User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel23 - Revision history

Shawndouglas: Replaced content with "
TOC
{{ombox | type = notice | style = width: 960px; | text = This is sublevel23 of my sandbox, where I play with features and..."

2023-08-16T20:21:16Z

Replaced content with "<div class="nonumtoc">__TOC__</div> {{ombox | type = notice | style = width: 960px; | text = This is sublevel23 of my sandbox, where I play with features and..."

Show changes

Shawndouglas at 21:17, 15 August 2023

2023-08-15T21:17:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 15 August 2023
Line 36:		Line 36:
	What does all this mean for the average laboratory? At a minimum, there may be some benefit to having, for example, redundant data backup in the cloud, particularly if your lab feels that sensitive data can be safely moved to the cloud, and that there's overall cost savings long-term (vs. investing in local data storage). But that "either-or" view doesn't entirely address potential risks associated with vendor lock-in and the need for data availability and durability. As such, having data stored in multiple locations makes sense, even if that means moving data to two different cloud providers. With a bit of analysis of data access patterns and a solid understanding of your data types and sensitivities, it may be possible to make this sort of multicloud data storage more cost-effective.<ref name="WaibelCost17">{{cite journal \|title=Cost-optimized redundant data storage in the cloud \|journal=Service Oriented Computing and Applications \|author=Waibel, P.; Matt, J.; Hochreiner, C. et al. \|volume=11 \|pages=411–26 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1007/s11761-017-0218-9}}</ref> However, remember that the traceability of your data is also important, and if quality data goes into the cloud service, then it will be easier to find, in theory. As is, it's already a challenge for many laboratories to locate original data—particularly older data—and some labs still don't have clear data storage policies.<ref name="AndersonIts10_17">{{cite journal \|title=It's 10 pm; Do You Know Where Your Data Are? Data Provenance, Curation, and Storage \|journal=Circulation Research \|author=Anderson, M.E.; Ray, S.C. \|volume=120 \|issue=10 \|pages=1551-1554 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.310424 \|pmid=28495991 \|pmc=PMC5465863}}</ref> As such, any transition to the cloud should also be considering the value of reinforcing existing data management strategies or, forbid they don't exist, getting started on developing such strategies. In conjunction with reviewing or creating data management strategies, [[data cleansing]] may be required to make the data more meaningful, findable, and actionable.<ref name="AtlassianClean21">{{cite web \|url=https://support.atlassian.com/migration/docs/clean-up-your-server-instance-before-migration/ \|title=Clean up your server instance before migration \|work=Atlassian Support \|publisher=Atlassian \|date=17 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="SADASaysNine19">{{cite web \|url=https://sada.com/insights/blog/9-steps-for-migrating-databases-to-the-cloud/ \|title=9 STEPS FOR MIGRATING DATABASES TO THE CLOUD \|author=SADA Says \|publisher=SADA, Inc \|date=22 August 2019 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> This concept holds true even if a multicloud deployment doesn't make sense for you but a hybrid cloud deployment with local backups does. This hybrid approach may especially make sense if the lab uses a [[scientific data management system]] (SDMS). As Agilent notes, if you already have an on-premises SDMS, "extending the data storage capacity by connecting to a cloud storage location is a logical first step. This hybrid approach can use cloud storage in both a passive/active capacity while also taking advantage of turnkey archival solutions that the cloud offers."<ref name="AgilentCloud19" />		What does all this mean for the average laboratory? At a minimum, there may be some benefit to having, for example, redundant data backup in the cloud, particularly if your lab feels that sensitive data can be safely moved to the cloud, and that there's overall cost savings long-term (vs. investing in local data storage). But that "either-or" view doesn't entirely address potential risks associated with vendor lock-in and the need for data availability and durability. As such, having data stored in multiple locations makes sense, even if that means moving data to two different cloud providers. With a bit of analysis of data access patterns and a solid understanding of your data types and sensitivities, it may be possible to make this sort of multicloud data storage more cost-effective.<ref name="WaibelCost17">{{cite journal \|title=Cost-optimized redundant data storage in the cloud \|journal=Service Oriented Computing and Applications \|author=Waibel, P.; Matt, J.; Hochreiner, C. et al. \|volume=11 \|pages=411–26 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1007/s11761-017-0218-9}}</ref> However, remember that the traceability of your data is also important, and if quality data goes into the cloud service, then it will be easier to find, in theory. As is, it's already a challenge for many laboratories to locate original data—particularly older data—and some labs still don't have clear data storage policies.<ref name="AndersonIts10_17">{{cite journal \|title=It's 10 pm; Do You Know Where Your Data Are? Data Provenance, Curation, and Storage \|journal=Circulation Research \|author=Anderson, M.E.; Ray, S.C. \|volume=120 \|issue=10 \|pages=1551-1554 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.310424 \|pmid=28495991 \|pmc=PMC5465863}}</ref> As such, any transition to the cloud should also be considering the value of reinforcing existing data management strategies or, forbid they don't exist, getting started on developing such strategies. In conjunction with reviewing or creating data management strategies, [[data cleansing]] may be required to make the data more meaningful, findable, and actionable.<ref name="AtlassianClean21">{{cite web \|url=https://support.atlassian.com/migration/docs/clean-up-your-server-instance-before-migration/ \|title=Clean up your server instance before migration \|work=Atlassian Support \|publisher=Atlassian \|date=17 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="SADASaysNine19">{{cite web \|url=https://sada.com/insights/blog/9-steps-for-migrating-databases-to-the-cloud/ \|title=9 STEPS FOR MIGRATING DATABASES TO THE CLOUD \|author=SADA Says \|publisher=SADA, Inc \|date=22 August 2019 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> This concept holds true even if a multicloud deployment doesn't make sense for you but a hybrid cloud deployment with local backups does. This hybrid approach may especially make sense if the lab uses a [[scientific data management system]] (SDMS). As Agilent notes, if you already have an on-premises SDMS, "extending the data storage capacity by connecting to a cloud storage location is a logical first step. This hybrid approach can use cloud storage in both a passive/active capacity while also taking advantage of turnkey archival solutions that the cloud offers."<ref name="AgilentCloud19" />

