A college course on identifying BS

Read an article the other day from Recode (These University of Washington professors teaching a course on Calling BS) that seems very timely. The syllabus is online (Calling Bullshit — Syllabus) and it looks like a great start on identifying falsehood wherever it can be found.

In the beginning, what’s BS?

The course syllabus starts out referencing Brandolini’s Bullshit Asymmetry Principal (Law): the amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

Then it goes into a rather lengthy definition of BS from Harry Frankfort’s 1986 On Bullshit article. In sum, it starts out reviewing a previous author’s discussions on Humbug and ends up at the OED. Suffice it to say Frankfurt’s description of BS runs the gamut from: Deceptive misrepresentation to short of lying.

They course syllabus goes on to reference two lengthy discussions/comments on Frankfurt’s seminal On Bullshit article, but both Cohen’s response, Deeper into BS and Eubank & Schaeffer’s A kind word for BS: …  are focused more on academic research rather than everyday life and news.

How to mathematically test for BS

The course then goes into mathematical tests for BS that range from Fermi’s questions, the Grim Test and Benford’s 1936 Law of Anomalous Numbers. These tests are all ways of looking at data and numbers and estimating whether they are bogus or not. Benford’s paper/book talks about how the first page of logarithms is always more used than others because numbers that start with 1 are more frequent than any other number.

How rumors propagate

The next section of the course (week 4) talks about the natural ecology of BS.

Here there’s reference to an article by Friggeri, et al, on Rumor Cascades, which discusses the frequency with which patently both true, false and partially true/partially false rumors are “shared” on social media (Facebook).

The professors look at a website called Snopes.com which evaluates the veracity of publishes rumors uses this to classify the veracity of rumors. Next they examine how these rumors are shared over time on Facebook.

Summarizing their research, both false and true rumors propagate sporadically on Facebook. But even verified false or mixed true/mixed false rumors (identified by Snopes.com) continue to propagate on Facebook. This seems to indicate that rumor sharers are ignoring the rumor’s truthfulness or are just unaware of the Snopes.com assessment of the rumor.

Other topics on calling BS

The course syllabus goes on to causality (correlation is not causation, a common misconception used in BS), statistical traps and trickery (used to create BS), data visualization (which can be used to hide BS), big data (GiGo leads to BS), publication bias (e.g., most published research presents positive results, where’s all the negative results research…), predatory publishing and scientific misconduct (organizations that work to create BS for others), the ethics of calling BS (the line between criticism and harassment), fake news and refuting BS.

Fake news

The section on Fake News is very interesting. They reference an article in the NYT, The Agency about how a group in Russia have been reaping havoc across the internet with fake news and bogus news sites.

But there’s more another article on NYT website, Inside a fake news sausage factory, details how multiple websites started publishing bogus news and then used advertisement revenue to tell them which bogus news generated more ad revenue – apparently there’s money to be made in advertising fake news. (Sigh, probably explains why I can’t seem to get any sponsors for my websites…).

Improving the course

How to improve their course? I’d certainly take a look at what Facebook and others are doing to identify BS/fake news and see if these are working effectively.

Another area to add might be a historical review of fake rumors, news or information. This is not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on since time began.

In addition, there’s little discussion of the consequences of BS on life, politics, war, etc. The world has been irrevocably changed in the past  on account of false information. Knowing how bad this has been this might lend some urgency to studying how to better identify BS.

