Skip to content
/ Demystifying-Cloud-Evolution Public

Demystifying Cloud Evolution provides an overview of cloud technologies, blending historical context with technical insights into Azure’s architecture. It covers capacity management, energy efficiency, and orchestration tools like Kubernetes, with demos and learnings for community reference

License

MIT license
0 stars 0 forks Branches Tags Activity
Star
Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

MicrosoftCloudEssentials-LearningHub/Demystifying-Cloud-Evolution

BranchesTags

Repository files navigation

Demystifying Cloud Evolution - Overview
From Silicon to Azure (theory + self-guided practice)

History → Capacity & Energy → Orchestration (Kubernetes) → Azure architecture

Costa Rica

GitHub GitHub brown9804

Last updated: 2025-08-20

Important

This community demo is for learning only and uses public documentation. It blends history, theory, and local-first labs (no cloud sign-in required). For production guidance, cost/security/compliance, and Azure-specific deployment patterns, contact Microsoft directly: Microsoft Sales and Support

Note

The dates and events referenced here are estimates and are included for illustrative purposes only. This is not official guidance. There are many more important events and details not covered, use this as a starting point, not a definitive source.

List of References (Click to expand)
Table of Contents (Click to expand)

History Cloud Azure

Why There’s Not Enough Quota/Capacity for Some Cloud Services in Some Regions?

  1. Physical Hardware Limits:
    • Each cloud region is made up of physical data centers (“Availability Zones”) with finite amounts of servers, storage, and network hardware.
    • Newer hardware (like GPUs or specialized AI accelerators) or high-demand VM types may be deployed in limited quantities, especially in smaller or newer regions.
  2. High Regional Demand:
    • Popular regions (e.g., “East US”, “West Europe”) can experience surges in demand, especially for trendy services (e.g., AI, GPUs, large VM sizes).
    • Capacity is often allocated on a first-come, first-served basis; sudden spikes (product launches, AI workloads, seasonal trends) can exhaust available resources.
  3. Quota as a Control Mechanism:
    • Cloud providers set default quotas (“service limits”) per subscription to prevent accidental overspending and to protect the underlying infrastructure from noisy-neighbor effects.
    • Quotas help manage risk, avoid abuse, and ensure fair access for all tenants.
  4. Supply Chain and Energy Constraints:
    • Hardware supply can be delayed due to global supply chain issues, and energy constraints (grid limits, sustainability targets) can cap regional expansion.
    • Highly sustainable regions may have stricter power/capacity planning to meet carbon goals.
  5. Regulatory and Compliance Restrictions: Some services are only available in specific regions due to regulatory, data residency, or export control reasons.
cloud-evolution-timeline-Computing Timeline drawio

Diagram

Early Computing Era (1801-1843)

The early computing era established fundamental concepts still used today:

  • Program storage separate from computation mechanism
  • The notion of a general-purpose machine that can be programmed for different tasks
  • Separation of data and instructions
  • Sequential execution of operations
Jacquard Loom (1801)

Introduced a system of punched cards to control the weaving of complex textile patterns. Each card represented a row of the design, and holes in the card determined which warp threads were lifted.

  • Joseph Marie Jacquard: Created programmable textile looms that revolutionized the silk industry
  • Technical significance: Demonstrated storing instructions as physical media; inspired later computing pioneers
    • Binary Encoding: Presence or absence of a hole acted as a binary signal (on/off), a precursor to digital logic.
    • Sequential Control: Cards were fed in sequence, allowing the loom to execute a stored program of instructions.
    • Modularity: Patterns could be changed by swapping card sets, introducing the concept of programmability.
    • Significance:
      • Demonstrated data-driven automation, instructions stored on physical media rather than hardwired mechanisms.
      • Influenced early computing pioneers like Charles Babbage, who adopted the punched card concept for the Analytical Engine.
  • Legacy: Direct ancestor to punch card computing systems used through the 1970s

    • Direct ancestor of punch card computing systems used in tabulating machines (Hollerith, IBM) and early digital computers through the 1970s.

    • Established the principle of separating hardware from instructions, foundational for modern computing.

      image image

From National Museums Scotland - The Jacquard loom: innovation in textiles and computing

Analytical Engine (1837)

  • Inventor: Charles Babbage, an English mathematician and engineer, often called the father of the computer. Although the machine was never completed during his lifetime, his design laid the foundation for modern computing.

  • Historical Context: Conceived in 1837 as an evolution of Babbage’s earlier Difference Engine, the Analytical Engine was designed during the Industrial Revolution, when mechanical engineering was advancing rapidly.

  • Technical Features:

    • Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU): Known as the mill, it could perform basic arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division).
    • Memory: Called the store, it could hold up to 1,000 numbers of 40 digits each.
    • Input/Output: Planned to use punched cards for input (inspired by Jacquard looms) and a printer for output, along with a curve plotter and bell.
    • Control Flow: Included conditional branching and loops, making it Turing-complete in concept.

  • Architecture:

    • Separation of Components: Distinguished between the store (memory) and the mill (processor), a principle still used in modern von Neumann architecture.
    • Programmability: Programs were to be fed via punched cards, allowing general-purpose computation rather than a single fixed task.

  • Significance:

    • First complete design for a general-purpose programmable computing device.
    • Influenced later pioneers like Ada Lovelace, who wrote what is considered the first algorithm intended for a machine.
    • Although never built due to technological and financial limitations, its conceptual design anticipated key elements of modern computers.

  • Legacy:

    • Demonstrated the feasibility of automated computation.
    • Inspired future generations of computer scientists and engineers, bridging the gap between mechanical calculation and electronic computing.
    image image image

From Science Museum Group - Babbage's Analytical Engine, 1834-1871. (Trial model)

First Algorithm (1843)
  • Ada Lovelace: English mathematician and visionary, known for her collaboration with Charles Babbage on the Analytical Engine. She is widely recognized as the first computer programmer.
  • Technical Contribution:
    • Authored the famous Notes (A–G) appended to her translation of Luigi Federico Menabrea’s paper on the Analytical Engine.
    • In Note G, she described a step-by-step algorithm for computing Bernoulli numbers using the Engine’s operations, the first published algorithm intended for execution by a machine.
    • Her algorithm leveraged the Engine’s ability to perform loops and conditional branching, concepts fundamental to modern programming.
  • Conceptual Breakthrough:
    • Proposed that the Analytical Engine could manipulate symbols as well as numbers, anticipating the idea of general-purpose computation.
    • Suggested that such a machine could compose music or create art if the rules were formalized, a profound insight into symbolic processing and abstraction.
  • Technical Insights in Notes:
    • Discussed the Engine’s architecture in detail: the store (memory), mill (processor), and the use of punched cards for instructions and data.
    • Explained how sequential control, iteration, and data storage would work mechanically.
    • Highlighted the importance of programming discipline, noting that errors in instructions could propagate through computations.
  • Legacy:
    • Considered the first computer programmer for publishing the earliest algorithm designed for a machine.
    • The modern programming language Ada (developed by the U.S. Department of Defense in the early 1980s) was named in her honor.
  • About the Ada Language:
    • Purpose: Designed for large-scale, safety-critical, and real-time systems where reliability and maintainability are essential.
    • Key Features: Strong typing, modularity, concurrency (tasking), exception handling, and support for real-time constraints.
    • Primary Uses:
      • Aerospace and Defense: Avionics systems, missile guidance, and military command systems.
      • Transportation: Railway signaling, air traffic control.
      • Medical Devices: Life-critical monitoring systems.
  • Derived Technologies:
    • Influenced later languages like SPARK (a formally verifiable subset of Ada for high-assurance systems).
    • Continues to be used in mission-critical software for satellites, aircraft, and nuclear systems.
image

From Computer History Museum - Ada Lovelace

Formal Foundations (1936-1945)

This era formalized computing theory and produced the first working electronic computers:

  • Proved the theoretical basis and limits of computation
  • Transition from mechanical to electrical computing (1000x speedup)
  • Established binary digital representation as the foundation for modern computers
  • Created both the theory and practical implementations of programmable machines
Turing Machine (1936)
  • Alan Turing: British mathematician, logician, and cryptanalyst who formalized the concept of algorithm and computation, laying the foundation for theoretical computer science.
  • Technical Significance: Introduced the Turing Machine model in 1936, defining the limits of what can be computed. Proved that some problems are undecidable, such as the Halting Problem, establishing fundamental boundaries of computability.
  • Key Concepts:
    • Universal Turing Machine: A theoretical machine capable of simulating any other Turing machine, forming the basis for the concept of general-purpose computers.
    • Halting Problem: Demonstrated that no algorithm can determine, for all possible programs and inputs, whether the program will eventually halt or run forever.
      • Perfect program verification is impossible
      • No compiler can detect all infinite loops
      • No antivirus can detect all malware
      • No static analysis tool can find all bugs
    • Computability: Formalized the notion of effectively calculable functions, aligning with Church’s lambda calculus in the Church–Turing thesis.
  • Architecture: An abstract machine consisting of an infinite tape divided into cells, a read/write head that moves left or right, and a finite set of states with transition rules. This model captures the essence of sequential computation.
  • Enigma Cipher Context: The Enigma cipher was an electro-mechanical rotor machine used by Nazi Germany during World War II to encrypt military communications. Its complex system of rotating wheels and plugboard connections produced a vast number of possible settings, making the cipher extremely difficult to break without knowledge of the daily key. The security of Enigma was believed to be unbreakable at the time, and its use was central to German military strategy.
  • Evolution of the Machine: Enigma and Bombe: During World War II, Turing applied his theoretical insights to the practical problem of breaking the Enigma cipher. He designed the electromechanical Bombe machine, which automated the process of testing Enigma settings, representing a significant step from theoretical computation to real-world cryptanalytic machinery.
  • Impact Beyond Theory:
    • Cryptanalysis: Played a key role in breaking the Enigma cipher during World War II, significantly influencing the outcome of the war.
    • Artificial Intelligence: Proposed the Turing Test as a criterion for machine intelligence, sparking decades of research in AI.
    • Modern Computing: His theoretical work underpins the design of compilers, interpreters, and the concept of stored-program computers.
  • Legacy: Regarded as one of the fathers of computer science. The Turing Award, often called the Nobel Prize of Computing, is named in his honor.