	But what about the concept of vendor lock-in overall? How much should a laboratory worry about this scenario, particularly in regards to, for example, moving from an on-premises LIMS to one hosted in the cloud? Some like tech reporter Kimberley Mok, writing for ''Protocol'', argue that as major CSPs begin to make multicloud-friendly upgrades to their infrastructure, and as users perform more rigorous vetting of CSPs and migrate to more portable, containerized software solutions, the threat of vendor lock-in is gradually diminishing.<ref name="MokShould20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.protocol.com/manuals/new-enterprise/vendor-lockin-cloud-saas \|title=Should we really be worried about vendor lock-in in 2020? \|author=Mok, K. \|work=Protocol \|date=01 December 2020 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> However, business owners remain fearful. A summer 2020 survey published by business communications company Mitel found that among more than 1,100 European IT decision makers, a top contractual priority with a CSP was avoiding vendor lock-in; "46% of respondents [said they] want the ability to change provider quickly if the service contract is not fulfilled."<ref name="MitelCloud20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.mitel.com/en-gb/about/newsroom/press-releases/european-companies-show-newfound-maturity \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20211204082428/https://www.mitel.com/en-gb/about/newsroom/press-releases/european-companies-show-newfound-maturity \|title=Cloud Communications: European Companies Show Newfound Maturity \|publisher=Mitel \|date=20 July 2020 \|archivedate=04 December 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref>		But what about the concept of vendor lock-in overall? How much should a laboratory worry about this scenario, particularly in regards to, for example, moving from an on-premises LIMS to one hosted in the cloud? Some like tech reporter Kimberley Mok, writing for ''Protocol'', argue that as major CSPs begin to make multicloud-friendly upgrades to their infrastructure, and as users perform more rigorous vetting of CSPs and migrate to more portable, containerized software solutions, the threat of vendor lock-in is gradually diminishing.<ref name="MokShould20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.protocol.com/manuals/new-enterprise/vendor-lockin-cloud-saas \|title=Should we really be worried about vendor lock-in in 2020? \|author=Mok, K. \|work=Protocol \|date=01 December 2020 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> However, business owners remain fearful. A summer 2020 survey published by business communications company Mitel found that among more than 1,100 European IT decision makers, a top contractual priority with a CSP was avoiding vendor lock-in; "46 percent of respondents [said they] want the ability to change provider quickly if the service contract is not fulfilled."<ref name="MitelCloud20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.mitel.com/en-gb/about/newsroom/press-releases/european-companies-show-newfound-maturity \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20211204082428/https://www.mitel.com/en-gb/about/newsroom/press-releases/european-companies-show-newfound-maturity \|title=Cloud Communications: European Companies Show Newfound Maturity \|publisher=Mitel \|date=20 July 2020 \|archivedate=04 December 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> HashiCorp's third annual ''State of Cloud Strategy Survey'' in 2023 found that 48 percent of respondents thought single-vendor lock-in was driving multicloud adoption, further highlighting an increasing concern among businesses turning to the cloud.<ref name="PaulHashi23">{{cite web \|url=https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-state-of-cloud-strategy-survey-2023-the-tech-sector-perspective \|title=HashiCorp State of Cloud Strategy Survey 2023: The tech sector perspective \|author=Paul, F. \|publisher=HashiCorp \|date=24 July 2023 \|accessdate=15 August 2023}}</ref>

	In the end, the laboratory will have to come down to a crucial decision: do we outsource services to several specialists (i.e., disaggregation) or stick to one, risking vendor lock-in? U.K. business software developer Advanced's chief product officer Amanda Grant provides this insight<ref name="IsmailHowTo20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.information-age.com/how-to-avoid-cloud-vendor-lock-in-advantage-multi-cloud-16437/ \|title=How to avoid cloud vendor lock-in and take advantage of multi-cloud \|work=InformationAge \|date=2023 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref>:		In the end, the laboratory will have to come down to a crucial decision: do we outsource services to several specialists (i.e., disaggregation) or stick to one, risking vendor lock-in? U.K. business software developer Advanced's chief product officer Amanda Grant provides this insight<ref name="IsmailHowTo20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.information-age.com/how-to-avoid-cloud-vendor-lock-in-advantage-multi-cloud-16437/ \|title=How to avoid cloud vendor lock-in and take advantage of multi-cloud \|work=InformationAge \|date=2023 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref>:

Shawndouglas at 21:03, 15 August 2023

2023-08-15T21:03:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 15 August 2023
Line 30:		Line 30:
	* How portable or transferable are your data and applications when needing to move them from one cloud service to another, as well as to and from your on-premises solutions?		* How portable or transferable are your data and applications when needing to move them from one cloud service to another, as well as to and from your on-premises solutions?

