Businesses Moving From Amazon's Cloud To Build Their Own 121
itwbennett writes "There are rumblings around this week's OpenStack conference that companies are moving away from AWS, ready to ditch their training wheels and build their own private clouds. Inbound marketing services company HubSpot is the latest to announce that it's shifting workloads off AWS, citing problems with 'zombie servers,' unused servers that the company was paying for. Others that are leaving point to 'business issues,' like tightening the reins on developers who turned to the cloud without permission."
Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't surprise me and I don't think it will matter much.
Amazon is not particularly cheap. If you host your own, even with power, cooling and hardware, the payback time is about 4 to 6 months.
If you have a lot of load then it is going to be cheaper to host it yourself, so it's worth doing for big companies.
With Amazon of course you can start as a one man band and still have potential to grow without it getting painful from an administrative point of view.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only case where it really made sense was when you had extremely variable load.
Indeed, or if you're expecting to scale. The thing is, as you scale up, you can always move the baseload to dedicated servers and just do the variable part on Amazon.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
neither does amazon unless you pay them a lot more $$$
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
neither does amazon unless you pay them a lot more $$$
Depending on your needs, setting up geographical redundancy with Amazon can be extremely cheap -- if you just want a cold or warm site to fail over to, you don't need to keep your entire infrastructure running at the secondary site, just replicate the data, and then spin up the servers over there when you need to fail over.
That's what my company does - we have about a dozen servers to run our website, but the secondary site has only a couple micro instances to receive data. When we need to failover, we just tell one of those servers to wake up the rest of the infrastructure and update the databases from the snapshots that have already been transferred over, including repointing DNS to the backup site. We could make the failover fully automatic, but are afraid of "split brain syndrome" leading to the failover site taking over when the primary is still fine so it's still a manual process. Our backup site is never more than 15 minutes out of date from production.
This has worked well in testing - we've done some "live" late-night failovers and it's relatively seamless -- since it's so cheap to set up the backup site (essentially we just pay for the cost of storage at the backup site), we're going to set up another region overseas for extra redundancy.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
Depending on your needs, setting up geographical redundancy with Amazon can be extremely cheap
And history has shown that you pay for what you get.
Right, if you cheap out and pay for a single availability zone in a single region, when that AZ or Region goes down, your site is down.
If you pay for multi-AZ and Multi-region deployments you get much better availability.
Just like Amazon says.
Over the past 2 years, Amazon has been more reliable than the coloc we moved away from, mostly due to the triple (!) disk failure that took out our SAN RAID array - one disk failed, and while we were waiting for the replacement, another disk went down, after we replaced those two, another disk went down while rebuilding the RAID-6 array.
With AWS, an entire region can go offline and we can bring up the backup site on the other side of the country (or, starting next month, we could bring up our Ireland region).
All this for less than half the cost we were paying for the coloc + equipment maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why RAID is not Backup, also, why if I had such a SAN, I'd either have redundant SAN nodes, a hot spare disk, or at least a spare cold disk to swap in on site.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This is no different than anything else. Companies reach a certain point and hosted X becomes less viable than doing their own solution depending on the pricing model and service level provided. Email, website, call center, payment processing...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, when a company reaches a certain size they likely have a enough computer infrastructure to have an IT department anyway, even if they aren't an IT company. With your example of Ford, they have offices for managers, sales etc. All of those people likely have desktop computers, so they likely have dedicated desktop support. Additionally they probably have some kind of centralized authentication like active directory, which means they'll need a server and some sort of sys admin/IT infrastructure already. They likely wouldn't be adding an IT division in order to host their own email, they'd be adding an email server/management to the load of the existing IT department, which is obviously not as big an upfront overhead cost, making it more attractive.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Take for instance a large company like Ford (picked because they aren't a computer/technology/web based, but large company). Their expertise has nothing to do with computers.
Are you sure about that?