There’s a lot of focus on Academia in the course and although this is no doubt needed, most people need to understand whether the news they see every day is fake or not. Focusing more on this would be worthwhile.

~~~~

I admire the University of Washington professors putting this course together. It’s really something that everyone needs to understand  nowadays.

They say the lectures will be recorded and published online – good for them. Also, the current course syllabus is for a one credit hour course but they would like to expand it to a three to four credit hour course – another great idea

Comments?

Photo credit(s): The Donation of ConstantineNew York World – Remember the Maine, Public Domain; Benjamin Franklin’s Bag of Scalps letter;  fake-news-rides-sociales by Portal GDA

Intel’s Optane (3D Xpoint) SSD specs in the wild

Read an article the other day in Ars Technica (Specs for 1st Intel 3DX SSD…) about a preview of the Intel Octane specs for their 375GB 3D Xpoint (3DX) flash card. The device is NVMe compliant, PCIe Gen3 add in card, that’s in a half height, half length, low profile form factor.

Intel’s Optane SSD vs. the competition

A couple of items from the Intel Optane spec sheet of interest to me as a storage guru:

  • 30 Drive writes per day/12.3 PBW (written) – 3DX, at launch, had advertised that it would have 1000 times the endurance of (2D-MLC?) NAND. Current flash cards (see Samsung SSD PRO NVMe 256GB Flash card specs) offer about 200TBW (for 256GB card) or 400TBW (for 512GB card). The Samsung PRO is based on 3D (V-)NAND, so its endurance is much better than  2D-MLC at these densities. That being said, the Octane drive is still ~40X the write endurance of the PRO 950. Not quite 1000 but certainly significantly better.
  • Sequential (bandwidth) performance (R/W) of 2400/2000 MB/sec – 3DX advertised 1000 times the performance of (2D-MLC,  non-NVMe?) NAND. Current 3D (V-)NAND cards (see Samsung SSD PRO above) above offers (R/W) 2200/900 MB/sec for an NVMe device. The Optane’s read bandwidth is a slight improvement but the write bandwidth is a 2.2X improvement over current competitive devices.
  • Random 4KB IOPs performance (R/W) of 550K/500K – Similar to the previous bulleted item, 3DX advertised 1000 times the performance of (2D-MLC,  non-NVMe?) NAND. Current 3D (V-)NAND cards like the Samsung SSD PRO offer Random 4KB IOPs performance  (R/W) of 270K/85K IOPS (@4 threads). Optane’s read random 4KB IOPs performance is 2X the PRO 950 but its write performance is ~5.9X better.
  • IO latency of <10 µsec. – 3DX advertised 10X better latency than the current (2D-MLC, non-NVMe) flash drives. According to storage review (Samsung 950 Pro M.2), the Samsung PRO 950 had a latency of ~22 µsec. Optane has at least 2X better latency than the current competition.
  • Density 375GB/HH-HL-LP – 3DX advertised 1000X the density of (then current DRAM). Today Micron offers a 4GiB DDR4/288 pin DIMM which is probably 1/2 the size of the HH flash drive. So maybe in the same space this could be 8GiB. This says that the Optane is about 100X denser than today’s DRAM.

Please note, when 3DX was launched, ~2 years ago, the then current NAND technology was 2D-MLC and NVMe was just a dream. So comparing launch claims against today’s current 3D-NAND, NVMe drives is not a fair comparison.

Nevertheless, the Optane SSD performs considerably better than current competitive NVMe drives and has significantly better endurance than current 3D (V-)NAND flash drives. All of which is a great step in the right direction.

What about DRAM replacement?

At launch, 3DX was also touted as a higher density, potential replacement for DRAM. But so far we haven’t seen any specs for what 3DX NVM looks like on a memory bus. It has much better density than DRAM, but we would need to see 3DX memory access times under 50ns to have a future as a DRAM replacement. Optane’s NVMe SSD at 10 µsec. is about 200X too slow, but then again it’s not a memory device configuration nor is it attached to a memory bus.

Comments?

Photo Credit(s):  Intel Optane Spec sheet from Ars Technica Article,  DDR4 DRAM from Wikimedia user:Dsimic

Mixed progress on self-driving cars

Read an article the other day on the progress in self-driving cars in NewsAtlas (DMV reports self-driving cars are learning — fast). More details are available from their source (CA [California] DMV [Dept. of Motor Vehicles] report).

The article reported on what’s called disengagement events that occurred on CA roads. This is where a driver has to take over from the self-driving automation to deal with a potential mis-queue, mistake, or accident.

Waymo (Google) way out ahead

