Using Cloud Services for Library IT Infrastructure

Cloud computing comes in several different forms and this article documents how service, platform, and
infrastructure forms of cloud computing have been used to serve library needs. Following an overview
of these uses the article discusses the experience of one library in migrating IT infrastructure to a cloud
environment and concludes with a model for assessing cloud computing.

by Erik Mitchell, Ph.D.

Introduction

This article examines some of the key issues related to the use of different forms of cloud computing in
libraries and discusses the experience of one library in moving to cloud-based infrastructure. Cloud
computing refers to the abstraction of information technology (IT) software and services from the
hardware they run on. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) expands this definition
by examining specific characteristics (e.g. self-service, resource pooling, and elasticity), management
models (e.g. service, platform, or infrastructure focus), and deployment models (e.g. public, private)
(NIST, 2009).

Cloud platforms enable organizations to use external expertise and resources to deliver complex
services, remove the need for organizations to invest in server infrastructure, and lower the cost for
organizations seeking elastic computing resources. Libraries have been adopting cloud-based solutions
for different services including electronic journal access management, statistics tracking, digital library
hosting, and even integrated library system (ILS) hosting. This has allowed libraries to make strategic
choices about the allocation of resources and to offer better service than would be possible if relying on
in-house solutions.

While much of the focus on cloud computing in libraries has been on subscription service or platform
(e.g. ILS hosting) there are cases where libraries need computing resources for requirements that are
not provided by service or platform providers. This article looks specifically at the experience of one
library in moving its IT infrastructure to cloud-based environments. The article seeks to address how well
these systems fill library IT needs, asks what other elements define the success of the use of cloud-based
infrastructure and concludes with a case study discussion of one experience.

The State of Cloud Computing in Libraries

Cloud computing can be divided into three categories: Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), Platform-as-a-
Service (PaaS), and Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS). In a SaaS environment, organizations use an
application via a hosted service. They do not have access to the underlying infrastructure (i.e. network
or server elements) and are not responsible for managing the underlying software. A common library
example is electronic journal subscription management systems. PaaS solutions focus on providing a
hosted platform on which a specific application can be deployed. This platform is often some
provisioned space and computing resources from a hosting company running a pre-configured set of
tools. Organizations can deploy a locally developed or managed application on the platform but do not
manage the underlying server infrastructure. Platform management is often done using an application
such as cPanel or Plesk. IaaS environments allow users to provision servers, storage space, and
networking components to meet their computing needs. In an IaaS environment, the organization is
responsible for starting and sizing a server, managing its network access, and ensuring that the core
server components (e.g. operating system, web server, firewall) are configured correctly.

Libraries have quietly been on the forefront of cloud computing technology for a number of years. The
use of SaaS in libraries reaches back into early 2000 with the establishment of companies like
SerialsSolutions (http://serialssolutions.com). Much of the work in migrating to electronic journals has
focused on an SaaS platform and recent companies such as LibGuides (http://www.libguides.com) have
shown that libraries are willing to invest in SaaS solutions. In the IaaS arena, Amazon Elastic Computing
Cloud (EC2) offers IT infrastructure for organizations to launch differently sized servers using a variety of
operating systems, including several flavors of Linux and Windows. EC2 provides organizations with
essentially unlimited storage using their S3 service, the ability to take snapshots of both data and
servers, and the ability to include EC2 servers in an organization’s private network. A full catalog of EC2
features is available on the EC2 website (http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/).

Wheeler and Waggener (2009) use this classification (SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS) as a launching pad to discuss
ways in which they can be used to enable collaboration or ‘sourcing’ between institutions and consortia.
Marshall Breeding (2009) places these three types of services within the context of other infrastructure
and hosting options such as co-location (the duplication of specific IT resources in multiple places),
shared and dedicated hosting (licensing a shared or distinct portion of a server for use), and cloud
computing (abstracting the hardware, software, and service layers to provide an extensible computing
environment). Embedded within these classifications are needs and use arguments, organizational goals,
and institutional priorities. For example, Wheeler and Waggener point out that organizations have
different goals for adopting cloud computing and suggest that these goals are embedded in a complex
web of cost, needs, priorities and organizational culture.