The Halting Problem doesn't mean we can't analyze programs at all, it just proves we can't have a universal algorithm that works for all possible programs. This fundamental limitation shapes how we approach:

  • Software testing (why we need multiple approaches)
  • Formal verification (why we use constrained languages)
  • Programming language design (why some features are restricted)
  • Compiler optimization (why certain analyses are heuristic)
image image

From The Enigma of Alan Turing

image image image

From University of Cambridge - Building the Turing Machine

Zuse Z3 (1941)

The Z3 achieved its historical significance despite being built in relative isolation during wartime Germany with limited resources. Zuse had to use telephone relays because vacuum tubes were unavailable to him for military reasons.

  • Konrad Zuse: German engineer who built the first programmable, fully automatic digital computer
  • Technical Architecture:
    • Computing Elements: 2,600 telephone relays (600 for computing, 2,000 for memory)
    • Clock Speed: 5-10 Hz (cycles per second)
    • Binary System: First computer to use binary representation internally
    • Word Length: 22 bits per word:
      • 1 bit for sign
      • 7 bits for exponent (with 3 as bias)
      • 14 bits for mantissa
    • Memory: 64 words of memory implemented as mechanical relays
    • Arithmetic Unit: Separate circuits for addition/subtraction and multiplication/division
  • Floating-Point Implementation:
    • First computer with implemented binary floating-point arithmetic
    • Could represent numbers between ±10^-8.5 and ±10^8.5 with ~4 decimal precision
    • Used two's complement for negative numbers
    • Included special logic for detecting arithmetic exceptions (overflow/underflow)
  • Programming System:
    • Programs stored on punched film (35mm discarded movie film)
    • Instruction format: 8 bits total (2 for opcode, 6 for memory address)
    • Only four operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division
    • Input via decimal keyboard, output via decimal display lamps
    • Limitations: No conditional branching capability (had to be simulated through multiple program paths)
    • Program execution was linear with fixed sequence of operations
  • Historical Context:
    • Operated during WWII but received little recognition until decades later
    • Original machine destroyed in Allied bombing raid on Berlin in 1944
    • Rebuilt in the 1960s for historical preservation
    • In 1998, the Z3 was proven to be theoretically Turing-complete (could compute any algorithm) if equipped with infinite storage, despite lacking conditional branches
  • Technical Significance:
    • First working programmable computer
    • First binary electronic computer
    • First machine to use floating-point arithmetic
    • First to separate control from computation
    • Pioneered concepts that appeared independently years later in ENIAC and von Neumann architecture
image

From Computer History Museum - Zuse Completes Z3 Machine

image

From Computer History Museum - Zuse Completes Z3 Machine

ENIAC (1945)

ENIAC's most significant technical limitation, the difficulty of reprogramming, directly inspired the stored-program concept central to modern computers. This limitation led John von Neumann to articulate the architecture that bears his name in the 1945 First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC, which became the blueprint for most subsequent computers.

  • John Mauchly & J. Presper Eckert: Led the engineering team at University of Pennsylvania
  • Physical Specifications:
    • Size: 30 tons, 1,800 square feet (167 m²)
    • Power Consumption: 150 kilowatts
    • Components: 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays, 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors
    • Clock Speed: 100 kHz master clock
    • Mean Time Between Failures: Initially about 5.6 hours (improved with experience)
    • Cost: $487,000 in 1946 ($7.8 million in 2023 dollars)
  • Technical Architecture:
    • Numerical System: Decimal (not binary) with 10-digit numbers
    • Memory: 20 accumulators, each storing a signed 10-digit number and capable of addition/subtraction
    • Storage Capacity: 200 decimal digits (equivalent to ~1000 bits)
    • Computation Units:
      • Cycling unit (master control)
      • Initiating unit (program sequencer)
      • Master programmer (loop control)
      • 20 accumulators with dedicated adders
      • Multiplier unit (used partial products method)
      • Divider/Square-rooter unit
      • Function tables for constant storage
    • Performance: 5,000 additions per second; multiplication took 2.8ms (357 per second)
  • Programming System:
    • Original Method: Manual rewiring using patch cables and function tables
      • Required days to reprogram
      • Six primary programmers (all women): Kay McNulty, Betty Jennings, Betty Snyder, Marlyn Wescoff, Fran Bilas and Ruth Lichterman
    • Setup Process:
      1. Breaking down differential equations into discrete steps
      2. Planning logical flow using paper diagrams
      3. Manual configuration of cables, switches, and function table values
      4. Operation required multiple people monitoring different sections
    • 1948 Modification:
      • Converted to "stored-program" operation using function tables to store instructions
      • Instructions read from punched IBM cards into function tables
      • Pioneered concepts that influenced modern programming, though not a true stored-program computer
  • Technical Innovations:
    • First large-scale electronic general-purpose digital computer
    • Parallelism: could perform multiple operations simultaneously
    • Separate units operating in parallel with centralized control
    • Electronic digital pulse techniques for counting
    • Novel circuits for arithmetic operations using vacuum tubes
  • Applications:
    • Originally designed for calculating artillery firing tables for the U.S. Army
    • Later used for nuclear weapon calculations (H-bomb development)
    • Weather prediction computations
    • Cosmic ray studies
    • Thermal ignition research
    • Random number studies
    • Wind tunnel design
  • Historical Impact:
    • Publicly unveiled in February 1946, making computing front-page news
    • 1,000 times faster than electromechanical predecessors
    • Operational until October 1955
    • Demonstrated feasibility of large-scale electronic computing
    • Directly influenced EDVAC, which formalized stored-program concept
    • Inspired both commercial and scientific computing development
image

From Computer History Museum - ENIAC Public unveiling of ENIAC

PC & Internet Revolution (1950s-1990)

This era democratized computing and built the Internet infrastructure:

  • Transition from batch processing to interactive computing
  • Evolution from centralized to distributed systems
  • Development of layered network protocols that enabled global connectivity
  • Creation of standards that allowed interoperability between systems from different vendors

Mental model: CPU sets up the plan; the device moves the bytes; the CPU gets a doorbell when it’s done.

DMA (Direct Memory Access) lets devices read/write RAM without the CPU copying each byte. The CPU prepares a small descriptor (buffer address/length), the device’s DMA engine bus‑masters the transfer, then raises an interrupt on completion. This frees CPU cycles, reduces cache pollution, and improves throughput. By contrast, programmed I/O makes the CPU loop over device registers to move data, slow and CPU‑bound.

How Channel I/O maps: mainframes used dedicated I/O processors (channels) that executed “channel programs” to walk buffers, handle retries, and signal the host, conceptually like modern DMA engines plus queue descriptors.

  • RX: Receive (ingress) - data coming into the host/device
  • TX: Transmit (egress) - data going out from the host/device

Modern descendants:

  • NVMe (Non-Volatile Memory Express): submission/completion queues in memory; SSDs DMA payloads directly to host buffers.
  • NICs (Network Interface Cards): RX/TX rings with scatter, gather DMA; RDMA can place bytes straight into app memory.
  • SR‑IOV ( Single Root I/O Virtualization): splits a NIC into virtual functions so VMs/containers get fast, isolated DMA queues.
Mainframes (1950s)
  • IBM System/360 (1964): First family of compatible computers with different performance levels
  • Technical features: Standardized instruction set architecture across product line
  • Impact: Established the concept of a computer "architecture" independent of implementation
  • Business model: Centralized computing with terminals; time-sharing systems
  • Architectural hallmarks:
    • Standardized ISA (nstruction Set Architecture) across models: culminates in IBM System/360 (1964), the first broad family with binary compatibility.
    • 8‑bit byte and 32‑bit word conventions; EBCDIC (Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code IBM character encoding) for character encoding.
    • Privilege rings and storage protection keys; separation of problem state vs supervisor state.
    • Channel I/O: offloads device control to channels and control units. Host builds a channel program (descriptors), then DMA proceeds asynchronously with interrupts on completion/error.
    • Reliability/availability/serviceability (RAS) as design goals: parity/ECC (Error-Correcting Code, memory that detects/corrects bit errors, typically single-bit) memory, hot‑swap field‑replaceable units, error logging.
  • Operating systems and usage:
    • OS/360 (MFT/MVT) → job control (JCL), batch queues; later TSO for interactive use.
    • Time‑sharing lineage (CTSS, MULTICS) influences conversational use; virtualization CP‑67/VM‑370 introduces full‑system virtualization (multiple OSes concurrently).
    • Spooling: decouples slow devices (printers, card readers) via disk queues.
  • Performance features:
    • Pipelining and lookahead units in high‑end models (e.g., S/360 Model 91).
    • Floating‑point units and decimal arithmetic for commercial workloads.
    • Large memory for the era (hundreds of KB to MB), and I/O throughput prioritized over single‑thread latency.
  • Business/operational model:
    • Centralized compute with 3270 terminals; chargeback based on CPU seconds, I/O counts, storage used.
    • Leasing/service contracts; upgrade path within the same ISA reduces software rewrite costs.
image

From IBM Mainframes 45 Years of Evolution - System/360 Model 20

ARPANET (1969)

Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPA; later DARPA). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (U.S. Department of Defense R&D agency)

Three enduring ideas born here: packet switching, end‑to‑end principle, and layered protocols, precursors to modern SDN (Software-Defined Networking) overlays and service meshes.

