Cisco UCS EMC World Theater presentation 2012-06-08
 

Cisco UCS EMC World Theater presentation 2012-06-08

on

  • 1,749 views

This presentation was shown at EMC World 2012 in Las Vegas. It shows how Cisco UCS has gained market momentum and why it has done so.

This presentation was shown at EMC World 2012 in Las Vegas. It shows how Cisco UCS has gained market momentum and why it has done so.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,749
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,478
Embed Views
271

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
57
Comments
0

1 Embed 271

http://blogs.cisco.com 271

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Did you know Cisco Sells Servers? World Class Servers. < ADVANCE SLIDE >
  • UCS had posted 63 World Records, Certainly leadership on benchmarks change, but coming out of the gate setting new records for Vmmark, SPECComp, SPECint, SPECfp and Oracle E-Business shows you just how good and how flexible Cisco UCS servers are. < ADVANCE SLIDE >Cisco just added another 8 in March with the new Intel E-5 processors. < NEXT SLIDE >
  • UCS had posted 63 World Records, Certainly leadership on benchmarks change, but coming out of the gate setting new records for Vmmark, SPECComp, SPECint, SPECfp and Oracle E-Business shows you just how good and how flexible Cisco UCS servers are. < ADVANCE SLIDE >Cisco just added another 8 in March with the new Intel E-5 processors. < NEXT SLIDE >
  • Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) has been seeing wide adoption Worldwide as you can see from this set of charts. In just three short years Cisco UCS has been seeing rapid acceptance across a wide strata of applications and workloads. From stand-alone data bases and other applications, to highly virtualized environments, UCS is hitting the mark for data centers today and tomorrow.So Cisco gained share, who lost share? < NEXT SLIDE >
  • In just the last 2 years, Cisco UCS blade server Customers have moved Cisco to:10.8% of the total WW factory revenue and the #3 position. < ADVANCE SLIDE >16.2% of the total USA factory revenue and the #2 positionThe obvious question is “Why are customers moving to UCS?” What is the driving movement?Let’s take a look at the root causes behind this movement. < NEXT SLIDE >
  • Today, the data center makes up 44% of overall IT spend. The traditional data center design was to build in silos - with dedicated resources for each application - and to design silo resourcesfor peak load environments. This model had some inherent inefficiencies: Resources can’t be shared and, For the majority of the time, applications aren’t maximizing the capability of the server platform, All of which drives up costs due to underutilization of resources.  < ADVANCE SLIDE >Enter virtualization. As you can see here, the amount of investment to actually buy servers has been flat to declining for the past 15 years.Virtualization has helped keep hardware costs down but at the expense of escalating management complexity, burden and therefore cost. < ADVANCE SLIDE >The cost of managing and operating servershas been growing steadily and represented 66% of the total spend in 2011, and is projected to be 80% of the total by 2013. Data Centers need to deliver increased efficiencies in areas that have the greatest effect for your IT department and business. The answer is devote your efforts against the largest cost bucket, OpEx.This is not a “Do More, With Less” conversation. It is a “Do More, With What I Have” and “Maximize the Delivered Benefit” for every person and purchase.Let’s see why customers are choosing Cisco UCS to help them meet this OpEx challenge. < NEXT SLIDE >
  • What do you get with legacy blade chassis design? Even those that have now followed Cisco’s lead and rolled out “converged” (well almost) intra chassis switches?Multiple points of management, even for just a single chassis. Compare that to UCS on the right. < ADVANCE SLIDE >A pair of Fabric Interconnects in the center with two blade chassis and 16 blade servers.All with a single point of management. A true single point of management, not multiple applets shoved inside of a single “pane of glass” to look like on tool.Now let’s look at how these two environments scale, the Legacy blade chassis and Cisco UCS. < NEXT SLIDE >
  • Looking to the left side again,The Legacy chassis scales in building blocks, every chassis identical. Here we show 64 blade servers with 16 separate switch/network management points that are for the blade network only, we haven’t gotten to the blades yet. You have to buy more switches with every chassis, consuming more upstream ports.This adds ever increasing management burden, both at the server chassis level and further into the data center where port consumption is escalating with every new chassis.Let’s compare this to the way UCS scales: < ADVANCE SLIDE >Cisco UCS is supporting 80 blades here (16 more than the legacy) and still only has ONE management point. AND this management point covers both the network AND the blade servers < ADVANCE SLIDE >Management Touch Points is one of the major drivers behind the rapid adoption of UCS, there are others.There is obviously cost associated with scale, and as you might guess, including all the switches in every chassis is not very cost effective.Let’s see how architecture cost plays out at scale.< NEXT SLIDE >