A large company must have many many areas of expertise. Obviously their goal is to make cars. But have expertise in cars, large scale manugacturing, logistics, marketing, engineering, anything required to support engineering including simulation running on supercomputers, human resources and probably a whole bunch I haven't thought of.
The point is that many of them will involve computers to a large degree, so although a company like Ford makes no money with computers per-se every area of their operation will involve computer systems. As a result they will have a huge amount of computer expertise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"The point is that many of them will involve computers to a large degree, so although a company like Ford makes no money with computers per-se every area of their operation will involve computer systems. As a result they will have a huge amount of computer expertise."
They will consume a huge amount of computing. That does not equal expertise.
For example, you can consume a huge amount of beer. That does not grant you any expertise in brewing. That doesn't even mean you can pick good beers to drink.
Re:Nor surprising and won't matter. (Score:4, Interesting)
The defining factor is whether you can keep more than one IT guy busy full time. If you can, then you hire at least two, one senior and one junior to at least fight fires when he's sick. If you're keeping at least two IT buys busy full time, you're going to be paying for them whether they work for you or not, but if they do work for you then you can fire them, so you have some control over what they do. If they'll just be placed with someone else if you don't like them, they're not going to work as hard for you. You need as much control as you can get over your own IT department. It's daft to contract out anything so critical when you're only adding to the likelihood of leaks and malfeasance.
Re: (Score:3)
It's often the case that you'll just need one, plus a support contract. The support contract will handle any issues that the IT guy might not be able to do on their own, such as speedy hardware replacement.
Flexpod is pretty neat in that regard; it has automatic monitoring that will notify the vendor in the event of a perceived imminent hardware failure. They'll begin the process of sending a technician out with the replacement part in hand often times before the admin is even aware that anything is wrong. D
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Regarding Ford specifically.
You'd be surprised at the scale of their IT organization (as someone who once worked in Ford's datacenter).
They already have their own 'internal cloud' and have for some time (before 'cloud' was a 'thing'). The only thing different here is internal provisioning processes vs. Amazons credit card & go plan.
The cost of Amazon doesn't make sense, when you already have a pair of tier 1 datacenters and an IT organization more then capable of maintaining it.
Ford already HAS servers
Re: (Score:2)
But the real question is, do they want to devote any corporate time to even dealing with this kind of thing. Basically they would have to have a whole new division added on to their company to handle IT management, and they'd have all the fun stuff that goes along with it.
Obviously you've never done this kind of thing before. Ford needs IT management no matter what. Even if they use Amazon for hosting and Gmail for email and whatever else, that decision first implies that you have someone who understands the benefits and drawbacks to hosting your own services vs. going with a hosted service. People who don't understand it think that the benefits/drawbacks are obvious, but that's only because they don't understand it.
Once you've made a decision, you need to choose a vendo
Re: (Score:2)
Does your payback time include any costs for hardware administration/maintenance?
It costs money through time in sourcing and installing hardware. It costs you to keep spare equipment that can take over in the event of hardware failure. These all need factored in. It's common when buying a box to overspec, anticipating future growth, whereas on a service like Amazon you can click and upgrade your hardware capacity when you need it.
I think there are also fewer well managed co-location sites that have good con
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
we use Azure for a lot of things in my particular department because it helps us bypass our IT department. Sometimes we need to set stuff up really fast and only have it last for a short amount of time. It takes our IT department about a week to open ports on our firewall or map a machine to an IP....when we have 2 days to get something working this doesn't work. As far as cost goes...it isn't all that much more expensive than handling the hardware ourselves. I can also, on the fly, scale things up as I nee
Re: (Score:3)
It If you host your own, even with power, cooling and hardware, the payback time is about 4 to 6 months.