It appears as if Waymo, Google’s self-driving car spin out, is way ahead of the pack. It reported only 124 disengages for 636K mi (~1M km) or ~1 disengage every ~5.1K mi (~8K km). This is ~4.3X better rate than last year, 1 disengage for every ~1.2K mi (1.9K km).

Competition far behind

Below I list some comparative statistics (from the DMV/CA report, noted above), sorted from best to worst:

  • BMW: 1 disengage 638 mi (1027 km)
  • Ford: 3 disengages for 590 mi (~950 km) or 1 disengage every ~197 mi (~317 km);
  • Nissan: 23 disengages for 3.3K mi (3.5K km) or 1 disengage every ~151 mi (~243 km)
  • Cruise (GM) automation: had 181 disengagements for ~9.8K mi (~15.8K km) or 1 disengage every ~54 mi (~87 km)
  • Delphi: 149 disengages for ~3.1K mi (~5.0K km) or 1 disengage every ~21 mi (~34 km);

There was no information on previous years activities so no data on how competitors had improved over the last year.

Please note: the report only applies to travel on California (CA) roads. Other competitors are operating in other countries and other states (AZ, PA, & TX to name just a few). However, these rankings may hold up fairly well when combined with other state/country data. Thousand(s) of kilometers should be adequate to assess self-driving cars disengagement rates.

Waymo moving up the (supply chain) stack

In addition, according to a Recode, (The Google car was supposed to disrupt the car industry) article, Waymo is moving from a (self-driving automation) software supplier to a hardware and software supplier to the car industry.

Apparently, Google has figured out how to reduce their sensor (hardware) costs by a factor of 10X, bringing the sensor package down from $75K to $7.5K, (most probably due to a cheaper way to produce Lidar sensors – my guess).

So now Waymo is doing about ~65 to ~1000 X more (CA road) miles than any competitor, has a much (~8 to ~243 X) better disengage rate and is  moving to become a major auto supplier in both hardware and software.

It’s going to be an interesting century.

If the 20th century was defined by the emergence of the automobile, the 21st will probably be defined by dominance of autonomous operations.

Comments?

Photo credits: Substance E′TS; and Waymo on the road

 

Engineers invent an Acoustic Prism

opticks-prismRead an article in Scientific American online (Engineers Debut the Acoustic Prism article, EPFL [Ecole Politechnique Fe´de´ral de Lausanne] press release, YouTube video) that discussed a newly invented device, the Acoustic Prism. The prism was invented by Hervé Lissek and his team at EPFL

acoustic-prism1An acoustic prism acts on sound waves similar to the way an optical prism acts on light waves by separating out the composite frequencies of the incoming signal into isolated frequencies of an outgoing signal.

The Acoustic prism

Apparently the acoustic prism is made up of metallic cavities (cells) acoustic-prism2separated by a membrane that (delays) sound waves of a certain frequency down a channel in order to isolate the frequencies of the incoming sound.

Not quite sure what the purpose of the membranes are other than to somehow normalize the incoming sound waves so that it seems like it is hitting all the cavities at the same time. And what constitutes the prismatic effect in the above is not

The acoustic prism on display in the YouTube video looks like a long metallic rectangular tube with ten holes along one side and a microphone at one end and the cavities in the middle. The sound enters one end (to the right in the photo below) and it escapes through the holes in the tube, high frequency sounds closer to the acoustic-prism3source and low frequency sounds farther away from the source. The membranes delay the sound propagating down the tube based on frequency which allows that frequency to depart the tube.

So the composite sound is separated out into it’s constituent parts and dispersed out of the tube in individual sound waves, not unlike an optical prism. Why ten holes and not twenty or thirty is one question and it would seem that the membranes would need the be engineered separately for each frequency you want to isolate.

Study of optical prisms changed the world

It seems to me the study of light, coming from optical prisms discussed by Newton in his Opticks in 1704 led the way to the Enlightenment and to ultimately a redefinition of light as we know it today.

As I have both hearing and eyesight difficulties, it has always confounded me that a simple lens like device can correct for just about any and all eye imperfections and allow me to read anything I need to. But nothing similar is available for improving hearing (ear) defects.

We need an Acoustic Lens

If there were some sort of sound lens it could correct incoming sound frequencies automatically to overcome any ear defects. An optical lens works just as well for noisy or non-noisy (light) environments without problem. I suppose it’s because it modifies all incoming  light wavelengths the same way.