	These two questions, along with the vendor lock-in conundrum, are illustrated well in the ongoing saga of the Pentagon's JEDI project. The Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) project was officially kicked into gear in 2018 with a request for proposal (RFP), seeking to find a singular cloud computing provider to help usher in a new cloud-based era for Defense Department operations. The adamancy towards choosing only one CSP, despite the sheer enormity of the contract, quickly raised the eyebrows or watchdogs and major industry players even before the RFP was released. Claims of one provider having too much influence over government IT, as well an already skewed bidding process in favor of Amazon, complicated matters further.<ref name="GreggPent18">{{cite web \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/pentagon-doubles-down-on-single-cloud-strategy-for-10-billion-contract/2018/08/05/352cfee8-972b-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180807051800if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/pentagon-doubles-down-on-single-cloud-strategy-for-10-billion-contract/2018/08/05/352cfee8-972b-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?utm_term=.130ed427f134 \|title=Pentagon doubles down on ‘single-cloud’ strategy for $10 billion contract \|author=Gregg, A. \|work=The Washington Post \|date=05 August 2018 \|archivedate=07 August 2018 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> Defending the stance of choosing only one CSP, the Digital Defense Service's deputy director Tim Van Name cited an "overall complexity" increase that would come from awarding the RFP to multiple CSPs, given the challenges already inherent to Defense Department data management in and out of the battlefield. Van Name also cited a "lack of standardization and interoperability" of complex cloud deployments as another barrier to accessing data when and where they need it.<ref name="MitchellDoD18">{{cite web \|url=https://www.fedscoop.com/dod-pentagon-jedi-cloud-contract-single-award/ \|title=DOD defends its decision to move to commercial cloud with a single award \|author=Mitchell, B. \|work=FedScoop \|date=08 March 2018 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> This has inevitably led to a number of lawsuits before and after Microsoft was awarded the contract~~, which has dragged on into the first quarter of 2021~~. With legal battles raging and an overarching "urgent, unmet requirement" by the Defense Department still not being realized because of the litigation, the government is rumored to be considering taking a loss on the single-vendor JEDI plan and moving forward with a multicloud plan, particularly with the departure of senior officials who originally backed the single cloud proposal.<ref name="GreggWithA21">{{cite web \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/10/jedi-contract-pentagon-biden/ \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210211065108if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/10/jedi-contract-pentagon-biden/ \|title=With a $10 billion cloud-computing deal snarled in court, the Pentagon may move forward without it \|author=Gregg, A. \|work=The Washington Post \|date=10 February 2021 \|archivedate=11 February 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="AlspachMicro21">{{cite web \|url=https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/microsoft-could-lose-jedi-contract-if-aws-case-isn-t-dismissed-report \|title=Microsoft Could Lose JEDI Contract If AWS Case Isn’t Dismissed: Report \|author=Alspach, K. \|work=CRN \|date=05 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="NixMicro21">{{cite web \|url=https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsofts-10-billion-pentagon-deal-at-risk-amid-amazon-fight/ \|title=Microsoft’s $10 billion Pentagon deal at risk amid Amazon fight \|author=Nix, N. \|work=The Seattle Times \|date=07 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> The success of the CIA's C2E cloud-based program, which was awarded to five cloud providers, may ~~prove~~ to be a further catalyst.<ref name="~~GreggPent18~~" />		These two questions, along with the vendor lock-in conundrum, are illustrated well in the ongoing saga of the Pentagon's JEDI project. The Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) project was officially kicked into gear in 2018 with a request for proposal (RFP), seeking to find a singular cloud computing provider to help usher in a new cloud-based era for Defense Department operations. The adamancy towards choosing only one CSP, despite the sheer enormity of the contract, quickly raised the eyebrows or watchdogs and major industry players even before the RFP was released. Claims of one provider having too much influence over government IT, as well an already skewed bidding process in favor of Amazon, complicated matters further.