Libraries are in a unique position to experiment with cloud computing given their service-oriented
mission and need to find appropriate solutions using limited resources. Fox observes that the goals of
the organization have an impact on their use of cloud solutions (2009). For example, he observes that
one of the key pressures that both pushes libraries to cloud solutions and proves to be an impediment
to the migration is the availability of IT support services. Libraries are often supported by external or
organization level IT services and do not have internal expertise on advanced IT management. Further,
Fox observes that libraries may be governed by policies and regulations that dictate how they can use
cloud-based solutions. Both of these factors make SaaS and PaaS approaches appealing, and make IaaS
approaches difficult to consider. Despite this, many libraries have been active in investigating innovative
uses of cloud computing (Kroski, 2009), including new ways of using infrastructure services. Kroski’s
article mentions the use of Amazon EC2 services by both the DC Public Library system and OhioLink to
provide library IT services using IaaS techniques.
Critics of cloud computing observe that the transition to remote and subscription based resources opens
up organizations to new legal and operational challenges. Critics also ask whether or not the major
cloud-computing platforms are open enough to trust (Truitt, 2009) and suggest that new government
regulations and policies are required to ensure openness and sustainability (Nelson, 2009). In addition to
these high-level concerns, a number of technical concerns exist such as how to include cloud-based
applications within the organizational network, how to back up and archive information located in the
cloud, and how to manage services in a decentralized environment.

Cloud-hosting organizations have taken steps to address some of these concerns. For example, Amazon
has added features to their core Elastic Computing Cloud (EC2) service, including private connectivity
between cloud-servers and an organization’s network (Virtual Private Cloud); Elastic Block Store (EBS)
based storage which offers bit-level snapshots and persistence across server instances; and server-
monitoring and management tools. Amazon also established service level agreements (SLA) that apply
to all services running on their cloud platform (http://aws.amazon.com/ec2-sla/). These SLAs define not
only uptime but also address security and legal issues.

Regardless of the concerns or skepticism of the authors, the literature on cloud computing and the
expanding use of cloud platforms indicates that cloud computing is still a growing field. Both the Gartner
Hype report on cloud computing (2009) and the Educause Horizon report (2009) point to the expansion
of cloud services in the coming years. Libraries and especially academic organizations have largely
followed suit, having already migrated key services such as OpenURL providers, and federated and
federated and pre-indexed search engines.

Evaluating Cloud Computing

In order to assess the success of our initial migration to Amazon EC2 services, we assessed three central
areas; 1) quality and stability of service, 2) impact on our ability to provide library services, and 3)
comparison of cost with local technology solutions

Quality of Service

Our initial experience with the quality of the EC2 service has been very positive. Amazon’s legal
agreements and SLAs adequately addressed our concerns for data security and uptime. Like many
libraries we have become comfortable using SaaS-style services for other solutions and are increasingly
reliant on Internet connectivity, so moving our core application infrastructure outside the campus
network proved to be a non-issue. Further, the quality of the company and community documentation
(http://aws.amazon.com/documentation/) has made finding solutions to common problems such as
server configuration, backups, and archives fairly easy.

Impact on Library Services

One reason that SaaS and PaaS solutions are difficult to implement in libraries is that our core
applications often require specialized software or configurations which are either localized or simply
application specific. By using an infrastructure level service we were able to bring our library
applications online without having to find a service that supported the correct versions of the underlying
technology. Further, having the ability to mount new applications quickly without having to focus on
identifying available server space has meant that we can offer technology-based library services much
more quickly than when using locally-based hardware. This separation of machine images and data from
the hardware they are currently running on provides us the ability to minimize downtime in the case of
hardware failures.

Granted, moving our key application infrastructure outside of the campus network means that during
Internet connectivity issues we will have none of our key services (e.g. website, ILS, discovery layer).
While a full plan has not been put in place to handle this contingency, the library is currently configuring
a local machine that will be capable of serving up a scaled-down version of the library website and a
snapshot of the library catalog running on a locally installed version of our discovery layer (Vufind).

Cost Comparison

Calculating the total cost of ownership (TCO) of technology can be difficult, and there seems to be more
research which questions the validity of these measures than research comparing cloud and traditional
solutions. For example, Golden (2009) found that when including electricity and administrative costs
Amazon’s pricing was comparable with the cost of in-house managed servers. Other research, however,
indicates that simply swapping in-house for virtual servers does not result in a lowering of TCO (Leong,
2009). Further, the impact of cost comparisons on cloud computing indicate that minimal cost savings
may not be a sufficient inducement to change. A recent Gartner research article points to larger issues
such as security and operational concerns as key factors (Harris & Smith, 2009).