  • Key people: Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, J.C.R. Licklider
  • Technical innovations: Packet switching, distributed network without central control
  • Protocols: Network Control Program (NCP), later TCP/IP (1983)
  • Growth: From 4 nodes in 1969 to global network infrastructure
  • Physical and node design:
    • Backbone: 50 kbps leased lines linking Interface Message Processors (IMPs) built on ruggedized minicomputers.
    • Host–IMP interface: 1822 protocol; hosts connected via a standard hardware/driver contract.
  • Packet switching and reliability:
    • Store‑and‑forward switching with small fixed‑size packets; per‑link queues, hop‑by‑hop retransmission.
    • Early distance‑vector style routing; later refinements reduce count‑to‑infinity and instability.
  • Host protocols and “flag day”:
    • NCP (Network Control Program) handles connections and flow control for early hosts.
    • Jan 1, 1983: “flag day” migration to TCP/IP (IP for internetworking, TCP for reliable byte streams, UDP for datagrams).
  • Naming and scaling: Manual HOSTS.TXT replaced by hierarchical, delegated naming (DNS, 1983), enabling global scale and caching.
  • Growth path: From 4 initial nodes (UCLA, SRI, UCSB, Utah) to dozens, then interconnection with other networks (NSFNET), leading to today’s multi‑AS Internet with BGP policy routing.
image

From ARPAnet logical maps (1969-1979)

image

From Encyclopedia Britannica - Visual representation of the spread of ARPANET as of September 1974

Intel 4004 (1971)

Constraints (4‑bit ALU, tiny stack) drove tight, loop‑unrolled code and table‑driven arithmetic, early examples of co‑design between software and silicon limits.

  • Federico Faggin, Ted Hoff, Stanley Mazor: Designers of the first commercial microprocessor
  • Technical specifications: 2,300 transistors, 4-bit CPU, 740 kHz clock speed
  • Process technology: 10μm silicon gate technology
  • Impact: Began the trend of increasing integration that continues with today's processors
  • Micro‑architecture:
    • 4‑bit ALU; ~2,300 transistors; max clock ~740 kHz on 10 μm silicon‑gate PMOS.
    • Harvard‑like separation: program ROM (4001) vs data RAM (4002); 4003 shift registers for I/O.
    • 12‑bit program counter (addressing up to 4 KB of program space).
    • Register file: sixteen 4‑bit registers addressable as eight 8‑bit pairs.
    • Call/return: 3‑level hardware return‑address stack.
  • Instruction set and data formats:
    • ~46 instructions; 8‑bit and 16‑bit op formats; decimal (BCD) oriented operations for calculators.
    • No native hardware multiply/divide; implemented via routines.
  • System design:
    • Multiplexed buses and minimal pins reduce package cost.
    • Typical application: desktop calculators (e.g., Busicom), controllers.
  • Impact: Demonstrates feasibility of general‑purpose CPUs on a single chip, catalyzing the 8008/8080 → x86 line and the broader microprocessor ecosystem.
image image image
Click here to see how verilog looks like: (Click to expand)

Verilog: ahardware description language (HDL) used to model electronic systems. Think of it as the programming language engineers use to design and simulate digital circuits, like microprocessors, memory chips, and custom logic devices.

`ifndef PHY
`define PHY

`include "./src/phy_tx.v"
`include "./src/phy_rx.v"

module phy(
  input wire clk1f,
  input wire clk2f,
  input wire clk4f,
  input wire clk32f,
  input wire reset,
  input wire [7:0] in0,
  input wire [7:0] in1,
  input wire [7:0] in2,
  input wire [7:0] in3,
  input wire [3:0] validin,

  output reg [7:0] out0,
  output reg [7:0] out1,
  output reg [7:0] out2,
  output reg [7:0] out3,
  output reg [3:0] validout,
// outputs for recirc module
  output reg [7:0] out0_recir,
  output reg [7:0] out1_recir,
  output reg [7:0] out2_recir,
  output reg [7:0] out3_recir,
  output reg [7:0] valid_out_recir
  );


// Connect the rx to tx
wire rxtx;
reg txrxR;
wire wtxrxR;
// Connect the tx to rx
reg txrx;
// Valid out
wire [3:0] v_out_conec;
// For outputs
wire [7:0] o0, o1, o2, o3;
wire [7:0] rc0, rc1, rc2, rc3;
wire [7:0] valid_orecir;
// Transmiiter Layer
// Layer of the physical transmitter
phy_tx_b phy_tx_f(/*AUTOINST*/
    // Outputs
    .out_b (wtxrxR),
    // outputs for recirc module
    .out0_recir (rc0),
    .out1_recir (rc1),
    .out2_recir (rc2),
    .out3_recir (rc3),
    .valid_out_recir (valid_orecir),
    // Inputs
    .clk1f (clk1f),
    .clk2f (clk2f),
    .clk4f (clk4f),
    .clk32f (clk32f),
    .reset (reset),
    .in0 (in0),
    .in1 (in1),
    .in2 (in2),
    .in3 (in3),
    .in_rx_tx (rxtx),
    .validmux41 (validin)
    );

// Decode layer
phy_rx phy_rx_f(/*AUTOINST*/
    // Outputs
    .out0 (o0),
    .out1 (o1),
    .out2 (o2),
    .out3 (o3),
    .out_rx_tx (rxtx),
    .valid_out_mux14 (v_out_conec),
    // Inputs
    .clk1f (clk1f),
    .clk2f (clk2f),
    .clk4f (clk4f),
    .clk32f (clk32f),
    .reset (reset),
    .in (txrx)
);
    always@(posedge clk32f) begin
      txrx <= txrxR;
  end

always@(*) begin
  txrxR = wtxrxR;
 validout = v_out_conec;
 out0 = o0;
 out1 = o1;
 out2 = o2;
 out3 = o3;
 out0_recir = rc0;
 out1_recir = rc1;
 out2_recir = rc2;
 out3_recir = rc3;
 valid_out_recir = valid_orecir;
end


endmodule


// Local Variables:
// verilog-library-directories:("."):
// End:
`endif
image image image

From Implementation of the PCIe-PHY

IBM PC (1981) / DNS (1983)

The PC’s open bus/BIOS (Basic Input/Output System) and DNS’s hierarchical delegation are both open interfaces that unlocked third‑party ecosystems, key to later cloud modularity.

  • IBM PC: Open architecture led to clone market and standardization
  • DNS: Paul Mockapetris designed system to map names to IP addresses
  • Technical significance: DNS enabled scaling the Internet beyond manual address tables
  • IBM PC technicals:
    • CPU: Intel 8088 (16‑bit internal, 8‑bit external bus) @ 4.77 MHz; 8259 PIC, 8237 DMA, 8253 PIT peripherals.
    • Bus/expansion: 8‑bit ISA slots; later AT adds 16‑bit ISA.
    • Memory map: “conventional” 640 KB limit with upper area reserved for ROM/IO (the classic 640K barrier).
    • Firmware: BIOS provides device services; bootstraps DOS (PC‑DOS/MS‑DOS).
    • Openness: Published schematics and BIOS interfaces enabled clone market; clean‑room BIOS implementations (e.g., Compaq) standardized compatibility.
  • DNS technicals:
    • Hierarchical distributed database: root → TLDs → domains; delegation via NS records.
    • Resource records: A/AAAA, NS, SOA, MX, CNAME, PTR, TXT etc.
    • Operation: UDP/53 for queries (TCP for zone transfers/large responses); caching with TTL to dampen load.
    • Scales beyond HOSTS.TXT by decentralizing authority and leveraging caching resolvers.
image

From IBM - The different iterations of the IBM PC over the years

image

From What is DNS (Domain Name System)

World Wide Web (1990)

The web’s statelessness and cacheability directly influence cloud API design (idempotent operations, declarative templates, eventual consistency patterns).

  • Tim Berners-Lee: Created HTTP, HTML, and the first browser while at CERN

Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (historic name); now Organisation européenne pour la recherche nucléaire → European Organization for Nuclear Research.

  • Technical components: URLs, HTTP protocol, HTML markup language
  • Architecture: Client-server model with stateless requests
  • Protocol and format stack:
    • URLs/URIs specify resource identity; HTTP provides request/response; HTML provides hypertext rendering.
    • HTTP/0.9 → 1.0/1.1 add headers, caching controls, persistent connections, and proxies; later TLS adds transport security.
  • Architecture:
    • Stateless, client–server model; scalability via horizontal replication behind load balancers and caching (CDNs, proxy caches).
    • Dynamic content arrives with CGI, then application servers; cookies (mid‑1990s) introduce session state atop stateless HTTP.
  • Developer model:
    • From static pages to 3‑tier apps (web server, app server, database).
    • REST patterns later popularize resource‑oriented APIs over HTTP verbs and status codes.
image

From University of Washington - The Cybersecurity Implications of Chinese Undersea Cable Investment

image image

From The incredible story of the underwater internet

image

From General schematic diagram of a multi-layer space information network

image

From Telecommunications Networks

Cloud Computing Era (1990s-2010)

This era transformed computing from owned assets to utility services:

  • Decoupled physical hardware from logical resources
  • Introduced elastic capacity and consumption-based pricing
  • Created API-driven infrastructure enabling infrastructure-as-code (IaC)
  • Shifted capital expenses to operational expenses
  • Established global regions with distributed reliability
Virtualization (1990s-2000s)

SR‑IOV and modern vSwitch offloads cut CPU cycles per packet, crucial for data‑plane efficiency in dense fleets.