<ref name="GreggPent18">{{cite web \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/pentagon-doubles-down-on-single-cloud-strategy-for-10-billion-contract/2018/08/05/352cfee8-972b-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20180807051800if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/pentagon-doubles-down-on-single-cloud-strategy-for-10-billion-contract/2018/08/05/352cfee8-972b-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?utm_term=.130ed427f134 \|title=Pentagon doubles down on ‘single-cloud’ strategy for $10 billion contract \|author=Gregg, A. \|work=The Washington Post \|date=05 August 2018 \|archivedate=07 August 2018 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> Defending the stance of choosing only one CSP, the Digital Defense Service's deputy director Tim Van Name cited an "overall complexity" increase that would come from awarding the RFP to multiple CSPs, given the challenges already inherent to Defense Department data management in and out of the battlefield. Van Name also cited a "lack of standardization and interoperability" of complex cloud deployments as another barrier to accessing data when and where they need it.<ref name="MitchellDoD18">{{cite web \|url=https://www.fedscoop.com/dod-pentagon-jedi-cloud-contract-single-award/ \|title=DOD defends its decision to move to commercial cloud with a single award \|author=Mitchell, B. \|work=FedScoop \|date=08 March 2018 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> This has inevitably led to a number of lawsuits before and after Microsoft was awarded the contract. With legal battles raging and an overarching "urgent, unmet requirement" by the Defense Department still not being realized because of the litigation, the government was rumored to be considering taking a loss on the single-vendor JEDI plan and moving forward with a multicloud plan, particularly with the departure of senior officials who originally backed the single cloud proposal.<ref name="GreggWithA21">{{cite web \|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/10/jedi-contract-pentagon-biden/ \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20210211065108if_/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/02/10/jedi-contract-pentagon-biden/ \|title=With a $10 billion cloud-computing deal snarled in court, the Pentagon may move forward without it \|author=Gregg, A. \|work=The Washington Post \|date=10 February 2021 \|archivedate=11 February 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="AlspachMicro21">{{cite web \|url=https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/microsoft-could-lose-jedi-contract-if-aws-case-isn-t-dismissed-report \|title=Microsoft Could Lose JEDI Contract If AWS Case Isn’t Dismissed: Report \|author=Alspach, K. \|work=CRN \|date=05 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="NixMicro21">{{cite web \|url=https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsofts-10-billion-pentagon-deal-at-risk-amid-amazon-fight/ \|title=Microsoft’s $10 billion Pentagon deal at risk amid Amazon fight \|author=Nix, N. \|work=The Seattle Times \|date=07 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> The success of the CIA's C2E cloud-based program, which was awarded to five cloud providers, may have proven to be a further catalyst<ref name="GreggPent18" />, as by July 2021, the JEDI project was finally pulled by the DoD<ref name="MillerNobody21">{{cite web \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/07/06/nobody-wins-as-dod-finally-pulls-the-plug-on-controversial-10b-jedi-contract/ \|title=Nobody wins as DoD finally pulls the plug on controversial $10B JEDI contract \|author=Miller, R. \|work=TechCrunch \|date=06 July 2021 \|accessdate=15 August 2023}}</ref> and related lawsuits by Amazon were dismissed.<ref name="ShepardsonUSJudge21">{{cite web \|url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-ends-amazon-challenge-10-bln-cloud-contract-after-pentagon-cancellation-2021-07-09/ \|title=U.S. judge ends Amazon challenge to $10 bln cloud contract after Pentagon cancellation \|author=Shepardson, D. \|work=Reuters \|date=09 July 2021 \|accessdate=15 August 2023}}</ref> Almost immediately afterwards, the DoD announced a new proposal, the Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability (JWCC) project, with a rough projection of being awarded to multiple vendors by April 2022.<ref name="ShepardsonUSJudge21" /> The DoD limited bids to four vendors—Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle—with all four gaining a piece of the indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract by December 2022.<ref name="MillerPent21">{{cite web \|url=https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/19/pentagon-announces-new-cloud-initiative-to-replace-ill-fated-jedi-contract/ \|title=Pentagon announces new cloud initiative to replace ill-fated JEDI contract \|author=Miller, R. \|work=TechCrunch \|date=19 November 2021 \|accessdate=15 August 2023}}</ref><ref name="LopezDepart22">{{cite web \|url=https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3243483/department-names-vendors-to-provide-joint-warfighting-cloud-capability/ \|title=Department Names Vendors to Provide Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability \|author=Lopez, C.T. \|work=DoD News \|publisher=U.S. Department of Defense \|date=12 December 2022 \|accessdate=15 August 2023}}</ref> An April 2023 report in ''SIGNAL'' on the JWCC provided further insight on the unique approach to the contract, highlighting that despite all the stated complexity, some definitive benefits emerge from a multicloud arrangement<ref name="UnderwoodTheJoint23">{{cite web \|url=https://www.afcea.org/signal-media/defense-operations/joint-warfighting-cloud-capability-breaking-barriers \|title=The Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability Is Breaking Barriers \|author=Underwood, K. \|work=SIGNAL \|date=17 April 2023 \|accessdate=15 August 2023}}</ref>:

			<blockquote>Officials structured the JWCC vehicle to be a one enterprise contract and set up direct relationships with the cloud service providers (CSPs)—which is unique. [Hosting and Compute Center] works with DoD customers to shape their cloud service requirements and interacts directly with the four private sector cloud companies on the contract, instead via a third-party ... 'No contract in the department has that direct relationship with the CSPs,' McArthur said. 'Having that single point to be able to go to the vendors and be able to [interact with them] when it comes to meeting capabilities, needing to drive cost parity or cybersecurity incidents, those are groundbreaking things for the department at large.'</blockquote>

	What does all this mean for the average laboratory? At a minimum, there may be some benefit to having, for example, redundant data backup in the cloud, particularly if your lab feels that sensitive data can be safely moved to the cloud, and that there's overall cost savings long-term (vs. investing in local data storage). But that "either-or" view doesn't entirely address potential risks associated with vendor lock-in and the need for data availability and durability. As such, having data stored in multiple locations makes sense, even if that means moving data to two different cloud providers. With a bit of analysis of data access patterns and a solid understanding of your data types and sensitivities, it may be possible to make this sort of multicloud data storage more cost-effective.<ref name="WaibelCost17">{{cite journal \|title=Cost-optimized redundant data storage in the cloud \|journal=Service Oriented Computing and Applications \|author=Waibel, P.; Matt, J.; Hochreiner, C. et al. \|volume=11 \|pages=411–26 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1007/s11761-017-0218-9}}</ref> However, remember that the traceability of your data is also important, and if quality data goes into the cloud service, then it will be easier to find, in theory. As is, it's already a challenge for many laboratories to locate original data—particularly older data—and some labs still don't have clear data storage policies.<ref name="AndersonIts10_17">{{cite journal \|title=It's 10 pm; Do You Know Where Your Data Are? Data Provenance, Curation, and Storage \|journal=Circulation Research \|author=Anderson, M.E.; Ray, S.C. \|volume=120 \|issue=10 \|pages=1551-1554 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.310424 \|pmid=28495991 \|pmc=PMC5465863}}</ref> As such, any transition to the cloud should also be considering the value of reinforcing existing data management strategies or, forbid they don't exist, getting started on developing such strategies. In conjunction with reviewing or creating data management strategies, [[data cleansing]] may be required to make the data more meaningful, findable, and actionable.<ref name="AtlassianClean21">{{cite web \|url=https://support.atlassian.com/migration/docs/clean-up-your-server-instance-before-migration/ \|title=Clean up your server instance before migration \|work=Atlassian Support \|publisher=Atlassian \|date=17 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="SADASaysNine19">{{cite web \|url=https://sada.com/insights/blog/9-steps-for-migrating-databases-to-the-cloud/ \|title=9 STEPS FOR MIGRATING DATABASES TO THE CLOUD \|author=SADA Says \|publisher=SADA, Inc \|date=22 August 2019 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> This concept holds true even if a multicloud deployment doesn't make sense for you but a hybrid cloud deployment with local backups does. This hybrid approach may especially make sense if the lab uses a [[scientific data management system]] (SDMS). As Agilent notes, if you already have an on-premises SDMS, "extending the data storage capacity by connecting to a cloud storage location is a logical first step. This hybrid approach can use cloud storage in both a passive/active capacity while also taking advantage of turnkey archival solutions that the cloud offers."<ref name="AgilentCloud19" />		What does all this mean for the average laboratory? At a minimum, there may be some benefit to having, for example, redundant data backup in the cloud, particularly if your lab feels that sensitive data can be safely moved to the cloud, and that there's overall cost savings long-term (vs. investing in local data storage). But that "either-or" view doesn't entirely address potential risks associated with vendor lock-in and the need for data availability and durability. As such, having data stored in multiple locations makes sense, even if that means moving data to two different cloud providers. With a bit of analysis of data access patterns and a solid understanding of your data types and sensitivities, it may be possible to make this sort of multicloud data storage more cost-effective.<ref name="WaibelCost17">{{cite journal \|title=Cost-optimized redundant data storage in the cloud \|journal=Service Oriented Computing and Applications \|author=Waibel, P.; Matt, J.; Hochreiner, C. et al. \|volume=11 \|pages=411–26 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1007/s11761-017-0218-9}}</ref> However, remember that the traceability of your data is also important, and if quality data goes into the cloud service, then it will be easier to find, in theory. As is, it's already a challenge for many laboratories to locate original data—particularly older data—and some labs still don't have clear data storage policies.<ref name="AndersonIts10_17">{{cite journal \|title=It's 10 pm; Do You Know Where Your Data Are? Data Provenance, Curation, and Storage \|journal=Circulation Research \|author=Anderson, M.E.; Ray, S.C. \|volume=120 \|issue=10 \|pages=1551-1554 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.310424 \|pmid=28495991 \|pmc=PMC5465863}}</ref> As such, any transition to the cloud should also be considering the value of reinforcing existing data management strategies or, forbid they don't exist, getting started on developing such strategies. In conjunction with reviewing or creating data management strategies, [[data cleansing]] may be required to make the data more meaningful, findable, and actionable.<ref name="AtlassianClean21">{{cite web \|url=https://support.atlassian.com/migration/docs/clean-up-your-server-instance-before-migration/ \|title=Clean up your server instance before migration \|work=Atlassian Support \|publisher=Atlassian \|date=17 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="SADASaysNine19">{{cite web \|url=https://sada.com/insights/blog/9-steps-for-migrating-databases-to-the-cloud/ \|title=9 STEPS FOR MIGRATING DATABASES TO THE CLOUD \|author=SADA Says \|publisher=SADA, Inc \|date=22 August 2019 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> This concept holds true even if a multicloud deployment doesn't make sense for you but a hybrid cloud deployment with local backups does. This hybrid approach may especially make sense if the lab uses a [[scientific data management system]] (SDMS). As Agilent notes, if you already have an on-premises SDMS, "extending the data storage capacity by connecting to a cloud storage location is a logical first step. This hybrid approach can use cloud storage in both a passive/active capacity while also taking advantage of turnkey archival solutions that the cloud offers."<ref name="AgilentCloud19" />

Shawndouglas at 19:58, 26 July 2023

2023-07-26T19:58:03Z

Show changes

Shawndouglas: Blanked the page

2022-05-05T21:24:06Z

Blanked the page

Show changes

Shawndouglas at 22:50, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T22:50:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 4 May 2022
Line 346:		Line 346:
	\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi ONC USCDI v2]		\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi ONC USCDI v2]
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''22.4''' The system should support the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) v2 standard, which in turn supports data interoperability across multiple clinical settings.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''22.4''' The system should support the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) v2 standard, which in turn supports data interoperability across multiple clinical settings.
	\|-		\|-
	\|}		\|}
	\|}		\|}