I believe electronic comb filters/digital waveguides should have been able to do this with proper processing power, but they seem at best a modest improvement. There just is nothing similar for hearing to what eyeglasses/bifocals can do for eyesight and light waves.

Maybe if there were some sort of acoustic lens that was able to frequency shift across a number of frequencies into other frequencies. If there is such a thing as an acoustic prism that refracts sound waves well then there should certainly be a way to combine these refracting surfaces to shift acoustic frequencies to something that was more effective.

Acoustic lens practicalities

Not sure what’s at the other end of the acoustic prism rectangular tube but you are supposed to be able to speak at one end of it and hear the constituent parts of the sound emerge out of the face with the ten holes.

It’s a bit much to be wearing something like this around an ear today but it’s just a start. And yes, I realize that a prism is not a lens but they both work via refraction. If one can isolate frequencies, one should be able to (electronically or mechanically) convert one to another, and then (electronically or mechanically) combine the ones that matter into some sort of output sound stream.

So we would need to miniaturize it considerably. Also it would be more helpful if it were somehow circular or spiral so it could be worn over an ear not unlike headphones or ear muffs. If necessary, the electronics to process the incoming sound, modify it’s frequencies to whats needed and output them (through some sort of speakers) could be embedded in the headphones. And there you have it.

It would be very nice if someday, it came in a rechargeable Bluetooth earpiece form factor but that could be generation 3 or 4 or …

Anyways, barring some sort of genetic engineering solution that produces a brand new ear cochlea, either in situ or via transplantation, there is nothing other than modest electronic means (today’s hearing aids) available today to solve hearing problems. But the Acoustic Prism is just a start and its applications seem endless.

I look forward to some day in the future where I can wear an EarGlasses to hear better…

Comments?

Photo credits: Opticks by Sir Isaac. Newton Knt., from Google Books, Screen shots from the Youtube video, discussing the device 

Docker presents at Cloud Field Day 1 (CFD1)

img_6933Earlier this summer, Docker presented at Cloud Field Day 1 (CFD1) on some of their current technology and upcoming enhancements. (See the video’s here).

As you probably recall, Docker is an implementation of Linux containers which is a way of packaging applications into micro-services that can be built, ship and run across onprem, private and public cloud infrastructure.

Docker containers and Docker Engine

Docker containers combine a base OS image, plus whatever other binaries are needed to run a micro-service into a container which runs ontop of a Docker Engine.  Containers can then be run as a single instance or multiple instances on a Docker Engine.

img_6943Containers are not VMs, they have a fundamentally different architecture. For instance,

  • A VM includes a full OS and App software, it often takes several minutes to boot up and there is a hypervisor underneath it that emulates hardware and other critical services needed to run a VM. But there is no underlying standard OS under the VM layer.
  • A Docker container relies on shared OS resources, which allows for a lighter weight application package using shared resources, which means that instantiation/booting up is much faster, there is no Hypervisor, but a container can run under Linux, Windows or Mac OSs, and containers provide for full stack portability.

In the Docker Hub (srepository for Docker containers) one can find a WordPress container that contains the whole LAMP + WordPress stack in a single container. To run WordPress you would also need a MySQL or compatible database and there’s a MySQL machine container that can be used. You could easily run both the WordPress/LAMP container and the MySQL container in the same Docker Engine, connect the two together and connect the LAMP+Wordpress container to the Internet to fire up a WordPress blog site.

Docker compared VMs to houses and containers to apartments. Docker Engines can run as a VM or on bare metal hardware.

Running Docker containers on desktop, servers and in the cloud

img_6938If you want to experiment with Docker, you can download Docker for Mac or Docker for Windows which can be used install and run a native Docker engine on your desktop.