  • VMware (founded 1998): Commercialized x86 virtualization
  • Technical innovations: Virtual Machine Monitors (VMMs), hardware-assisted virtualization (Intel VT-x, AMD-V)
  • Benefits: Server consolidation, workload isolation, snapshot/migration capabilities
  • Enabling technologies: Trap-and-emulate, binary translation, paravirtualization
  • Hypervisor techniques:
    • Binary translation and para‑virtualization (pre‑VT‑x/AMD‑V) to handle sensitive instructions; later hardware assist enables type‑1 hypervisors at scale.
    • Memory virtualization: shadow page tables → EPT/NPT; ballooning for overcommit; copy‑on‑write snapshots.
    • I/O virtualization: emulated devices → para‑virtual drivers (virtio) → SR‑IOV for near‑native NIC performance.
  • Operational primitives:
    • Live migration (pre‑copy/post‑copy), snapshots, templates (“golden images”), high availability restarts.
    • Resource scheduling across clusters with anti‑affinity and admission control.
  • Outcomes: Higher utilization, better isolation, faster provisioning, the substrate for cloud multi‑tenancy.
AWS EC2/S3 (2006)

Infrastructure as API: declare topology (instances, networks, volumes, buckets) and desired counts; the control plane validates and places; the data plane carries packets/IO. This blueprint is echoed across all major clouds.

  • Key people: Andy Jassy (AWS CEO), Werner Vogels (CTO)
  • Technical innovations: API-driven infrastructure, pay-per-use model
  • Architecture: Multi-tenant infrastructure, virtualization at scale
  • Impact: Fundamentally changed IT procurement and operations models
  • Control vs data planes:
    • Control plane (APIs): instance/volume/image lifecycle, placement, health, and inventory; account‑scoped policy and quotas; idempotent create/update with request tokens.
    • Data plane (packet/IO paths): hypervisor isolation + virtual NIC/block devices move bytes; separate from control to keep runtime traffic flowing during control-plane events.
  • Compute isolation and lifecycle:
    • Early EC2 ran Xen (paravirt → HVM); later generations use Nitro (dedicated hardware cards offloading network/storage and minimizing host attack surface) on KVM.
    • CPU/mem isolation via VT‑x/AMD‑V + IOMMU; per‑tenant vNIC/vBlock devices; DMA guarded by IOMMU.
    • Instance states: pending → running → {stopping|stopped} → {shutting‑down|terminated}; API idempotency and eventual consistency on reads.
    • Boot/user‑data: 169.254.169.254 metadata; user‑data passed to cloud‑init for early config.
  • Images and block storage:
    • AMI: root snapshot + metadata (virtualization type, device mapping); older AKI/ARI (kernel/ramdisk) images existed initially.
    • EBS (network block storage): attach/detach over network; snapshots are incremental, copy‑on‑write; volume types trade latency vs IOPS throughput.
    • Instance store: ephemeral NVMe/SATA directly on host, very fast but non‑persistent.
  • Networking primitives:
    • EC2‑Classic (initial) then VPC (virtual private clouds) with subnets, route tables, NAT, NACLs; security groups are stateful firewalls at the instance ENI.
    • Elastic IPs, ENIs (multi‑NIC), Placement Groups (latency/bandwidth aware), and later SR‑IOV/ENA for high PPS/low jitter.
  • Elastic primitives (autoscale/load):
    • Auto Scaling Groups (ASG): desired/min/max size; policies based on CloudWatch (CPU, RPS, Q length); launch templates/configs define AMI + instance type.
    • Elastic Load Balancing (ELB/ALB/NLB): spreads traffic across instances/AZs; health checks drive replace/heal loops.
  • S3 object storage model:
    • Buckets (per region) with a flat key namespace; folders are prefix conventions.
    • Objects are immutable; writes create new versions if versioning is enabled; range GETs and multipart upload for large objects.
    • Consistency: originally eventual for overwrite/list; later strong read‑after‑write (not in the 2006 launch).
    • Durability/availability: multi‑AZ replication in a region targeting 11 nines durability; storage classes + lifecycle policies for cost/latency trade‑offs.
    • Access: signed REST/HTTP APIs, pre‑signed URLs, bucket policies/IAM; optional server‑side encryption and KMS integration.
  • Reliability and economics:
    • Regions → Availability Zones (independent power/network); fault domains constrain placement and replication.
    • Pay‑as‑you‑go; later options add Reserved/Spot/ Savings instruments; right‑size and autoscale to cut idle cost.
Google App Engine (2008)

Mental model: Provide code + config; the platform provisions sandboxes, scales instances on demand, and wires managed services (Datastore, Memcache, Task Queues) without VM management.

  • Technical approach: Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) model
  • Developer experience: Focus on application code, not infrastructure
  • Constraints: Language/framework restrictions, quotas, managed scaling
  • Impact: Introduced developers to serverless concepts and auto-scaling
  • Architecture and runtimes (early):
    • Sandboxed, opinionated runtimes: initially Python 2.5 → later Java, Go, etc. Limited syscalls and no arbitrary native code.
    • Request model: short request deadlines (initially ~30s), no long-lived background threads; later added Task Queues and Cron for async/offline work.
    • Configuration: app.yaml (handlers, instance class, scaling mode), index.yaml (Datastore composite indexes), cron.yaml, queue.yaml.
  • Scaling modes and instances:
    • Automatic, Basic, Manual scaling; “scale to zero” when idle on Automatic.
    • Instance classes (F1/F2/…, memory/CPU buckets). Warmup requests reduce cold-start latency.
    • Versioned deployments; traffic splitting by version (percent or cookie-based) enables canaries/gradual rollouts.
  • Built-in services:
    • Datastore (Bigtable-based): entity groups for transactional boundaries; ancestor queries offer strong consistency; non-ancestor queries historically eventual-consistent; later options improved consistency.
    • Task Queues, Cron, Memcache API, Users API, Images, Mail, URLFetch (egress HTTP(S)).
  • Storage and persistence:
    • Blobstore (early) for large objects; later Cloud Storage integration. Strong vs eventual consistency trade-offs documented.
    • Logs and metrics surfaced via Admin Console; per-app quotas and budgets to avoid noisy-neighbor and runaway costs.
  • Networking and security:
    • Outbound HTTP(S) via URLFetch proxy; inbound is HTTP(S) via Google frontends with load balancing and SSL termination.
    • App identity/service accounts for calling Google APIs; access control via project IAM as the platform evolved.
  • Developer workflow: Declarative configs + gcloud tooling; zero-manage infra (no servers to patch). Vendor lock-in mitigated over time with portable APIs and later 2nd-gen runtimes.
  • Lasting impact: Popularized autoscale, managed services, traffic-splitting, and minimal ops for web apps, precursors to modern serverless patterns.
Microsoft Azure (2010)

Templates as contracts: ARM/Bicep describe desired state; resource providers validate, place, and reconcile; policy enforces guardrails; identity authenticates every control-plane call.

  • Initial focus: Platform-as-a-Service with .NET integration
  • Evolution: Expanded to full IaaS/PaaS/SaaS portfolio
  • Technical innovations: Resource Manager model, integrated identity with Azure AD
  • Enterprise focus: Hybrid capabilities, enterprise compliance certifications
  • Fabric era → Cloud Services (classic):
    • Fabric Controller managed clusters (stamps) and deployed Web/Worker Roles from service packages (csdef/cscfg).
    • Availability primitives: Fault Domains (rack/power) and Update Domains (rolling upgrade orchestration).
  • Azure Resource Manager (ARM) evolution:
    • ARM introduced resource groups, resource providers (RP), and idempotent, declarative deployments (JSON; now Bicep).
    • API versioning per RP; async operations with operation status; what-if previews; deployment at RG/subscription/tenant scopes.
    • Governance: locks, tags, policy assignments, blueprints/initiatives for standardized environments.
  • Identity, keys, and compliance
    • Azure AD (Entra ID) for identity/RBAC; Managed Identity for workloads; Key Vault for secrets/keys/certs with RBAC/ACLs.
    • Azure Policy for guardrails (deny/append/deployIfNotExists); Activity Log for control-plane auditing.
  • Networking stack:
    • VNets, subnets, private IPs, public IPs (SKUs), NSGs (stateful firewall), UDRs, Application Security Groups.
    • Load Balancers (Basic/Standard), Application Gateway (L7), Azure Firewall, Front Door, Private Link/Endpoints, VNet Peering, ExpressRoute.
    • DNS: private/public zones; Service Endpoints (optimized service access) and Private Link (private data-plane).
  • Compute and storage:
    • VMs with availability sets and zones; VM Scale Sets (VMSS) for homogeneous pools; extensions (Custom Script, agents).
    • Managed Disks (Standard/Premium; LRS/ZRS) and Storage accounts with replication options (LRS/ZRS/GRS/GZRS/RAGRS).
    • Images: Shared Image Gallery; disk snapshots; proximity placement groups for latency-sensitive workloads.
  • Observability and operations:
    • Azure Monitor (metrics, logs), Log Analytics workspaces, Diagnostic settings; Service Health and activity diagnostics.
    • Update/maintenance: rolling upgrades using Update Domains; Maintenance control for host updates on select SKUs.
  • Orchestration tie-ins (AKS and platform services):
    • AKS: managed control plane, node pools on VMSS, cluster autoscaler; networking via Azure CNI or kubenet; Azure Load Balancer/AGIC integration.
    • Identity integration (managed identity, ACR pull), Azure Policy for Kubernetes, Private Clusters, availability zones awareness.
    • PaaS services (App Service, Functions, Cosmos DB, Service Bus) built on the same intent→validate→place control-plane principles.
  • Security and cost controls:
    • Defender for Cloud recommendations, Just-In-Time VM access, disk/SAS policies.
    • Budgets and cost analysis; reservations/spot for compute optimization.