Our own cost-benefit analysis indicated that EC2 had similar costs but provided operational benefits. We
were facing the need to replace our two servers and large disk array, and in comparing the cost of the
hardware projected over five years against the cost of EC2 and EBS data volumes for the same time
period we found that the costs were comparable. The initial experience of running our discovery layer
on a single small instance server showed actual costs of approximately $100 per month including CPU
time, data storage, and I/O fees. After analyzing the actual used capacity of our servers, we found that
most of our applications could run on two Amazon EC2 small servers (1 CPU, 1.7 GB Ram)
(http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/#instance). As we add our digital objects to the system we will see
increased data storage and backup fees.

Observations and Next Steps

While we can call our initial transition to cloud computing a success we have had to work through
several challenges. First, we found that working with EC2 required some additional training for our staff.
While there is good documentation offered by Amazon, understanding system architecture in a cloud
environment and working out the security issues required careful attention. Second we found that while
Amazon was the most mature of the services on the market when we started, the market is changing
rapidly and we will need to remain tuned in to changes to ensure that we make use of new options. For
example, the establishment of persistent images was a significant step forward in easing our transition
to EC2. Finally, we found that while EC2 made it possible for us to mount and configure new servers
quickly, it took coordination with campus IT services to bring these servers online in a way that was
seamless for our patrons.

Placing our applications on IaaS platforms provided us with a flexibility which we had not previously
enjoyed with local servers. As a result, the library has been positioned to be more responsive to new
developments in the coming years. As the IaaS market matures we are looking for services to become
more affordable and standardized. Further, as more libraries become comfortable with using
applications on IaaS platforms it becomes possible to share and mount appliance-style servers that serve
distinct purposes.

About the Author

Erik Mitchell (http://erikmitchell.info) is the Assistant Director for Technology Services at the Z. Smith
Reynolds Library in Winston Salem, NC.

Works Cited

2009 Horizon Report | EDUCAUSE. (2009, January 20). Educause. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from
http://www.educause.edu/ELI/2009HorizonReport/163616.

Breeding, M. (2009). The Advance of Computing From the Ground to the Cloud. Computers in Libraries,
29(10), 22-25. (COinS)

Fox, R. (2009). Library in the clouds. OCLC Systems & Services, 25(3), 156-161. doi:
10.1108/10650750910982539. (COinS)

Golden, B. (2009, February 19). The Case Against Cloud Computing, Part Four – CIO.com – Business
Technology Leadership. Cio.com. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from
http://www.cio.com/article/480595/The_Case_Against_Cloud_Computing_Part_Four

Harris, M., & Smith, D. M. (2009, September 😎. Higher Education Q&A: Cloud Computing. Gartner
Research. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from
http://my.gartner.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=260&mode=2&PageID=3460702&resId=1169
112&ref=QuickSearch&sthkw=cloud+computing+cost.

Hype Cycle for Cloud Computing, 2009. (2009, July 16). Gartner Research. Retrieved January 25, 2010,
from
http://my.gartner.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=260&mode=2&PageID=3460702&resId=1078
112&ref=QuickSearch&sthkw=cloud+computing+cost.

Leong, L. (2009, June 16). Software on Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud: How to Tell Hype From Reality.
Gartner Research. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from
http://my.gartner.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=260&mode=2&PageID=3460702&resId=1022
715&ref=QuickSearch&sthkw=cloud+computing+tco.
Nelson, M. R. (2009). The Cloud, the Crowd, and Public Policy. Issues in Science & Technology, 25(4), 71-
76.

(COinS)

NIST. (2009). NIST.gov – Computer Security Division – Computer Security Resource Center. Retrieved
February 12, 2010, from http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SNS/cloud-computing/index.html.

Truitt, M. (2009). Editorial: Computing in the “Cloud”. Information Technology & Libraries, 28(3), 107-
108. (COinS)

Wheeler, B., & Waggener, S. (2009). Above Campus Services: Shaping the Promise of Cloud Computing
for Higher Education. Educause Review, 44(6), 52-66. (Coins)

Reference:

http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/2510/comment-page-1