Shawndouglas at 17:34, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T17:34:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 4 May 2022
Line 193:		Line 193:
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''19.1''' The system should be able to create or convert an XML or XLS file to ORA DX template specifications, including the use of ORA DX terminology.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''19.1''' The system should be able to create or convert an XML or XLS file to ORA DX template specifications, including the use of ORA DX terminology.
	\|-		\|-
	\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdp-standard-operating-procedures USDA Sampling Procedures for PDP 5.3]<br />[https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdp-standard-operating-procedures USDA Sampling Procedures for PDP 6.2]		\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.pfp-ifss.org/ifss-resources/human-and-animal-food-testing-laboratories-best-practices-manual-december-2018/ PFP Human and Animal Food Testing Laboratories Best Practices Manual]<br />[https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdp-standard-operating-procedures USDA Sampling Procedures for PDP 5.3]<br />[https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdp-standard-operating-procedures USDA Sampling Procedures for PDP 6.2]
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''19.2''' The system shall allow for the assignment of the "regulatory sample collection" role and be able to produce a list of individuals in said role, including information such as name, locations assigned, part- or full-time role, and full-time equivalents (if any) used to meet any regulatory requirements.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''19.2''' The system shall allow for the assignment of the "regulatory sample collection" role and be able to produce a list of individuals in said role, including information such as name, locations assigned, part- or full-time role, and full-time equivalents (if any) used to meet any regulatory requirements.
	\|-		\|-

Shawndouglas at 15:42, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T15:42:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 4 May 2022
Line 345:		Line 345:
	\|-		\|-
	\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi ONC USCDI v2]		\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi ONC USCDI v2]
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''22.4''' The system ~~supports~~ the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) v2 standard, which in turn supports data interoperability across multiple clinical settings.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''22.4''' The system should support the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) v2 standard, which in turn supports data interoperability across multiple clinical settings.
	\|-		\|-
	\|}		\|}

Shawndouglas at 15:41, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T15:41:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 4 May 2022
Line 343:		Line 343:
	\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://clsi.org/standards/products/quality-management-systems/documents/qms22/ CLSI QMS22 2.1.2.3]		\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://clsi.org/standards/products/quality-management-systems/documents/qms22/ CLSI QMS22 2.1.2.3]
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''22.3''' The system should be able to collect sufficient test utilization information to make necessity checks on ordered tests against established benchmarks.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''22.3''' The system should be able to collect sufficient test utilization information to make necessity checks on ordered tests against established benchmarks.
			\|-
			\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.healthit.gov/isa/united-states-core-data-interoperability-uscdi ONC USCDI v2]
			\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''22.4''' The system supports the United States Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) v2 standard, which in turn supports data interoperability across multiple clinical settings.
	\|-		\|-
	\|}		\|}

Shawndouglas at 23:34, 3 May 2022

2022-05-03T23:34:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 3 May 2022
Line 286:		Line 286:
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''21.9''' If the system provides remote access to authorized users over authorized devices, the remote access shall be monitored, controlled and documented, particularly for privileged functions. If remote access to privileged functions is allowed, virtual escorting that meets CJIS Security Policy 5.5.6 conditions will be required.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''21.9''' If the system provides remote access to authorized users over authorized devices, the remote access shall be monitored, controlled and documented, particularly for privileged functions. If remote access to privileged functions is allowed, virtual escorting that meets CJIS Security Policy 5.5.6 conditions will be required.
	\|-		\|-
	\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/cjis-security-policy-resource-center CJIS Security Policy 5.6.2.1.1.1–2]<br />[https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/cjis-security-policy-resource-center CJIS Security Policy 5.6.2.1.2–3]<br />[https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-53/rev-5/final NIST 800-53, Rev. 5, IA-5(4) ]<br />		\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/cjis-security-policy-resource-center CJIS Security Policy 5.6.2.1.1.1–2]<br />[https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/cjis-security-policy-resource-center CJIS Security Policy 5.6.2.1.2–3]<br />[https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-53/rev-5/final NIST 800-53, Rev. 5, IA-5(1) ]<br />
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''21.10''' The system shall be capable of putting into place, in their entirety, either the "basic password standards" or "advanced password standards" described in CJIS Security Policy 5.6.2.1.1.1 and 5.6.2.1.1.2. If PIN and/or one-time password is also used, the attributes in 5.6.2.1.2 and 5.6.2.1.3 shall also be required.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''21.10''' The system shall be capable of putting into place, in their entirety, either the "basic password standards" or "advanced password standards" described in CJIS Security Policy 5.6.2.1.1.1 and 5.6.2.1.1.2. If PIN and/or one-time password is also used, the attributes in 5.6.2.1.2 and 5.6.2.1.3 shall also be required.
	\|-		\|-
Line 311:		Line 311:
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''21.16''' The system should provide separate processing domains in order to not only allow for more granular allocation of user privileges, but also to prevent one process from modifying the executing code of another process.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''21.16''' The system should provide separate processing domains in order to not only allow for more granular allocation of user privileges, but also to prevent one process from modifying the executing code of another process.
	\|-		\|-
	\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-53/rev-5/final NIST 800-53, Rev. 5, IA-2(12), IA-5(11), and IA-8(1)]		\| style="padding:5px; width:500px;" \|[https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-53/rev-5/final NIST 800-53, Rev. 5, IA-2(1–2), IA-2(12), and IA-8(1)]
	\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''21.17''' The system should support the use of personal identity verification—a U.S. Federal government-wide credential system—and other forms of hardware-based (i.e., public key infrastructure or PKI) token authentication, while electronically verifying those credentials and any configured token quality requirements.		\| style="background-color:white;" \|'''21.17''' The system should support the use of personal identity verification—a U.S. Federal government-wide credential system—and other forms of hardware-based (i.e., public key infrastructure or PKI) token authentication, while electronically verifying those credentials and any configured token quality requirements.
	\|-		\|-