  • This is a blade chassis and chassis networking comparison only. No blades are included yet. You have to put the infrastructure in place first.For the first 16 blade slots, there is some extra cost for UCS associated. You are putting the Unified infrastructure capability in place. About $11,000 extra at retail to retail comparisons.The real question is: “What is the value I get for making that extra infrastructure investment?”The answer is obvious when you consider the management savings illustrated on the prior slide and then looking at this graph.We already saw where UCS delivers less complex and easier scale on the network management front.Now you are seeing the second leg of the infrastructure stool – lower cost to scale infrastructure.We still need to look at a third leg, managing the compute nodes themselves, since compute management costs (both physical and virtual) are spiraling upwards quickly as we saw earlier. < NEXT SLIDE >
  • Compute management is another driver behind the growth of UCS adoption.As you can see, there is no comparison between the left and right side in this slide. Cisco UCS lets a user pre-set over 127 different server identity features, IF THEY WANT.The Legacy chassis does not has this same degree of flexibility. This means more manual steps, which means more time to deploy and greater potential for error, leading to even longer times to deploy.The other vendor mgmt software is able to assign some server parameters, but the hardware (the server) still tells the system how it is configured. Additional management is required to configure the BIOS, Firmware, Full boot paths, Array settings etc…. Not UCS. UCS service profiles enable full logical server abstraction. Every detail about a servers identity or any configuration option that would have to be set locally on the server is configurable in the Service Profile. Service Profiles enable UCS to dictate to the server the manner in which it should be configured. This “profile” can be saved as a template and gives the server admin a repeatable methodology for deploy and redeploying servers to identical known good states. The legacy vendor is missing much of the logical server abstraction and cannot equal the capabilities that are enabled with the Service Profile. Lets look at how this plays out in a data center. < ADVANCE SLIDE >
  • Here you see the various management applications that are necessary for a typical Legacy blade environment from a competitor. All of these touch every blade server.Contrast this with UCS on the right side of the slide. < ADVANCE SLIDE >The legacy management design touches every compute node, with added cost vs. UCS with a single touch management touch point for no additional cost.So how does this scale? < NEXT SLIDE >
  • Not very graceful. This legacy environment adds not just more management, it also adds additional cost to go with the increased complexity as you add servers.The Legacy environment now has 64 blade servers, each needing touching and having a number of higher level management tools to help manage the whole mess. More management points, more consoles, all just a bunch of “consoles as applets” inside a single pane of glass. And additional costs at each chassis add. What does UCS look like? < ADVANCE SLIDE >This UCS environment can scale up to 160 blade AND OR rack servers, and does it with truly one single console. NO additional cost. The management functionality is built into the Fabric Interconnects.Now lets take a look at what the entire hardware TCO stack looks like including servers, power and deployment time, as well as other items < NEXT SLIDE >
  • Here you see a comparison between Cisco UCS and another vendor at retail to retail pricing for the hardware. It is important to note that the full stack of OpEx has been included. All the servers for both vendors have identical dual Intel E5-2620 processors and 64GB of memory (8 x 8GB DIMMs). No I realize that no one pays retail, but we cannot make comparisons using discounted pricing because it is important that you be able to verify and validate these numbers independently. That can only happen using retail pricingThe important take away from this slide is that UCS is more cost effective for the hardware purchases at lower server counts, and this clearly illustrates that point. “Top of Rack” switches are included in the competitive cost because they are required to scale the competitor’s solution to the same 160 server count that UCS can support with a single pair of Fabric Interconnects.Graphs and tables showing saving and economies are great, but……The real measure is what have savings have actual UCS customers seen. < NEXT SLIDE >*********************Descriptions of contents:Retail Pricing:Cisco pricing is MSRP (47% discount for UCS hardware and 17% discount for services from GPL); Global Price List dated March 27, 2012.Competitor server, chassis, and software pricing from their public web configuration page as of March 29, 2012. Competitor networking prices from the Competitor Product Bulletin updated March 30, 2012.Server Configurations: Cisco- UCS B200 M3, 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2620 2.00GHz processors, memory uses 8GB DDR3 1333MHz with quantity qty 2 for 16GB configurations and qty 8 for 64GB configurations. PC3-10600 2R 1.35v DIMMs, and the VIC 1240 mLOM.Competitor- New Gen Blade Server, 2 x Intel Xeon E5-2620 2.00GHz processors, either 2 (16GB configuration) or 8 (64GB configuration) 8GB DDR3 1333MHz, PC3L-10600 2R CAS-9 LV DIMMs, and the Converged CNA 10Gb 2P Flex type CNA LOM. System Manageris included under Hardware Management.Chassis & Interconnect Configurations:Cisco - 2204UP Fabric Extender; 5108 Chassis, 4 PSU, 8 fans, 2 x 2204UP Fabric Extender, and 4 uplinks per chassis. 6248UP Fabric Interconnect, 2 PSU, and port licenses as required.Competitor – Blade Chassis Enclosure, 6 PSU, 10 fans, redundant Onboard Administrators, 2 x Converged blade chassis switch 10Gb/24-Port Modules. Virtual ControlEnterprise Manager included for two or more chassis under Hardware Management.Networking:Cisco- No top-of-rack switches needed.Competitor- Competitor 2510-24 port 1Gb switch with rack kit for OOBM. Competitor 6600-24XG 10Gb switch with accessories and rack kit. Competitor 8/24 SAN Switch with accessories and licenses as needed.Server Deployment Times: Data extrapolated from Principle Technologies Test Report, March 2011.Power: Calculated from vendor's public tools for servers; switch power from QuickSpecs.
