared to sign NDA. YOU NEED TO THROW NO MONEY!

Phil, I think the reference in the thread where Cloud, Saas and SoSaaS started, was to 'interoperability' rather than 'data migration'. Hence reply above and APIs refer to support for interoperability. As to Bromcom data migration, the process provides access an equivalent 'local install' version of SQL DB from Bromcom Cloud for the customer. This is far more than what Bromcom finds with other MIS suppliers provision for data migration.

Currently, all our partners can AccessData via Secured Web Service APIs written for Third Party companies; they are integrating with Bromcom Cloud MIS and retrieving data for their systems.

Hi Matt40, You post: http://staticc3.cdngeek.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by GREED http://staticc3.cdngeek.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png There is also the issue of how do you control how much x third party thrashes the server or services if tapping directly into the database, regardless of they are core tables or not. What if x third party wants to poll every 10 seconds for the entire database which in a new cloud installation could be for an entire LA so 100000 kids full records... When your working in the cloud, your paying for every single resource, read are cheap as it'll all be in memory (with any luck), writes are expensive. So maybe I should have said cost of space + change frequency. You'd make sure you have limits on everything, even your own services - things like querying the school name shouldn't happen every 10 secs, checking for messages you would, but you wouldn't use sql tables, you'd use queues. Anyway I digress into the future. Be interested in your findings we all know about the sluhore that is SIMS but be interested to hear how the other MIS provider fair when it comes to getting at the data. http://staticc3.cdngeek.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by PhilNeal http://staticc3.cdngeek.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (remember I am not talking SIMS - we are not in the cloud) I might get this framed - if only I could find that post where you were trying to tell us it was. http://staticc3.cdngeek.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Roberto http://staticc3.cdngeek.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png If I connect directly to the database behind any product and run DROP DATABASE then that's not the vendor's fault, especially if I was warned about it (provided, of course, that all the info in the DB was mine)... That doesn't change just because something is hosted in the cloud, though I don't doubt some people who didn't get the "cloud's not magic" memo would disagree :-( If it's managed and in the cloud and you got access to the raw tables, you certainly wouldn't have access to drop the database. Still I know what you mean, if it's been designed correctly it'll be all container-ed, however I suspect some companies won't have. It's one of the reasons Office365\Azure was forked from Office\SQL server. " To all, It is worth starting a new thread with this. What may help the discussion is confusion that has been caused some suppliers simply relocating their offering into central datacentre and calling it cloud or SaaS. The following extracts from some critics may help: SoSaaS:Same old Software, as a Service I've always beenwary of the term software-as-a-service, not onlybecause SaaS is such an ugly acronym, but also because it conveys completelythe wrong message. It gives the impression that all you need to do is take anyold software package, run it up on a server in a data center, do a bit offinancial engineering so customers can pay on a monthly plan, and hey presto!you've got an on-demand application. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think it's time to coina new acronym that nails that model much more accurately: Sameold Software, as a Service. This makes it easy to identify on-demandapplications that are not worthy of the name— they're just SoSaaS. Conventional applicationsoftware simply isn't built for the on-demand model. It doesn'thave the same economies of scale, agility and extensibility, and itsimplementation-centric architecture makes it incapable of delivering equivalentbusiness value — as I'll be demonstrating in the coming months in this blog.Any vendor that takes their existing software and simply delivers it as anonline service just doesn't get it— and their on-demand offering willinevitably be much slower, less flexible and more expensive than rivals thathave rearchitected their applications afresh for the on-demand model. Knowing this makes it veryeasy to detect whether a vendor's on-demand offering has any validity.Simply listen to what their executives say. Here's Bruce Cleveland, Siebel'snew senior vice president of products, who also oversees Siebel's OnDemandhosted CRM offerings, talking a few days ago about"supplying our products in an on-demand form factor" (huh?): "... the fact of the matter is that this isall software and it's only the deployment options and financial vehicles thatare used to deliver them that have changed." Oh dear. Sounds like asevere case of SoSaaS to me. By Phil Wainewright Phil Wainewright has been a thought leader in cloud computing as ablogger, analyst and consultant since 1998. As well as documenting thetransformation of 21st century enterprises by digital technology, he has apart-time voluntary role as vice-president of industry advocacy group EuroCloud. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/saas/sosaas-same-old-software-as-a-service/8

I probably know what you mean, but just to make sure technically we keep the accuracy for all readers: 1. All five listed MIS Suppliers "won" the contract on the Framework- hence and as listed in the OJEU Award Notice. 2. But it was Bromcom that "won" the lion share of the business within the Framework. LAs with Pearson e1 MIS: A number of LAs with Pearson e1 running in their schools are also trying their own different way procurment process to address the withdrawal of e1 from the market. Yes, we will definetly see more evolutionary procurement process for MIS in 2014.