That depends a great deal on the scale and availability demands placed upon your infrastructure. One can deploy a "private cloud" on one or two cast-off PC's, but that will be little more than a toy. If you want to support a serious deployment (dozens or hundreds of nodes) with anything approaching usable performance, you're going to be investing in some serious network and shared storage hardware, not to mention host servers. Want HA? Still more (bigger) bucks. Still, it doesn't take much to make those inv
Re: (Score:2)
Right now AWS compute costs about 2-3X as much as an in-house VM for me given a 5 year lifetime (we buy storage with 5 years support and hosts last 4-5 years with upgrades), it's when you need anything that needs serious storage performance that the ROI time starts to decrease sharply. Where AWS rocks is peak shaving, if you have a workload that only needs a few hours a day of powered on time then it's really easy to justify it, but for your run of the mill corporate IT systems that just kind of chug along
Ahhh, ha ha ha. last square on buzzword bingo! (Score:3)
get off the cloud, build our own cloud. also known as bringing the server room back into your own hands.
also known as BOFH never dies.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the typical "outsourcing cycle". The executives who could show on paper that it would be cheaper to move all hosting to a third party cloud provider have now all moved on from their posts of a couple of years ago, and a bunch of new executives can now show on paper that it will be cheaper to host it in-house.
I've always held the view that outsourcing never makes sense on a large scale- if you're a big company with a lot of hosting needs, it's probably cheaper to hire a team of full time employees and
Re: (Score:2)
Even for companies that have relatively static compute needs, one area where AWS still really shines is storage. Take Glacier for instance...unlimited storage for a cent per GB per month. $120 a y
The obvious next step... (Score:5, Funny)
...will be to give every user their own personal cloud housed in a box under their desk.
At which point the cycle will begin again.
Re:The obvious next step... (Score:5, Funny)
...will be to give every user their own personal cloud housed in a box under their desk. At which point the cycle will begin again.
That sounds like a great idea! We can call it a Personal Cloud, or PC for short.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Yo Dawg, I heard you like a PC, so I put a PC in your PC so you can PC while you PC.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you drop the 64GB of RAM to 16GB you can get all that for about $800. That's still loads of headroom.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue isn't the hardware, the problem is getting a decent internet connection to make your cloud available. If they start releasing apple/windows operating systems with DNS supporting software, default domain name registration and push the 'always on/always connected' everyone could have their own personal cloud, accessible from anywhere.
Re:The obvious next step... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is there *always* a snarky comment along these lines whenever someone talks about not using a "public" cloud provider - cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means "an infrastructure setup which means I do not have to care about the infrastructure when deploying applications", whether that be owned by someone else or an internally provided solution.
The old manner of inhouse application infrastructure involved one or more application server, one or more database server, and the related network and service architecture specifically required to handle redundancy and failover - but the point is, you had to care about that service architecture when dealing with your app! Which server had spare resource to act as a failover for another application (which invariably meant you ended up with two servers allocated for the job anyway, the main and a dedicated backup or two servers which took requests on a round robin manner), which server was not to be used for these purposes, which applications do not live together etc etc.
Today, the goal is to have a "large number of essentially commodity hardware servers" acting on a level which you can forget about for most solutions (there are always going to be situations where heavily tailored hardware solutions will still exist) - where you can treat the hardware as what it should be, a resource to be used and allocated as required.
Virtualisation was the first step (in modern terms, not talking about mainframes here), and cloud takes the aspect of virtualisation several steps down the road.
This has got sod all to do with the "cycle", and everything to do with "computing as a resource".
Re: (Score:3)
I think somebody needs a hug.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
cloud when talked about in these ways does not mean "someone else owns the hardware", it means ...
Congratulations, you've passed the Rorschach test!
Inkblots are so messy though. Clouds are pretty and fluffy. You can see anything you want in them. They're perfect for marketing. I detest that old-fashioned anal retentive precise language that used to be popular in technology. This new through-the-looking-glass stuff leads to so much more fun debate.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laugh as you will, but spinning up a VM on each desktop that can contribute to the central processing pool has intrigued me for some time.
Security is a bit of a hangup, and it would have to be cleverly configured to only use the extra cycles... but for some applications, where you just need "a little more oomph", I think it's got merit.