  • When we talk about savings, here are some examples of what our customers are seeing. 90% Faster Server Deployment80% Higher Admin Productivity30% Lower Infrastructure CapEx60% Lower Power and Cooling cost40% Better Application Performance< NEXT SLIDE >***************TCO / ROI Travelport reduced their cost of computing by 39% overall at the solution level, $5.65 million over 5 years.CapEx: -NightHawk Radiology: 50% reduction in physical servers, 80% less cablingHolmesglen TAFE Reduces Server Hardware Costs by 30%, Uses 50% Less Space in the Data Centre - http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/HolmesglenTAFE.pdf -Audience View Tracking saw a 25% decrease in opeprating costs-Cineca was able to quickly and easily migrate 96% of our physical servers to virtual machines.“-Converge saved as much as $200,000 in VMware licensing costs and reduced rack servers from 25 to 6OpExUniversity of Colorado shrinks footprint by 90% and reduces power use by $600,000 USD – http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/%20collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/case_%20study_NetApp_Cisco_Kilo_Lab.pdfDisaster Recovery -Pitt Ohio’s standard servers, with 8 to 15 GB of data, can be fully backed up in three to five minutes. VMs can be restoredin anywhere from five minutes to an hour, instead of 8 to 12 hours. Full remote accessibility enables them torestore a system from anywhere. When a large SQL server went down over a weekend, they were able tocompletely restore it in 40 minutes from his home with no need to involve the database administrator.–Miami Children’s Hospital has reduced backup times by 50% http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/miami_childrens_hospital_cs.pdf Deployment Times-Euronet Worldwide implements and provisions virtual servers 95% faster with UCS – http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/euronet-deploys-cisco-unified-computing-system-and-cloud-infrastructure-nasdaq-csco-1507480.htm -NetApp deploys 10,000 virtual machine servers in less than 1 hour. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/%20collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/case_%20study_NetApp_Cisco_Kilo_Lab.pdf-Audience View Tracking reduced server provisioning from 1.5 days to 1 hour-Consert was able to get the [UCS] racks up, configured, and actually have virtual machines running within about three days from when we took the products out of the box -National FFA Organization reduced time spent managing physical servers by 80%-Enspire reduced provisioning from 13 to 6 weeks, with goal of achieving 2-wk deployments IT Staffing–Miami Children’s Hospital is at all time high for network availability, 99.999% - http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/miami_childrens_hospital_cs.pdf –Exam Works reduced potential need for 20 admins per 1000 employees down to 4, saving an a projected $1.1 million USD annually-CareCore reduced time to launch new lines of business from 6 months to 2 weeks and increased time software engineers can devote to development from 50% to 80%-Columbia Sportswear reduced IT management costs for their SAP deployment-RUN Balzano estimates that their engineers are spending at least 10% less time on management Power/Cooling- University of Colorado: 90% savings in power consumption-Travelport reduced power and cooling cost by 69% with UCS.-Cisco IT saves 66% on power, 50% on cables and reduces licensing, support and maintenance cost by migrating critical applications like Oracle RAC and SAP ERP from Competitor Superdome to UCS AND gets faster response times –http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ciscoitatwork/data_center/docs/Cisco_IT_Case_Study_OracleMigrationtoUCS.pdf-National FFA Organization lowered power consumption by 40%Application PerformanceAvago Technologies: Accelerated long-running batch processes by 30-40% Despite adding third data center, previous platform, memory utilization averaged 60 to 80% and peaked at 100%, with UCS it’s just 15%Taser: 50x application performance improvementEMC moves the world’s largest Oracle E-Business Suite apps off UNIX/RISC to Cisco UCS and got 51% to 95% performance improvements on quote and configuration activities with reduced power cost and complexity, at the same time delivering high availability capabilities in an effective, cost affordable better than previously possible – http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns340/ns517/ns224/cisco_emc_risc_migration_case_study.pdfGalliker Transport AG (Switzerland) two UCS systems deliver 4x the performance (75% better performance) than previously provided by their entire computer room (11 racks) and at the same time cut cabling by 80%.
  • Cisco UCS Provides customers:A Simpler Architecture - Easy to Scale, Easy to ManageA Faster More Flexible Management Structure - Policy Based Resource Allocation, automation means faster with fewer errorsHigh Performance for Single App or Virtualized Environments - Highest I/O per blade with prescriptive management control of over subscription at the blade and chassis level.No Need To Compromise - Form Factor agnostic management. The back of the chassis is not a profit center< NEXT SLIDE >