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 15 August 2023
Line 36:		Line 36:
	What does all this mean for the average laboratory? At a minimum, there may be some benefit to having, for example, redundant data backup in the cloud, particularly if your lab feels that sensitive data can be safely moved to the cloud, and that there's overall cost savings long-term (vs. investing in local data storage). But that "either-or" view doesn't entirely address potential risks associated with vendor lock-in and the need for data availability and durability. As such, having data stored in multiple locations makes sense, even if that means moving data to two different cloud providers. With a bit of analysis of data access patterns and a solid understanding of your data types and sensitivities, it may be possible to make this sort of multicloud data storage more cost-effective.<ref name="WaibelCost17">{{cite journal \|title=Cost-optimized redundant data storage in the cloud \|journal=Service Oriented Computing and Applications \|author=Waibel, P.; Matt, J.; Hochreiner, C. et al. \|volume=11 \|pages=411–26 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1007/s11761-017-0218-9}}</ref> However, remember that the traceability of your data is also important, and if quality data goes into the cloud service, then it will be easier to find, in theory. As is, it's already a challenge for many laboratories to locate original data—particularly older data—and some labs still don't have clear data storage policies.<ref name="AndersonIts10_17">{{cite journal \|title=It's 10 pm; Do You Know Where Your Data Are? Data Provenance, Curation, and Storage \|journal=Circulation Research \|author=Anderson, M.E.; Ray, S.C. \|volume=120 \|issue=10 \|pages=1551-1554 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.310424 \|pmid=28495991 \|pmc=PMC5465863}}</ref> As such, any transition to the cloud should also be considering the value of reinforcing existing data management strategies or, forbid they don't exist, getting started on developing such strategies. In conjunction with reviewing or creating data management strategies, [[data cleansing]] may be required to make the data more meaningful, findable, and actionable.<ref name="AtlassianClean21">{{cite web \|url=https://support.atlassian.com/migration/docs/clean-up-your-server-instance-before-migration/ \|title=Clean up your server instance before migration \|work=Atlassian Support \|publisher=Atlassian \|date=17 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="SADASaysNine19">{{cite web \|url=https://sada.com/insights/blog/9-steps-for-migrating-databases-to-the-cloud/ \|title=9 STEPS FOR MIGRATING DATABASES TO THE CLOUD \|author=SADA Says \|publisher=SADA, Inc \|date=22 August 2019 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> This concept holds true even if a multicloud deployment doesn't make sense for you but a hybrid cloud deployment with local backups does. This hybrid approach may especially make sense if the lab uses a [[scientific data management system]] (SDMS). As Agilent notes, if you already have an on-premises SDMS, "extending the data storage capacity by connecting to a cloud storage location is a logical first step. This hybrid approach can use cloud storage in both a passive/active capacity while also taking advantage of turnkey archival solutions that the cloud offers."<ref name="AgilentCloud19" />		What does all this mean for the average laboratory? At a minimum, there may be some benefit to having, for example, redundant data backup in the cloud, particularly if your lab feels that sensitive data can be safely moved to the cloud, and that there's overall cost savings long-term (vs. investing in local data storage). But that "either-or" view doesn't entirely address potential risks associated with vendor lock-in and the need for data availability and durability. As such, having data stored in multiple locations makes sense, even if that means moving data to two different cloud providers. With a bit of analysis of data access patterns and a solid understanding of your data types and sensitivities, it may be possible to make this sort of multicloud data storage more cost-effective.<ref name="WaibelCost17">{{cite journal \|title=Cost-optimized redundant data storage in the cloud \|journal=Service Oriented Computing and Applications \|author=Waibel, P.; Matt, J.; Hochreiner, C. et al. \|volume=11 \|pages=411–26 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1007/s11761-017-0218-9}}</ref> However, remember that the traceability of your data is also important, and if quality data goes into the cloud service, then it will be easier to find, in theory. As is, it's already a challenge for many laboratories to locate original data—particularly older data—and some labs still don't have clear data storage policies.<ref name="AndersonIts10_17">{{cite journal \|title=It's 10 pm; Do You Know Where Your Data Are? Data Provenance, Curation, and Storage \|journal=Circulation Research \|author=Anderson, M.E.; Ray, S.C. \|volume=120 \|issue=10 \|pages=1551-1554 \|year=2017 \|doi=10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.310424 \|pmid=28495991 \|pmc=PMC5465863}}</ref> As such, any transition to the cloud should also be considering the value of reinforcing existing data management strategies or, forbid they don't exist, getting started on developing such strategies. In conjunction with reviewing or creating data management strategies, [[data cleansing]] may be required to make the data more meaningful, findable, and actionable.<ref name="AtlassianClean21">{{cite web \|url=https://support.atlassian.com/migration/docs/clean-up-your-server-instance-before-migration/ \|title=Clean up your server instance before migration \|work=Atlassian Support \|publisher=Atlassian \|date=17 March 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref><ref name="SADASaysNine19">{{cite web \|url=https://sada.com/insights/blog/9-steps-for-migrating-databases-to-the-cloud/ \|title=9 STEPS FOR MIGRATING DATABASES TO THE CLOUD \|author=SADA Says \|publisher=SADA, Inc \|date=22 August 2019 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> This concept holds true even if a multicloud deployment doesn't make sense for you but a hybrid cloud deployment with local backups does. This hybrid approach may especially make sense if the lab uses a [[scientific data management system]] (SDMS). As Agilent notes, if you already have an on-premises SDMS, "extending the data storage capacity by connecting to a cloud storage location is a logical first step. This hybrid approach can use cloud storage in both a passive/active capacity while also taking advantage of turnkey archival solutions that the cloud offers."<ref name="AgilentCloud19" />