Windows Server also supports native Docker containers. In VMware one can run Docker containers under vSphere Integrated Containers which supplies Docker API endpoints as standard ESX VMs or you can run Docker containers under Project Photon which is a streamlined, non-ESX hypervisor that also supplies Docker API endpoints.

You can run Docker containers in AWS and Azure as well that integrates with each public cloud’s compute, network and storage services.

Docker Swarm

So you have your Docker engine running, with multiple containers sharing resources and to create an application but your out of compute, storage or networking power on your engine and need to bring on another server or two.  What do you do? With Docker 1.12, you can now use Docker Swarm, which supports multiple Docker Engines.

With Docker Swarm, you have management nodes and worker nodes. Management nodes provide HA services for Docker containers which runs across multiple worker nodes. Worker nodes run Docker Engines with multiple containers.

img_6940Docker Swarms orchestrates the operation of multiple Docker Engines running Docker Services.

A Docker Service is a Docker container running across multiple worker nodes (engines) in a Docker Swarm. Docker services can be run globally (across each worker node) or replicated (some number of Docker Container instances are run across one or more worker nodes). You specify on the Docker Service command which you want and Swarm will insure that the specifications selected are implemented across its worker nodes.

If a worker node goes down, Swarm will detect it and re-start the failed container instances on other worker nodes in the Swarm. Beware, if your container relied on persistent storage, that storage must be also available to all Swarm worker nodes.

Swarm provides a Routing Mesh. When you fire up a container service you can identify a swarm-wide ingress port for a container. Every worker node will listen in on that port to provide a container-aware routing service to route app requests across the Swarm to wherever the containers are currently running.

You can have multiple Swarm management nodes which share the management of the Swarm. Swarm management nodes are either leaders or followers and provide a RAFT consensus model. If the leader node goes down, another management node will take on its leadership role and start managing the Swarm.

There are many other technologies underneath Docker Swarm that are worth a look but suffice it to say it provides a load-balancing, HA service for container execution across multiple engines.

Docker Datacenter

What could possibly be missing? We have Docker Engines that can run multiple containers and Docker Swarms that can run multiple Docker Engines and containers in an HA manner. But we really need something that supports multiple Docker Swarms,  and throw in a private secure Container repository and enterprise support options while you’re at it.

Earlier this year Docker introduced Docker Datacenter, a priced service offering which does just that.  It provides Containers-as-a-Service (CaaS) across multiple Docker Swarms that has commercial support options, a Docker Trusted Repository and integrates it all with enterprise services like LDAP/AD to provide audit logs and other monitoring capabilities for container services execution.

Using Docker Datacenter, developers can have their own multiple development swarms to support engineering activities and ship and store their container images in a secure, private repository and operations can have multiple Swarms which all run the same Docker Container apps in an HA manner.

From an app developer standpoint, it all looks like container instances are running in the same Docker Engine environment across all those implementations. Operations sees a centralized management console (plane) that provides a way to monitor and manage multiple Docker Swarms running everywhere.

Well that’s about it for the update on Docker. There wasn’t much at the sessions on how containers access persistent storage but there’s a Flocker service that offers plugin support for EMC, NetApp and other enterprise SAN storage for Container apps. And there seem to be others out there and available.

You can read/hear more about Docker from these other CFD1 participants:

Comments

Full disclosure: Docker gave us a very nice/very long scarf, and two t-shirts decorated with Docker logo and tagline and a number of stickers and pins.

QoM1610: Will NVMe over Fabric GA in enterprise AFA by Oct’2017

NVMeNVMe over fabric (NVMeoF) was a hot topic at Flash Memory Summit last August. Facebook and others were showing off their JBOF (see my Facebook moving to JBOF post) but there were plenty of other NVMeoF offerings at the show.

NVMeoF hardware availability