Cloud-Native & Beyond (2013-Present)

The cloud-native era focuses on distributed systems, orchestration, and sustainability:

  • Container orchestration for resilient, scalable applications
  • Declarative configurations with reconciliation loops
  • Microservices architectures with service meshes
  • Developer experience improvements through abstraction
  • Growing focus on energy efficiency and carbon footprint
Docker (2013)

Mental model: “Image layers + CoW FS (Copy-on-Write Filesystem) + kernel isolation.”
Containerd pulls content‑addressed layers, runc starts a namespaced process, cgroups enforce limits, overlay2 gives a writable view.
Files Share base data until modified; on write, new blocks are created. In Docker, overlay2 uses CoW layers.

  • Founder: Solomon Hykes (demonstrated at PyCon 2013)
  • Technical foundations: Linux namespaces, cgroups, overlayfs
  • Key innovations: Standard image format, portable runtime, layered filesystem
  • Impact: Transformed application packaging, testing, and deployment
  • Foundations and runtime:
    • Kernel features: namespaces (PID:Process ID, MNT:Mount, NET:Network, UTS:UNIX Time‑Sharing, IPC:Inter‑Process Communication, user), cgroups v1/v2 (Control Groups) for CPU (Central Processing Unit)/mem (memory)/I/O (Input/Output), capabilities; seccomp (Secure Computing Mode) + AppArmor (Application Armor)/SELinux (Security‑Enhanced Linux) profiles.
    • Union/CoW (Copy‑on‑Write) filesystems: overlay2 (common), also Btrfs (B‑tree File System)/ZFS (Zettabyte File System); copy‑on‑write layers minimize disk and speed deploys.
    • OCI (Open Container Initiative) stack: image spec + runtime spec; containerd (daemon), runc (low‑level runtime), shim isolates container lifecycles from dockerd restarts.
    • Image distribution: content‑addressable (SHA‑256 digests), manifest lists for multi‑arch (multiple CPU architectures); Registry v2 API, layer dedupe and HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) range pulls.
  • Build and packaging:
    • BuildKit: parallel graph builds, cache mounts, secrets, inline build cache; multi‑stage Dockerfiles trim final images.
    • SBOM (Software Bill of Materials)/attestations: build provenance (e.g., SLSA:Supply‑chain Levels for Software Artifacts) and image signing; reproducible builds with pinned bases.
  • Networking and storage:
    • Drivers: bridge (default), host, none, macvlan/ipvlan; overlay (VXLAN:Virtual eXtensible LAN) for multi‑host (Swarm/libnetwork).
    • Volumes vs bind mounts; tmpfs (temporary in‑memory FS) for in‑memory; logging drivers (json‑file:JavaScript Object Notation, fluentd, GELF:Graylog Extended Log Format).
  • Security and ops:
    • Rootless mode, userns‑remap (user‑namespace remap), least‑privileged capability sets; read‑only rootfs (root filesystem), seccomp default profile.
    • Resource limits: CPU quota/period, cpusets, memory/oom_score_adj (Out‑Of‑Memory score adjust); healthchecks for orchestration readiness.
  • Orchestration tie‑ins: CRI (Container Runtime Interface) integration for Kubernetes via containerd; image pull/policy, liveness/readiness/startup probes.
image

From Docker architecture

Kubernetes (2014)

Reconciliation loops are the core: controllers continuously compute diff(actual, desired) and take minimal actions to converge, making the system self‑healing.

  • Origins: Inspired by Google’s internal Borg system
  • Key contributors: Craig McLuckie, Joe Beda, Brendan Burns
  • Technical architecture: Declarative API, control loops, extensibility via CRDs
  • Core concepts: Pods, Services, Deployments, StatefulSets, ConfigMaps, Secrets
  • Control plane and API (Application Programming Interface):
    • kube‑apiserver (front door, authentication/authorization, admission), etcd (strongly consistent KV:Key/Value store), kube‑scheduler (bin‑packing with scoring), controller‑manager (built‑in controllers), optional cloud‑controller‑manager.
    • Declarative model: Group/Version/Resource; desired state in objects; controllers reconcile until observed ≈ desired; finalizers/ownerReferences for lifecycles.
    • Extensibility: CRDs (Custom Resource Definitions), admission webhooks, aggregated APIs; Operators encode domain logic atop CRDs.
  • Node and data planes
    • kubelet (pod lifecycle), container runtime via CRI (containerd/CRI‑O), CNI (Container Network Interface) for networking, CSI (Container Storage Interface) for storage.
    • kube‑proxy (iptables/ipvs) or eBPF (extended Berkeley Packet Filter) datapaths; flat pod network (no NAT:Network Address Translation) with CNI implementations (Calico, Cilium, Flannel).
  • Workload, config, storage:
    • Workloads: Pod, Deployment, StatefulSet, DaemonSet, Job/CronJob; Probes drive readiness/liveness/startup.
    • Services: ClusterIP/NodePort/LoadBalancer; Ingress and the newer Gateway API for L7 (Layer 7) routing.
    • ConfigSets: ConfigMap, Secret (encryption at rest via KMS:Key Management Service plugin); volumes via PV (PersistentVolume)/PVC (PersistentVolumeClaim)/StorageClass (access modes, reclaim, topology).
  • Scheduling and autoscale:
    • Affinity/anti‑affinity, topology spread, taints/tolerations, priority/preemption.
    • HPA (Horizontal Pod Autoscaler:metrics → replicas), VPA (Vertical Pod Autoscaler:resources), Cluster Autoscaler (nodes); KEDA (Kubernetes‑based Event‑Driven Autoscaling) for event‑driven scale.
  • Security and multi‑tenancy:
    • RBAC (Role‑Based Access Control), namespaces, service accounts (bounded tokens), PSA (Pod Security Admission:baseline/restricted), NetworkPolicy (L3/4:Layer 3/4), runtimeClass/seccomp.
    • Secrets Store CSI for external vaults; imagePolicy admission, sign/verify (Sigstore).
  • Ops and reliability: Rollouts with maxUnavailable/maxSurge, PDBs (Pod Disruption Budgets), graceful shutdown; etcd snapshots/defrag; audit logs and events.
image

From Kubernetes Components

image

From K8s cluster components

Serverless, Edge Computing, AI Acceleration (2020s)

Optimize the bytes → flops → bytes loop: minimize copies, keep tensors on‑device, and batch just enough to meet latency SLOs (Service Level Objectives).

  • Serverless computing: Event-driven functions with automatic scaling (e.g., Azure Functions, AWS Lambda)
  • Edge computing: Processing data closer to sources to reduce latency
  • AI acceleration: Specialized hardware (GPUs, TPUs, NPUs) for machine learning workloads
  • Key technologies: Azure Functions, AWS Lambda, TensorFlow, PyTorch, CUDA
  • Serverless (FaaS: Function as a Service) internals:
    • Triggers: HTTP, queues, events, timers; scale‑to‑zero + cold starts; concurrency controls per instance.
    • Isolation: containers, sandboxed runtimes, or micro‑VMs (virtual machines; e.g., Firecracker); per‑request billing, idempotency + retries with DLQs (Dead‑Letter Queues).
    • Portable model: Knative Serving/Eventing (revisions, activator, autoscaler); CloudEvents for event metadata.
  • Edge computing:
    • Constraints: intermittent links, limited CPU/GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), data locality/privacy; patterns: streaming, windowed analytics, feature extraction at source.
    • Tooling: lightweight K8s (Kubernetes) distributions (k3s, AKS Edge), device plugins, OTA (Over‑The‑Air) updates, attestation (TPM: Trusted Platform Module/TEE: Trusted Execution Environment).
    • Protocols: MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport), OPC‑UA (Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture), gRPC (gRPC Remote Procedure Calls); 5G MEC (Multi‑access Edge Computing) for low‑latency ingress; local caches and twin models.
  • AI acceleration:
    • Hardware: GPUs (Graphics Processing Units; CUDA cores, Tensor Cores; FP32/FP16/BF16: floating‑point formats/INT8: 8‑bit integer), TPUs (Tensor Processing Units), NPUs (Neural Processing Units); memory bandwidth and interconnect (NVLink, PCIe: Peripheral Component Interconnect Express, InfiniBand/RDMA: Remote Direct Memory Access) dominate throughput.
    • Scheduling: K8s device plugins, GPU sharing (MPS: Multi‑Process Service), partitioning (MIG: Multi‑Instance GPU), NUMA (Non‑Uniform Memory Access) alignment; topology‑aware placement.
    • Inference pipelines: model formats (ONNX: Open Neural Network Exchange), runtimes (ONNX Runtime, TensorRT), servers (Triton), quantization/pruning/distillation for latency/cost.
    • Data plane: zero‑copy, pinned memory, batching, dynamic shapes; autoscale on QPS (Queries Per Second)/latency SLOs (Service Level Objectives).
Energy/Carbon-Aware Operations (2019-2025)

Treat carbon like a first‑class SLO (Service Level Objective): define budgets, wire metrics, and route workloads by carbon score alongside latency and cost.