Re: (Score:1)
WebDesktop/Cloud free stuff that works?? (Score:2)
So what is around for a SoHo type outfit that wants to do the Self Hosted Cloud thing but can't waste money? EyeOs would work if it
1 was a still being developed project
2 hadn't gone Closed Source
business forecast: cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:business forecast: cloudy (Score:5, Funny)
On the upside, it makes it now possible for a business to say "Hey (hey), you (you), get offa my cloud!"
Maybe not completely (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get away from the term "cloud" -- it's a misnomer.
No, it's just frequently misused.
One remote server, is not a cloud. Two load-balanced remote servers is not a cloud.
Dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of remote servers, configured such that data is stored redundantly and the software routes around a failed node; controlled by infrastructure such that adding or removing nodes is negligible effort -- that's a cloud.
Of course the marketers misuse it, because they want their non-cloud product to bask in the halo effect of the buzzword.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Web 2.0 to me. Or was that just a marketing term too ... anyway according to Nist the essential characteristics of "cloud computing" are : On-demand self services, Broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity and measured service. No mention of redundancy or routes.
Computing is going back to its roots (Score:1)
Tightening reins on developers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me state this in other words: "Insecure IT guys are afraid for their own jobs if they can't lord it over developers". Seriously, developers working in an API driven cloud just don't need a classic IT organization around to manage servers for them. Cloud is a disruptive threat to classic IT orgs.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me state this in other words: "Developers know jack and shit about security and business requirements, they will now be able to not meet either of those even faster". Developers are afraid that if the cloud thing does not replace all classic IT they might still have to explain to someone in a meeting why their code falls over all the damn time and admit that maybe more hardware is not always the best answer.
Cloud is what traditional IT orgs manage for you slick. You think it is just developers all the w
Re: (Score:2)
Terrible developer is probably 90% of them. It's a rare day I don't get one in my office asking me some question that a simple look in the log files does not fix.
Caring about security and business needs is there damn jobs. If you don't care enough to do your own job go find other work.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me rerephrase that for you. "Developers don't care jack shit..." Show me a developer who is incapable of being a successful sys. admin and I will know you a terrible developer. It's all about time and interests.
Absolutely. I know plenty of people who've been both good sysadmins and good developers at various points in their career.
Like you say, developers aren't necessarily interested in the things that make for good administration, though. The ability to create virtual machines at will, for instance, means that developers can create more virtual machines than are needed, which results in greater administrative overhead and greater costs. They can also sidestep normal administrative procedures.
We used to have
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they not in the server room more often?
The daily check should have found the undocumented machine. At that point you unplug it, remove from rack and move it to your desk. You will find the culprit when he comes looking for it.
Also no developer should have keys/fob access to the server room.
Re: (Score:2)
Its usually not that the developer thinks he is a better sysadmin than the actual sysadmin, it is that the developer is frustrated that the sysadmin won't help because it is a distraction from day to day operations. It is much easier to support the needs of standard users than it is to properly support the needs of developers (and testers). We often need to create our own private networks, create and destroy computer instances constantly, have virtual machines with dozens of OS/software configurations for t
Re: (Score:2)
Your sort of on track. What you really need is a properly set up lab environment that you have administrative access to. Your needs are perfectly legitimate, and you certainly need to be able to do the things you do in a timely manner. This is not an issue with administrators, but an issue with not having the lab set up correctly. This is what you need, I speak from the experience of setting these things up when I used to travel.
This is what your IT staff needs to set up for you for you in a proper enterpri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an ex-developer IT admin in a financial company with history in medical data, let me state this in other words: "IT guys who have to deal with information security are afraid for their own jobs when the company is slapped with a fine for letting confidential information leak out on some cloud service that got hacked, or when the vital business process doesn't work because of a power outage in another country, or when a minor connectivity disruption shuts down every business process everywhere."
Developers
Re: (Score:2)
In a well-functioning organization
Huh?