When Brocade announced their Gen6 Switches they made a point of saying that both their Gen5 and Gen6 switches currently support NVMeoF protocols. In addition to Brocade’s support, in Dec 2015 Qlogic announced support for NVMeoF for select HBAs. Also, as of  July 2016, Emulex announced support for NVMeoF in their HBAs.

From an Ethernet perspective, Qlogic has a NVMe Direct NIC which supports NVMe protocol offload for iSCSI. But even without NVMe Direct, Ethernet 40GbE & 100GbE with  iWARP, RoCEv1-v2, iSCSI SER, or iSCSI RDMA all could readily support NVMeoF on Ethernet. The nice thing about NVMeoF for Ethernet is not only do you get support for iSCSI & FCoE, but CIFS/SMB and NFS as well.

InfiniBand and Omni-Path Architecture already support native RDMA, so they should already support NVMeoF.

So hardware/firmware is already available for any enterprise AFA customer to want NVMeoF for their data center storage.

NVMeoF Software

Intel claims that ~90% of the software driver functionality of NVMe is the same for NVMeoF. The primary differences between the two seem to be the NVMeoY discovery and queueing mechanisms.

There are two fabric methods that can be used to implement NVMeoF data and command transfers: capsule mode where NVMe commands and data are encapsulated in normal fabric packets or fabric dependent mode where drivers make use of native fabric memory transfer mechanisms (RDMA, …) to transfer commands and data.

12679485_245179519150700_14553389_nA (Linux) host driver for NVMeoF is currently available from Seagate. And as a result, support for NVMeoF for Linux is currently under development, and  not far from release in the next Kernel (I think). (Mellanox has a tutorial on how to compile a Linux kernel with NVMeoF driver support).

With Linux coming out, Microsoft Windows and VMware can’t be far behind. However, I could find nothing online, aside from base NVMe support, for either platform.

NVMeoF target support is another matter but with NICs/HBAs & switch hardware/firmware and drivers presently available, proprietary storage system target drivers are just a matter of time.

Boot support is a major concern. I could find no information on BIOS support for booting off of a NVMeoF AFA. Arguably, one may not need boot support for NVMeoF AFAs as they are probably not a viable target for storing App code or OS software.

From what I could tell, normal fabric multi-pathing support should work fine with NVMeoF. This should allow for HA NVMeoF storage, a critical requirement for enterprise AFA storage systems these days.

NVMeoF advantages/disadvantages

Chelsio and others have shown that NVMeoF adds ~8μsec of additional overhead beyond native NVMe SSDs, which if true would warrant implementation on all NVMe AFAs. This may or may not impact max IOPS depending on scale-ability of NVMeoF.

For instance, servers (PCIe bus hardware) typically limit the number of private NVMe SSDs to 255 or less. With an NVMeoF, one could potentially have 1000s of shared NVMe SSDs accessible to a single server. With this scale, one could have a single server attached to a scale-out NVMeoF AFA (cluster) that could supply ~4X the IOPS that a single server could perform using private NVMe storage.

Base level NVMe SSD support and protocol stacks are starting to be available for most flash vendors and operating systems such as, Linux, FreeBSD, VMware, Windows, and Solaris. If Intel’s claim of 90% common software between NVMe and NVMeoF drivers is true, then it should be a relatively easy development project to provide host NVMeoF drivers.

The need for special Ethernet hardware that supports RDMA may delay some storage vendors from implementing NVMeoF AFAs quickly. The lack of BIOS boot support may be a minor irritant in comparison.

NVMeoF forecast

AFA storage systems, as far as I can tell, are all about selling high IOPS and very-low latency IOs. It would seem that NVMeoF would offer early adopter AFA storage vendors a significant performance advantage over slower paced competition.

In previous QoM/QoW posts we have established that there are about 13 new enterprise storage systems that come out each year. Probably 80% of these will be AFA, given the current market environment.

Of the 10.4 AFA systems coming out over the next year, ~20% of these systems pride themselves on being the lowest latency solutions in the market, and thus command high margins. One would think these systems would be the first to adopt NVMeoF. But, most of these systems have their own, proprietary flash modules and do not use standard (NVMe) SSDs and can use their own proprietary interface to their proprietary flash storage. This will delay any implementation for them until they can convert their flash storage to NVMe which may take some time.

On the other hand, most (70%) of the other AFA systems, that currently use SAS/SATA SSDs, could boost their IOP counts and drastically reduce their IO  response times, by implementing NVMe SSDs and NVMeoF. But converting SAS/SATA backends to NVMe will take time and effort.