  • Carbon-aware scheduling: Shifting workloads to times/regions with cleaner energy
  • Technical approach: Real-time carbon intensity signals, flexible workload policies
  • Tools: Grid carbon intensity APIs, Microsoft Sustainability Calculator
  • Standards: ISO 14064, GHG Protocol, Carbon Disclosure Project
  • Signals and objectives:
    • Carbon intensity (grid gCO₂/kWh: grams of CO₂ per kilowatt‑hour): average vs marginal; real‑time + forecasts by region; combine with electricity price and datacenter PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness)/WUE (Water Usage Effectiveness).
    • Workload classes: deferrable (batch/ETL/ML training), movable (geo‑flex), latency‑critical (pin, optimize).
  • Scheduling and controls:
    • Time shifting: run deferrable jobs in low‑carbon windows (cron + forecasts).
    • Geo shifting: place in cleaner regions (multi‑region queues, policy‑aware schedulers).
    • Power/perf: DVFS (Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling) and power caps (e.g., RAPL: Running Average Power Limit), right‑size CPU/mem, consolidate to idle whole hosts, sleep states off‑peak.
  • Kubernetes patterns:
    • Scheduler plugins/extenders to weigh carbon score; KEDA (Kubernetes‑based Event‑Driven Autoscaling) for event‑driven pause/resume; PriorityClasses to preempt non‑critical work.
    • Node labels for region/zone/carbon buckets; topology spread to pack/shed; carbon‑aware HPA (Horizontal Pod Autoscaler) inputs via external metrics.
  • Measurement and reporting:
    • Telemetry: per‑pod energy models, GPU/CPU utilization exporters, storage/network I/O; estimate embodied vs operational emissions.
    • Governance: budgets/quotas per team; dashboards and alerts on kgCO₂e (kilograms of CO₂ equivalent) per service.
  • Tooling and standards:
    • Data sources: grid carbon APIs (forecast + realtime); sustainability calculators/dashboards.
    • Frameworks: GHG (Greenhouse Gas) Protocol scopes 1–3; ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14064; disclosures (CDP: Carbon Disclosure Project) and internal SLOs (Service Level Objectives; energy/SKU selection).

Energy & Sustainability Milestones (1992-present)

Energy efficiency evolved from component-level to system-level to facility-level approaches:

  • Early focus on component efficiency (CPUs, power supplies)
  • Expanded to system design (airflow, thermal envelopes)
  • Evolved to facility design (free cooling, power distribution)
  • Now includes operational practices (workload scheduling, carbon awareness)
  • Next frontier: application efficiency and performance per watt per dollar
ENERGY STAR Program (1992)
  • Administrator: U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) with U.S. DOE (Department of Energy) participation.
  • Technical focus: Energy consumption standards for computers, monitors
  • Measurement methodology: Standardized power consumption testing
  • Impact: Created baseline efficiency metrics for IT equipment
  • Scope evolution:
    • Started with monitors/computers; later added servers, storage, networking gear, and data centers.
    • Labeling indicates products meeting energy efficiency criteria under standardized tests.
  • Measurement methodology
    • TEC (Typical Energy Consumption) models: integrates active/idle/sleep/off over a duty cycle to yield kWh/year.
    • Server testing leverages SPEC SERT (Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation, Server Efficiency Rating Tool) to couple performance with power.
    • Power states and sleep: wake latency and user experience constraints included in eligibility criteria.
  • Technical levers: Display power management (DPMS, Display Power Management Signaling), low‑power SoCs (Systems on Chip), aggressive idle states (C‑states) and frequency scaling (DVFS, Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling).
  • Impact: Baselines for procurement; nudged component vendors toward better idle efficiency and automatic sleep policies.
80 PLUS (2004)
  • Focus: PSU (Power Supply Unit) conversion efficiency and PF (Power Factor) at defined loads.
  • Technical standards:
    • Tests at 115 V/230 V AC; load points typically 20%/50%/100% (Titanium adds 10%).
    • Targets include minimum efficiency and PF ≥ 0.9 at 100% load (varies by tier/voltage).
  • Tiers: Standard → Bronze → Silver → Gold → Platinum → Titanium (tightening efficiency, especially at low load).
  • Design implications:
    • Topologies: active PFC (Power Factor Correction), LLC (Inductor‑Inductor‑Capacitor) resonant converters, synchronous rectification to cut switching/conduction losses.
    • Better efficiency curves reduce waste heat, fan speeds, and upstream cooling demand.
  • Ops note: Right‑sizing PSUs and running near the 30–60% efficiency knee avoids low‑load penalties; DC bus (e.g., 48 V) at rack scale reduces conversion stages.
ASHRAE TC 9.9 Thermal Guidelines (2004)
  • Technical focus: inlet environmental specs for IT gear; psychrometric (temperature/humidity) operating envelopes.
  • Key innovation: Standardized temperature and humidity ranges
  • Classes: Recommended vs Allowable ranges; IT classes A1–A4 define maximum inlet temperatures and humidity/dew‑point limits (A3/A4 allow warmer/drier air).
  • Impact: Enabled higher operating temperatures, reduced cooling needs
    • Enables economization (using outdoor air) and higher supply‑air setpoints, cutting chiller/CRAC (Computer Room Air Conditioner)/CRAH (Computer Room Air Handler) run time.
    • Emphasizes airflow management (containment, blanking panels, leakage control) to keep inlets within spec.
PUE Defined by The Green Grid (2007)

  • Formula: Total Facility Energy ÷ IT Equipment Energy

    PUE = Total Facility Energy ÷ IT Equipment Energy; DCiE (Data Center infrastructure Efficiency) = 1 ÷ PUE

  • Ideal value: 1.0 (all energy goes to computing):

    • Clarifies measurement boundaries and intervals; pPUE (partial PUE) for modules/containers.
    • Related metrics: WUE (Water Usage Effectiveness), ERE (Energy Reuse Effectiveness) for heat reuse credit.

  • Industry evolution: Hyperscalers drove PUE from ~2.0 toward ~1.1–1.2 via economization, UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) optimization, and distribution efficiency.

  • Limitations:PUE captures facility overhead, not computational efficiency (e.g., work per joule at the server/application layer).

Open Compute Project (2011)
  • Founded by: Facebook (now Meta) to open‑spec hyperscale hardware.
  • Technical innovations: Open hardware designs for servers, storage, racks:
    • Open Rack (21‑inch) with 48 V busbar, blind‑mate power/network, serviceable sleds; ORv3 (Open Rack v3) for higher power density.
    • OCP NIC 3.0 (Network Interface Card) form factor; OAM (Open Accelerator Module) for GPUs/accelerators; rack‑scale power shelves.
    • Thermal: front‑to‑back airflow, tool‑less service, optimized heatsinks; liquid‑ready chassis options.
  • Key contributions: Simplified chassis, higher efficiency power systems, rack-scale designs
  • Impact: Supply‑chain standardization; higher PSU and VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) efficiency; faster service times and better airflow containment.
ASHRAE Widened Temperature Ranges (2015)
  • Technical change: Expanded Recommended/Allowable envelopes (A1–A4) enabling higher server inlet temperatures; guidance on humidity/dew point to manage corrosion/ESD (Electrostatic Discharge).
  • Impact: Reduced cooling requirements, enabled more free cooling hours:
    • More free‑cooling hours; reduced chiller hours; variable‑speed fans and setpoint optimization.
    • Typical rule‑of‑thumb: a ~1 °C increase in supply air can save a few percent of cooling energy (facility‑dependent).
  • Classes: New A1-A4 classes with wider ranges for different equipment types
  • Energy savings: Up to 4% energy reduction per 1°C increase in setpoint
  • Risk management: Component derating and reliability modeling vs temperature (e.g., capacitor life, HDD: Hard Disk Drive error rates) to set safe upper limits.
NVMe-oF 1.0 (2016)
  • Technical innovation: Extends NVMe queue model over networks using transports: RDMA (Remote Direct Memory Access: RoCE/iWARP), FC (Fibre Channel), and TCP (Transmission Control Protocol).
  • Preserves submission/completion queues, doorbells, and MSI‑X (Message Signaled Interrupts eXtended) semantics for low‑latency I/O (Input/Output).
  • Energy efficiency: Reduced CPU overhead for storage operations
  • Performance: Lower latency and higher IOPS per watt.
  • Lower CPU cycles per I/O and microsecond‑level latencies; higher IOPS (Input/Output Operations per Second) per watt vs legacy stacks.
  • Impact: Enabled disaggregation of storage resources.
    • JBOF (Just a Bunch Of Flash) and disaggregated storage pools
    • Flexible scaling and better media utilization across hosts.
Carbon-aware Scheduling & Net-Zero Pledges (2020)

  • Technical approach: Workload placement based on real-time grid carbon intensity

  • Company commitments: Microsoft, Google, Amazon announced carbon reduction goals

  • Implementation: APIs for carbon intensity, scheduler plugins, policy engines

  • Impact: Shifting flexible workloads to times of abundant renewable energy

  • Signals and metrics:

    • Carbon intensity (gCO₂/kWh: grams CO₂ per kilowatt-hour): average vs marginal; forecasts (24–72h) and real-time feeds by region/zone.
    • Combine with PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness), WUE (Water Usage Effectiveness), and energy price to form a multi-objective score.