	But what about the concept of vendor lock-in overall? How much should a laboratory worry about this scenario, particularly in regards to, for example, moving from an on-premises LIMS to one hosted in the cloud? Some like tech reporter Kimberley Mok, writing for ''Protocol'', argue that as major CSPs begin to make multicloud-friendly upgrades to their infrastructure, and as users perform more rigorous vetting of CSPs and migrate to more portable, containerized software solutions, the threat of vendor lock-in is gradually diminishing.<ref name="MokShould20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.protocol.com/manuals/new-enterprise/vendor-lockin-cloud-saas \|title=Should we really be worried about vendor lock-in in 2020? \|author=Mok, K. \|work=Protocol \|date=01 December 2020 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> However, business owners remain fearful. A summer 2020 survey published by business communications company Mitel found that among more than 1,100 European IT decision makers, a top contractual priority with a CSP was avoiding vendor lock-in; "46% of respondents [said they] want the ability to change provider quickly if the service contract is not fulfilled."<ref name="MitelCloud20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.mitel.com/en-gb/about/newsroom/press-releases/european-companies-show-newfound-maturity \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20211204082428/https://www.mitel.com/en-gb/about/newsroom/press-releases/european-companies-show-newfound-maturity \|title=Cloud Communications: European Companies Show Newfound Maturity \|publisher=Mitel \|date=20 July 2020 \|archivedate=04 December 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref>		But what about the concept of vendor lock-in overall? How much should a laboratory worry about this scenario, particularly in regards to, for example, moving from an on-premises LIMS to one hosted in the cloud? Some like tech reporter Kimberley Mok, writing for ''Protocol'', argue that as major CSPs begin to make multicloud-friendly upgrades to their infrastructure, and as users perform more rigorous vetting of CSPs and migrate to more portable, containerized software solutions, the threat of vendor lock-in is gradually diminishing.<ref name="MokShould20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.protocol.com/manuals/new-enterprise/vendor-lockin-cloud-saas \|title=Should we really be worried about vendor lock-in in 2020? \|author=Mok, K. \|work=Protocol \|date=01 December 2020 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> However, business owners remain fearful. A summer 2020 survey published by business communications company Mitel found that among more than 1,100 European IT decision makers, a top contractual priority with a CSP was avoiding vendor lock-in; "46 percent of respondents [said they] want the ability to change provider quickly if the service contract is not fulfilled."<ref name="MitelCloud20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.mitel.com/en-gb/about/newsroom/press-releases/european-companies-show-newfound-maturity \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20211204082428/https://www.mitel.com/en-gb/about/newsroom/press-releases/european-companies-show-newfound-maturity \|title=Cloud Communications: European Companies Show Newfound Maturity \|publisher=Mitel \|date=20 July 2020 \|archivedate=04 December 2021 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref> HashiCorp's third annual ''State of Cloud Strategy Survey'' in 2023 found that 48 percent of respondents thought single-vendor lock-in was driving multicloud adoption, further highlighting an increasing concern among businesses turning to the cloud.<ref name="PaulHashi23">{{cite web \|url=https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-state-of-cloud-strategy-survey-2023-the-tech-sector-perspective \|title=HashiCorp State of Cloud Strategy Survey 2023: The tech sector perspective \|author=Paul, F. \|publisher=HashiCorp \|date=24 July 2023 \|accessdate=15 August 2023}}</ref>

	In the end, the laboratory will have to come down to a crucial decision: do we outsource services to several specialists (i.e., disaggregation) or stick to one, risking vendor lock-in? U.K. business software developer Advanced's chief product officer Amanda Grant provides this insight<ref name="IsmailHowTo20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.information-age.com/how-to-avoid-cloud-vendor-lock-in-advantage-multi-cloud-16437/ \|title=How to avoid cloud vendor lock-in and take advantage of multi-cloud \|work=InformationAge \|date=2023 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref>:		In the end, the laboratory will have to come down to a crucial decision: do we outsource services to several specialists (i.e., disaggregation) or stick to one, risking vendor lock-in? U.K. business software developer Advanced's chief product officer Amanda Grant provides this insight<ref name="IsmailHowTo20">{{cite web \|url=https://www.information-age.com/how-to-avoid-cloud-vendor-lock-in-advantage-multi-cloud-16437/ \|title=How to avoid cloud vendor lock-in and take advantage of multi-cloud \|work=InformationAge \|date=2023 \|accessdate=28 July 2023}}</ref>:

User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel23 - Revision history

Shawndouglas: Replaced content with "__TOC__ {{ombox | type = notice | style = width: 960px; | text = This is sublevel23 of my sandbox, where I play with features and..."

Shawndouglas at 21:17, 15 August 2023

Shawndouglas at 21:03, 15 August 2023

Shawndouglas at 19:58, 26 July 2023

Shawndouglas: Blanked the page

Shawndouglas at 22:50, 4 May 2022

Shawndouglas at 17:34, 4 May 2022

Shawndouglas at 15:42, 4 May 2022

Shawndouglas at 15:41, 4 May 2022

Shawndouglas at 23:34, 3 May 2022

Shawndouglas: Replaced content with "
TOC
{{ombox | type = notice | style = width: 960px; | text = This is sublevel23 of my sandbox, where I play with features and..."