But, there are a select few (~10%) of AFA systems, that already use NVMe SSDs in their AFAs, and for these few, they would seem to have a fast track towards implementing NVMeoF. The fact that NVMeoF is supported over all fabrics and all storage interface protocols make it even easier.

Moreover, NVMeoF has been under discussion since the summer of 2015, which tells me that astute AFA vendors have already had 18+ months to develop it. With NVMeoF host drivers & hardware available since Dec. 2015, means hardware and software exist to test and validate against.

I believe that NVMeoF will be GA’d within the next 12 months by at least one enterprise AFA system. So my QoM1610 forecast for NVMeoF is YES, with a 0.83 probability.

Comments?

 

 

 

Hitachi and the coming IoT gold rush

img_7137Earlier this week I attended Hitachi Summit 2016 along with a number of other analysts and Hitachi executives where Hitachi discussed their current and ongoing focus on the IoT (Internet of Things) business.

We have discussed IoT before (see QoM1608: The coming IoT tsunami or not, Extremely low power transistors … new IoT applications). Analysts and companies predict  ~200B IoT devices by 2020 (my QoM prediction is 72.1B 0.7 probability). But in any case there’s a lot of IoT activity going to come online, very shortly. Hitachi is already active in IoT and if anything, wants it to grow, significantly.

Hitachi’s current IoT business

Hitachi is uniquely positioned to take on the IoT business over the coming decades, having a number of current businesses in industrial processes, transportation, energy production, water management, etc. Over time, all these industries and more are becoming much more data driven and smarter as IoT rolls out.

Some metrics indicating the scale of Hitachi’s current IoT business, include:

  • Hitachi is #79 in the Fortune Global 500;
  • Hitachi’s generated $5.4B (FY15) in IoT revenue;
  • Hitachi IoT R&D investment is $2.3B (over 3 years);
  • Hitachi has 15K customers Worldwide and 1400+ partners; and
  • Hitachi spends ~$3B in R&D annually and has 119K patents

img_7142Hitachi has been in the OT (Operational [industrial] Technology) business for over a century now. Hitachi has also had a very successful and ongoing IT business (Hitachi Data Systems) for decades now.  Their main competitors in this IoT business are GE and Siemans but neither have the extensive history in IT that Hitachi has had. But both are working hard to catchup.

Hitachi Rail-as-a-Service

img_7152For one example of what Hitachi is doing in IoT, they have recently won a 27.5 year Rail-as-a-Service contract to upgrade, ticket, maintain and manage all new trains for UK Rail.  This entails upgrading all train rolling stock, provide upgraded rail signaling, traffic management systems, depot and station equipment and ticketing services for all of UK Rail.

img_7153The success and profitability of this Hitachi service offering hinges on their ability to provide more cost efficient rail transport. A key capability they plan to deliver is predictive maintenance.

Today, in UK and most other major rail systems, train high availability is often supplied by using spare rolling stock, that’s pre-positioned and available to call into service, when needed. With Hitachi’s new predictive maintenance capabilities, the plan is to reduce, if not totally eliminate the need for spare rolling stock inventory and keep the new trains running 7X24.

img_7145Hitachi said their new trains capture 48K data items and generate over ~25GB/train/day. All this data, will be fed into their new Hitachi Insight Group Lumada platform which includes Pentaho, HSDP (Hitachi Streaming Data Platform) and their Content Analytics to analyze train data and determine how best to keep the trains running. Behind all this analytical power will no doubt be HDS HCP object store used to keep track of all the train sensor data and other information, Hitachi UCP servers to process it all, and other Hitachi software and hardware to glue it all together.

The new trains and services will be rolled out over time, but there’s a pretty impressive time table. For instance, Hitachi will add 120 new high speed trains to UK Rail by 2018.  About the only thing that Hitachi is not directly responsible for in this Rail-as-a-Service offering, is the communications network for the trains.

Hitachi other IoT offerings

Hitachi is actively seeking other customers for their Rail-as-a-service IoT service offering. But it doesn’t stop there, they would like to offer smart-water-as-a-service, smart-city-as-a-service, digital-energy-as-a-service, etc.