  • Workload classes:

    • Deferrable (batch/ETL/ML training), geo-movable (stateless jobs), and latency-critical (pin, optimize rather than move).
    • SLOs (Service Level Objectives) define what can be delayed or relocated without breaching latency/availability.

  • Scheduling patterns:

    • Time shifting: cron windows aligned to low-carbon forecast bands; backoff and catch-up windows.
    • Geo shifting: weighted queues or schedulers prefer cleaner regions; fallbacks when capacity or data-residency blocks moves.
    • Admission control: policy engines gate non-urgent starts when carbon score is high.

  • Platform integration:

    • Kubernetes: custom scheduler plugins, HPA (Horizontal Pod Autoscaler) with external carbon metrics, KEDA (Kubernetes-based Event-Driven Autoscaling) pause/resume.
    • Queues: priority tiers (critical/standard/background) with carbon-aware dispatchers.
    • CI/CD: carbon windows for non-urgent build/test; artifact promotion decoupled from deploy.

  • Data sources and governance:

    • Grid APIs (forecast + realtime), internal telemetry, and cloud region signals; cache and smooth noisy signals.
    • Budgets: kgCO₂e (kilograms CO₂-equivalent) per team/service; dashboards and alerts; exception process for critical incidents.

  • Risks and safeguards:

    • Don’t violate data residency/compliance; validate capacity and failover paths.
    • Avoid “rebound” effects (extra retries); measure net CO₂e delta versus baseline.
Liquid/Immersion Cooling Adoption (2022-present)

  • Drivers: Higher density racks, AI accelerators with high TDP

  • Technologies: Direct-to-chip liquid cooling, single-phase immersion, two-phase immersion

  • Benefits: Higher efficiency, enables >100kW per rack densities

  • Adoption: From niche HPC to mainstream in hyperscale facilities

  • Terminology:

    • TDP (Thermal Design Power): sustained heat the cooling solution must remove.
    • AI (Artificial Intelligence), HPC (High-Performance Computing).

  • Direct liquid cooling (DLC) details

    • D2C (Direct-to-Chip) cold plates, CDUs (Coolant Distribution Units), dripless quick-disconnects; redundant pumps (N+1), dual manifolds.
    • Supply/return loops (secondary fluid) with 30–45°C supply enable chiller-less or elevated setpoints; plate heat exchangers to primary loop.

  • Immersion cooling:

    • Single-phase: dielectric oils; heat removed via circulation through heat exchangers.
    • Two-phase: fluorinated fluids boil on hotspots; vapor condenses on a coil: very high heat flux handling; manage fluid loss and GWP (Global Warming Potential).

  • Assisted air/liquid hybrids: RDHx (Rear-Door Heat Exchanger) for retrofit; reduces hot-aisle temps and fan power without full DLC/immersion conversion.

  • Facility integration and operations

    • Leak detection, fluid monitoring (particulates, moisture), material compatibility (seals, plastics), and service workflows (lift/tilt fixtures).
    • Heat reuse: recover low-grade heat for district heating; improves site ERE (Energy Reuse Effectiveness).

  • Performance and efficiency:

    • Lower fan power, improved component temps, better turbo headroom; PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) and WUE (Water Usage Effectiveness) improvements possible.
    • Key metrics: approach temperature, ΔT (delta-T) across cold plates, pump efficiency curves, rack inlet/outlet ∆P (pressure drop).

  • Trade-offs:

    • CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) and OPEX (Operational Expenditure) impacts; staff training and safety; fluid sourcing and end-of-life handling.
    • Rack mechanics (weight, buoyancy in immersion, service clearances) and vendor qualification for DLC-ready SKUs.

Recommended Approaches and Best Practices

In Azure, service/capacity limitations in certain regions are common, especially for high-demand resources (like GPUs, large VM sizes, or new services).

By monitoring quotas, planning for multi-region deployment, optimizing usage, you can minimize disruption from regional Azure capacity constraints, while meeting energy and sustainability goals.

Monitor and Request Quota Increases

  • Regularly monitor quotas: Use the Azure Portal Usage + quotas (per Subscription/Region/Provider) and service blades (e.g., vCPU, virtual CPU families).

  • Proactively request increases: Submit quota increases ahead of scale events; some are self‑serve, others require support.

  • Automate monitoring: Script checks and alerts for thresholds.

  • What to monitor (examples):

    • Compute vCPU families (Dv5, Fsv2, ND/NC GPU families), Public/Static IPs, disk SKUs, vNet Gateways (per region).
    • AKS (Azure Kubernetes Service) underlying VM quotas (node pools map to VM families/regions).

  • CLI/PowerShell quick checks (Windows PowerShell):

    # vCPU usage/limits for a region
az vm list-usage -l eastus -o table

# Unattached Public IPs (proxy for capacity housekeeping)
az network public-ip list -g MyRg --query "[?ipConfiguration==null]" -o table

# Regions list
az account list-locations --query "[].{name:name, displayName:displayName}" -o table

  • Quota change request:

    • Portal: Subscription > Usage + quotas > Microsoft.Compute (or service) > Region > Request increase.

    • Support ticket (CLI)

      az extension add --name support
az support ticket create `
  --problem-classification "Service and subscription limits (quotas)" `
  --service-id "Microsoft.Compute" `
  --title "Increase Dv5 vCPU quota in East US" `
  --severity minimal `
  --description "Need +500 vCPU for AKS scale event in 3 weeks"

  • Alerting pattern: Schedule a task (Windows Task Scheduler/Azure Automation) that pages if usage/limit > 80%.

Multi-Region Planning

  • Architect for portability: Parameterize region/zone in ARM (Azure Resource Manager), Bicep, or Terraform; avoid hard‑coding.

  • Infrastructure as Code (IaC): One template, multiple parameter files for primary/secondary; validate with what‑if.

  • Data replication:

    • Storage: LRS → ZRS → GRS/RAGRS/GZRS (pick per RPO/RTO).
    • Azure SQL: Auto‑Failover Groups.
    • Cosmos DB: Multi‑region writes; pick consistency (eventual → strong).
    • Key Vault: Zone‑redundant vaults, soft‑delete, purge protection.

  • Routing and failover:

    • Azure Front Door (global L7) or Traffic Manager (DNS) for active/active or active/passive; health probes drive failover.
    • DNS (Domain Name System) TTL tuning for faster cutover.

  • Region‑parameterized Bicep:

    // Deploy a VM Scale Set; pass -p region=eastus|westus2 on deploy
@allowed([
  'eastus'
  'westus2'
  'westeurope'
])
param region string = resourceGroup().location

resource vmss 'Microsoft.Compute/virtualMachineScaleSets@2023-09-01' = {
  name: 'fleet'
  location: region
  sku: {
    name: 'Standard_D4s_v5'
    capacity: 3
    tier: 'Standard'
  }
  properties: {
    upgradePolicy: { mode: 'Rolling' }
    // ...other properties...
  }
}

  • What‑if to verify drift/impact:

    az deployment group what-if -g MyRg -f main.bicep -p region=westus2

Leverage Newer/Alternative Regions

  • Check capacity in alternatives: Newer/less‑used regions can have more GPU/large VM stock.

  • Evaluate constraints: Latency, data residency, compliance, AZ (Availability Zone) count, price/SLA.

  • Practical steps:

    • Maintain a ranked “preferred regions” list per workload (latency‑critical vs batch).

    • Measure latency to users/backends:

      az network watcher test-connectivity `
  --source-resource <vmIdOrName> `
  --dest-address myapp.contoso.com --dest-port 443

    • Keep equivalency maps of VM SKUs by region (families differ regionally).

  • Cost/feature checks: Compare regional pricing and SLAs; validate managed service feature parity before moving.

Right-Size and Optimize Consumption

  • Use autoscaling and Spot VMs (Virtual Machine Scale Sets, VMSS):

    az vmss create -g MyRg -n batch-spot `
  --image UbuntuLTS --orchestration-mode Uniform `
  --priority Spot --max-price -1 --instance-count 0

  • Deallocate unused resources:

    # Stop/deallocate
az vm deallocate -g MyRg -n DevVm01

# Find and clean up unattached disks
az disk list --query "[?managedBy==null].{name:name, rg:resourceGroup}" -o table

  • Schedule non‑critical work: Run batch at off‑peak times/regions (AKS CronJobs, Functions timers, Logic Apps).

  • Instance/disk optimization: Size VMs to actual CPU/mem/IO; use Ephemeral OS disks for stateless nodes; choose Premium SSD v2/Ultra only where needed.

  • Purchasing options: Reservations/Savings Plans for steady workloads; track with Cost Management + Advisor.

Work with Azure Support

  • Engage Microsoft early: For large GPU (AI/ML) clusters or bursts, loop in your account team; consider capacity reservations.

  • Capacity reservations (pin capacity):

    az capacity reservation group create -g MyRg -n capGroup -l eastus
az capacity reservation create -g MyRg --reservation-group capGroup `
  -n capDv5 --sku "Standard_D8s_v5" --capacity 50 --zone 1

  • Monitor advisories: Azure Service Health alerts for regional constraints/maintenance.

  • Open a support ticket (CLI):

    az support ticket create `
  --problem-classification "Service and subscription limits (quotas)" `
  --service-id "Microsoft.Compute" `
  --title "GPU quota & capacity planning - East US & West Europe" `
  --severity moderate `
  --description "Requesting NDv5 vGPU quota + capacity reservation for Q4 training."