Re: (Score:2)
i've seen crap deployed by developers outside of IT input
it gets put on the oldest and crappiest server just because that's a name they have known for years
no backup gets done on the databases because IT has no idea they exist
half the time there is no DR or any kind of redundancy in case of hardware failure
and when it goes down they run to IT and scream how it's IT's responsibility to make it work
Re: (Score:2)
i've seen crap deployed by developers outside of IT input it gets put on the oldest and crappiest server just because that's a name they have known for years no backup gets done on the databases because IT has no idea they exist half the time there is no DR or any kind of redundancy in case of hardware failure
and when it goes down they run to IT and scream how it's IT's responsibility to make it work
Bad developers are bad developers, whether they are supported by classic IT or using the cloud. Great developers, however, don't do the nonsense you are referring to. They care a lot about security, DR, performance, availability, etc. It is this top tier developer that, given an API that procures new hardware, does not really need classic IT support.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes and no. There are many reasons for that. Information Security Laws, and control over costs would be two of the biggest things. Without control over the API, development, etc. of applications, how do you know you are running efficiently? How do you know you don't need only 2 server but are paying for 5 because of some coding mistake? Most professional IT organizations have architecture and capacity planning people who do this stuff and when a dev can do something unilaterally, irrespective of costs
cowboys like you (Score:5, Interesting)
I've reined in cowboys like you for years, from one fortune 500 to another. Arrogant jackasses that can't be bothered with change management, best practices, version control, documentation, pesky things like policies, regulations and laws. Self righteous developers that can't see past their own nose too see how thier actions or inactions affect those around them.
Every single time they think they are above these things and that they know better than the industry around them. They never realize why something that works in their special environment works perfectly fine where they have the rights of a God but has all kinds of mysterious errors in production where there they are brought back down to earth. They then chafe when their development environment is set up identical to production, yet it is amazing how quickly previous mysterious bugs that plagued production and caused incredible operational costs suddenly get fixed. They of course never have to clean up multi-million dollar messes, talk to regulatory agencies, sit down with lawyers to plan how to mitigate their mess or have a face to face with an angry Attorney General.
I've only won this argument and helped companies save millions by reining in the cowboys like yourself a couple dozen times. Probably something to do.with cleaning up large multi-million dollar messes more than once.
Re: (Score:3)
I've only won this argument and helped companies save millions by reining in the cowboys like yourself a couple dozen times.
Sounds like you should get paid pretty well for that. So instead of complaining, you should thank the OP and his ilk for helping to provide your paycheck. Next cops will complain about there being crooks. Some people don't understand where their bread is buttered.
Re: (Score:2)
My point of fact I have been paid well for reining in cowboys like him. I traveled for years as a consultant and while that wasn't my job as such, it was something that kept coming up. Point being that every time I have to deal with a cowboy it takes up time and energy to rein them in and bring them back town to earth.
I've never lost the argument, and I've never failed to rein in any department of developers, no matter how much they thought they were big shots. It's not about my ego though, it's about keep
Re: (Score:2)
I feel your pain, that's a large part of what I did was implementing the type of things your talking about needing. In fact it was setting up that kind of process and environment where I would run into the cowboys. IT is supposed to support and facilitate the business in meeting their needs. It should never be an obstacle or an impediment.
In order to do that you have to responsive to what the business needs in a timely manner. You can't take so long to implement something that the business works around you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love the cloud. I don't have to screw around with hardware and most of the real sysadmin tasks are harder in the cloud than on a real server, at least to do them right. It's perpetual job security. A developer wouldn't know a good configuration management system if it bit him. I take over projects all the time deployed by developers. Hand-crafted config files, no redundancy, no backup. It's hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you're a developer who's pouting because your IT department won't let you run amok.
As an IT pro, the cloud doesn't scare me. "The Cloud" just pushes the IT needs to different places. Sure, it might eliminate a few jobs here and there, but you're horribly misinformed if you think it removes the need for network engineers and support personnel. I've run into too many people who sign up for cloud services imagining that it will be an IT panacea, only to find that they now need someone to help t
What the hell is a "private cloud" (Score:2)
So the idea of "cloud computing" is that out there somewhere, a company has a helluva lot of computing resources (processing, disk, network). There's an abstraction layer between the physical hardware and the user, that lets you spin up virtual machines that consume fractions of this capacity. Because the cloud provider operates at such a large scale, it can guarantee that when you want to spin up a new virtual machine, there's the physical capacity there to back it.