There’s almost nothing that Hitachi currently supplies as industrial products that they wouldn’t consider offering in an X-as-a-service solution. With HDS Lumada Analytics, HCP and HDS storage systems, Hitachi UCP converged infrastructure, Hitachi industrial products, and Hitachi consulting services, together they are primed to take over the IoT-industrial products/services market.

Welcome to the new Hitachi IoT world.

Comments?

Blockchains at IBM

img_6985-2I attended IBM Edge 2016 (videos available here, login required) this past week and there was a lot of talk about their new blockchain service available on z Systems (LinuxONE).

IBM’s blockchain software/service  is based on the open source, Open Ledger, HyperLedger project.

Blockchains explained

1003163361_ba156d12f7We have discussed blockchain before (see my post on BlockStack). Blockchains can be used to implement an immutable ledger useful for smart contracts, electronic asset tracking, secured financial transactions, etc.

BlockStack was being used to implement Private Key Infrastructure and to implement a worldwide, distributed file system.

IBM’s Blockchain-as-a-service offering has a plugin based consensus that can use super majority rules (2/3+1 of members of a blockchain must agree to ledger contents) or can use consensus based on parties to a transaction (e.g. supplier and user of a component).

BitCoin (an early form of blockchain) consensus used data miners (performing hard cryptographic calculations) to determine the shared state of a ledger.

There can be any number of blockchains in existence at any one time. Microsoft Azure also offers Blockchain as a service.

The potential for blockchains are enormous and very disruptive to middlemen everywhere. Anywhere ledgers are used to keep track of assets, information, money, etc, that undergo transformations, transitions or transactions as they are further refined, produced and change hands, can be easily tracked in blockchains.  The only question is can these assets, information, currency, etc. be digitally fingerprinted and can that fingerprint be read/verified. If such is the case, then blockchains can be used to track them.

New uses for Blockchain

img_6995IBM showed a demo of their new supply chain management service based on z Systems blockchain in action.  IBM component suppliers record when they shipped component(s), shippers would record when they received the component(s), port authorities would record when components arrived at port, shippers would record when parts cleared customs and when they arrived at IBM facilities. Not sure if each of these transitions were recorded, but there were a number of records for each component shipment from supplier to IBM warehouse. This service is live and being used by IBM and its component suppliers right now.

Leanne Kemp, CEO Everledger, presented another example at IBM Edge (presumably built on z Systems Hyperledger service) used to track diamonds from mining, to cutter, to polishing, to wholesaler, to retailer, to purchaser, and beyond. Apparently the diamonds have a digital bar code/fingerprint/signature that’s imprinted microscopically on the diamond during processing and can be used to track diamonds throughout processing chain, all the way to end-user. This diamond blockchain is used for fraud detection, verification of ownership and digitally certify that the diamond was produced in accordance of the Kimberley Process.

Everledger can also be used to track any other asset that can be digitally fingerprinted as they flow from creation, to factory, to wholesaler, to retailer, to customer and after purchase.

Why z System blockchains

What makes z Systems a great way to implement blockchains is its securely, isolated partitioning and advanced cryptographic capabilities such as z System functionality accelerated hashing, signing & securing and hardware based encryption to speed up blockchain processing.  z Systems also has FIPS-140 level 4 certification which can provide the highest security possible for blockchain and other security based operations.

From IBM’s perspective blockchains speak to the advantages of the mainframe environments. Blockchains are compute intensive, they require sophisticated cryptographic services and represent formal systems of record, all traditional strengths of z Systems.

Aside from the service offering, IBM has made numerous contributions to the Hyperledger project. I assume one could just download the z Systems code and run it on any LinuxONE processing environment you want. Also, since Hyperledger is Linux based, it could just as easily run in any OpenPower server running an appropriate version of Linux.

Blockchains will be used to maintain the system of record of the future just like mainframes maintained the systems of record of today and the past.

Comments?