Adopt Carbon- and Cost-Aware Scheduling

  • Implementing Carbon and Cost-Aware Strategies:

    • Workload Classification by Flexibility:

      • Time-Flexible Workloads: Batch processing, ETL jobs, machine learning training, and backups that can be deferred to lower-carbon or lower-cost periods
      • Location-Flexible Workloads: Stateless services, content delivery, and analytics that can run in multiple regions
      • Fixed Workloads: User-facing applications and latency-sensitive services that must run continuously regardless of carbon/cost conditions

    • Regional Strategy Implementation:

      • Select primary regions based on a combination of:

        • Average carbon intensity (lower is better)
        • Renewable energy percentage (higher is better)
        • Cost efficiency (lower $/compute unit)
        • Latency requirements (proximity to users)

      • Example regional selection matrix:

        | Region      | Avg. Carbon | Renewable % | Cost Index | Latency | Score |
|-------------|-------------|-------------|------------|---------|-------|
| West Europe | 211 gCO₂/kWh| 48%         | 1.05       | 85ms    | 8.2   |
| North Europe| 189 gCO₂/kWh| 62%         | 1.00       | 92ms    | 8.7   |
| East US     | 338 gCO₂/kWh| 28%         | 0.95       | 35ms    | 7.1   |

    • Temporal Strategy Implementation:

      • Implement carbon-aware job scheduling that:

        • Monitors forecast carbon intensity for the next 24-72 hours
        • Schedules deferrable workloads during low-carbon windows
        • Balances carbon savings against deadline requirements

      • Sample scheduling logic:

        def schedule_job(job, carbon_forecasts, deadline):
    # Find the lowest carbon window before the deadline
    best_window = min(
        [window for window in carbon_forecasts if window.time < deadline],
        key=lambda w: w.carbon_intensity
    )
    
    # Schedule the job during that window
    return schedule_at(job, best_window.time)

    • Hybrid Approaches:

      • Combine region selection and time scheduling for maximum impact
      • Implement "follow-the-sun/follow-the-wind" strategies where workloads migrate to regions with abundant solar or wind energy based on time of day
      • Create optimization algorithms that continuously adjust workload placement based on real-time carbon intensity, cost, and performance metrics

  • Automate with orchestrators: AKS scheduler plugins, external metrics; Functions/Logic Apps for timers.

  • Carbon and Cost Signal Integration:

    • Data Sources for Carbon-Aware Decisions:

      • Grid Carbon Intensity APIs: Integrate with services like WattTime, ElectricityMaps, or regional grid operators that provide real-time and forecasted carbon intensity data (measured in gCO₂/kWh)

      • Example API integration:

        # Fetch real-time carbon intensity for westeurope region
$carbonData = Invoke-RestMethod -Uri "https://api.carbonintensity.org.uk/regional/westeurope" -Method Get
$currentIntensity = $carbonData.data[0].intensity.forecast
Write-Output "Current carbon intensity: $currentIntensity gCO₂/kWh"

    • Multi-Factor Decision Framework:

      • Combine carbon data with cost and performance metrics to create a weighted decision matrix

      • Sample decision formula:

        WorkloadScore = (CarbonWeight × NormalizedCarbonScore) + 
                (CostWeight × NormalizedCostScore) + 
                (PerformanceWeight × NormalizedPerfScore)

    • Operational Dashboard Integration:

      • Track key metrics in integrated dashboards:
        • Carbon intensity by region (gCO₂/kWh)
        • Cost per compute unit ($/vCPU-hour)
        • Emissions per workload (kgCO₂e per service)
        • Performance impact of carbon-aware scheduling (% change in response time)

    • Historical Analysis for Optimization:

      • Store carbon, cost, and performance data in a time-series database
      • Use this data to:
        • Identify optimal carbon windows for future scheduling
        • Calculate the effectiveness of carbon-aware policies
        • Fine-tune the balance between carbon reduction and performance
        • Quantify financial and environmental impact for stakeholder reporting

  • AKS autoscale and placement:

    # Enable cluster autoscaler on an existing node pool
az aks nodepool update -g MyRg -n np1 --cluster-name MyAks `
  --enable-cluster-autoscaler --min-count 1 --max-count 20

    • Carbon-Aware Node Management:

      • Label nodes with carbon intensity: Use Kubernetes labels (carbon-intensity=low/medium/high) to track which regions or availability zones have cleaner energy at any given time.

      • Apply taints to "green" pools: Mark node pools in low-carbon regions with taints (e.g., carbon-preference=green:NoSchedule) so only workloads that explicitly tolerate them will run there. This reserves the cleanest infrastructure for carbon-sensitive workloads.

      • Example node labeling:

        # Label nodes in a region with lower carbon intensity
kubectl label nodes -l agentpool=np-northeurope carbon-intensity=low

# Add taint to reserve nodes for carbon-aware workloads
kubectl taint nodes -l agentpool=np-northeurope carbon-preference=green:NoSchedule

      • Deploy with tolerations:

        # Deployment that tolerates and prefers green nodes
apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: carbon-aware-batch
spec:
  template:
    spec:
      tolerations:
      - key: "carbon-preference"
        operator: "Equal"
        value: "green"
        effect: "NoSchedule"

    • Carbon-Aware Auto-Scaling:

      • HPA with external carbon metrics: Configure Horizontal Pod Autoscaler to ingest carbon intensity data from external sources (like WattTime API or ElectricityMaps) through the Kubernetes custom metrics API.

      • Scale down during high-carbon periods: Automatically reduce replicas when carbon intensity is high, then scale back up during cleaner energy periods.

      • Example HPA configuration:

        apiVersion: autoscaling/v2
kind: HorizontalPodAutoscaler
metadata:
  name: carbon-aware-hpa
spec:
  scaleTargetRef:
    apiVersion: apps/v1
    kind: Deployment
    name: batch-processor
  minReplicas: 1
  maxReplicas: 10
  metrics:
  - type: External
    external:
      metric:
        name: grid.carbon.intensity
        selector:
          matchLabels:
            region: westeurope
      target:
        type: Value
        value: 150  # Scale down when gCO₂/kWh exceeds this threshold
  behavior:
    scaleDown:
      stabilizationWindowSeconds: 300

  • Batch/ETL (Extract–Transform–Load) patterns:

    • Time-Shifted Workload Scheduling:

      • Schedule resource-intensive jobs to run during periods of low carbon intensity, typically when renewable energy is abundant

      • Use cron expressions with wider windows plus carbon-aware logic to determine exact execution time

      • Example using Azure Logic App with carbon intensity trigger:

        {
  "triggers": {
    "When_carbon_intensity_is_below_threshold": {
      "type": "Http",
      "inputs": {
        "method": "GET",
        "uri": "https://api.carbonintensity.org.uk/regional/westeurope"
      },
      "recurrence": {
        "frequency": "Hour",
        "interval": 1
      },
      "conditions": [
        {
          "expression": "@less(body('Parse_Response').intensity, 150)"
        }
      ]
    }
  }
}

    • Resilient Carbon-Aware Processing:

      • Implement bounded retries with Dead Letter Queues (DLQs) for safety during unexpected high-carbon periods
      • Ensure clean recovery when resuming workloads that were paused during high-carbon windows

  • Carbon and Cost Governance:

    • Emission Budgeting:

      • Define carbon budgets alongside cost budgets for each service, team, or application

      • Track emissions through the Azure Emissions Impact Dashboard, which provides Scope 1, 2, and 3 carbon footprint data

      • Example policy for monthly carbon targets:

        Service: Data Warehousing Pipeline
Monthly CO2e budget: 500kg
Cost budget: $2,500
Compliance requirements: Data must remain in North America
Flexibility score: Medium (can defer up to 6 hours)

    • Monitoring and Alerting:

      • Set up alerts when carbon or cost thresholds approach their limits (typically at 75% and 90%)

      • Create dashboards combining both financial and environmental metrics:

        # PowerShell to configure an Azure Monitor alert for carbon
New-AzMetricAlertRuleV2 -Name "CarbonBudgetAlert" `
  -ResourceGroupName "MyResourceGroup" `
  -TargetResourceId "/subscriptions/{id}/..." `
  -Condition $condition `
  -ActionGroup $actionGroupId `
  -Severity 2

    • Disaster Recovery Considerations:

      • Document Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPO) when implementing region-shifting strategies

      • Create a carbon/cost vs. availability trade-off matrix to guide decisions during incidents:

        | Service Tier | Max Carbon Override | Cost Override | Regions      |
|--------------|---------------------|---------------|--------------|
| Critical     | No limit            | 5x baseline   | Any          |
| Important    | 3x baseline         | 3x baseline   | Paired only  |
| Background   | Carbon-optimal only | 1.5x baseline | Flexible     |

    • Compliance Documentation:

      • Track and report carbon savings for ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) reporting
      • Document how carbon-aware scheduling contributes to corporate sustainability goals
      • Create automated reports showing:
        • Carbon saved vs. baseline
        • Cost impact of carbon-aware scheduling
        • Sustainability improvements over time

Note

Quotas, capacity, cost, and carbon are coupled constraints. Make deployments portable (IaC), keep a ranked list of viable regions/SKUs, and wire alerts so you can react before users feel it.

Total views

Refresh Date: 2025-08-21

About

Demystifying Cloud Evolution provides an overview of cloud technologies, blending historical context with technical insights into Azure’s architecture. It covers capacity management, energy efficiency, and orchestration tools like Kubernetes, with demos and learnings for community reference

Topics

azure capacity-planning cloud-computing computing-history

Resources

Readme

License

MIT license
Activity
Custom properties

Stars

0 stars

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

0 forks
Report repository

Releases

No releases published

Packages

No packages published

Contributors 2

  •  
  •