But that depends on scale. Ok, so an indi
Congrats (Score:2)
You just did a story about businesses creating server rooms.
Ooooh... the cloud!
Different needs for different scales (Score:5, Insightful)
How hard is it to understand that the cost/benefit depends on your size?
Car analogy: If you're an individual who needs a car a couple of times a year, you rent one on those occasions. If you drive almost every day, you buy a car and you get it insured. If you're a small company, you give your travelling staff a car allowance. If you're a big company, you buy a company car scheme and insure all the cars under one policy. If you're a gigantic company, you self-insure all your staff's company cars.
Draw a graph of the cost vs scale of a third-party cloud, versus your own datacentre. At some point the graphs will cross. That's where you switch.
Re: (Score:2)
BS summary and title (Score:2)
It’s impossible to know whether a significant number of businesses are deserting AWS and public clouds in favor of private. My guess is there’s some movement as businesses get more experience in the cloud but certainly not enough to dent the potential of the public cloud. Still, the murmurs are an indication that AWS competitors are starting to get more aggressive.
That's exactly the kind of hard data nerds use to arrive at conclusions...
Regarding zombie servers (Score:2)
There are tools to deal with them, and were even recently featured on Slashdot: http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/01/07/1551231/netflix-open-sources-janitor-monkey-aws-cleanup-tool [slashdot.org]
So . . . what? (Score:1)
You ever get the feeling the term "cloud computing" was coined because people were desperate for something new while the economy was getting its legs back?
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty blatant ad posing as blog entry.... (Score:2)
....for OpenStack. C'mon, can you be a little less obvious next time?
Instances are ... (Score:2)
... last decade's processes. It's just a different environment to make ever more use of computers.
Random pricing (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus as a human I really like being able to reach out and touch my machines, even if I have to fly 5 hours to do it. So the flexibility of the cloud sounds really cool where the pricing is not so flexible. It would be nice to spool up an instance of a machine that isn't going to do much most of the time that doesn't actually use up a whole machine. But then when one machine starts to get pounded to give it some more juice. Plus upgrading your hardware would be much more of a dream. You move your most demanding servers to your hottest hardware and slide the idle servers over to the older crap. Plus restores and redundancy are a dream.
Then you still have the option to fully dedicate a machine in "realspace" to a demanding process. While VM does not have much overhead it does have some. So taking a server(s) that is being pushed to the maximum and sliding it onto bare metal will then allow your hardware to be used to maximum efficiency.
Then by having no real cost overhead to having more near idle machines spool up your developers can play interesting games. Maybe they want to see what your software will do with 20 MongoDB servers running instead of the current 3; or 200.
This all said, I am a fan of Linode; where I can predict my pricing very well.
Re: (Score:3)
While VM does not have much overhead it does have some.
This is the common view, but its a gross generalization. For some problems you won't be able to measure much of a difference. These problems tend to be problems that are low thread count (1-2 loaded threads) and have a high cache/TLB hit rate with few kernel interactions. On the other hand, applications pegging out more than 8 CPUs, or doing a lot of cacheline ping-ponging, etc tend to take a noticeable hit. Furthermore, applications that are doing a c
OF COURSE people at an OPENSTACK conference.... (Score:1)
Amazon has convinced many people they are cheap (Score:1)
Legal issues as well (Score:2)
It's usually "cleaner" if you either don't out-source sensitive data or if you out-source it in a way that is either 100% encrypted and you hold the only keys or if it's stored in an "identifiable" physical place ("it's on THAT set of hard drives, and it's being processed on THAT set of CPUs" etc.) that isn't shared with other users.
need one button click move feature (Score:1)
Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets [wikispeedia.org]