Cisco UCS EMC World Theater presentation 2012-06-08 Cisco UCS EMC World Theater presentation 2012-06-08 Presentation Transcript

  • Cisco SystemsThomas CloydData Center and VirtualizationUnified Computing SystemMay 2012© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1
  • © 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 2
  • A History of World Record Performance on Industry Standard Benchmarks SPECint_rate_base2006 SPECfp_base2006 SPECfp_rate_base2006 SPECint_rate_base2006 SPECfp_rate_base2006 SPECfp_rate_base2006 SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket X86 2-socket X86 2-socket B200 M1 X86 2-socket B200 M1 X86 2-socket B200 M2 X86 4-socket C460 M1 X86 2-socket C220 M3Best CPU B200 M2 C220 M3Performance SPECint_rate_base2006 SPECfp_rate_base2006 SPECint_rate_base2006 SPECint_rate2006 X86 2-socket B200 M2 March 15 2012: 8 new benchmark records on Cisco 2-socket C260 M2 2-socket C260 M2 X86 4-socket C460 M2 SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 4-socket C460 M1 SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket C220 M3 UCS M3 platforms VMmark 1.x VMmark 1.x VMmark 1.x VMmark 1.xBest 2-socket B200 M1 2-socket B200 M1 2-socket B250 M2 Overall C460 M1Virtualization Two-socketVMmark 1.x Record Two-Socket RecordPerformance VMmark 1.x VMmark 1.x SPECCompLbase Overall C460 M1 Blade Server B440 M1 B200 M3 2 –socket Blade B230 M1 SPECint*_rate_base2006 C220 M3 527,122 671 base score VMmark 2.1 VMmark 2.1 VMmark 2.1 2-socket Blade B200 M2 Two–node 4-socketBest Cloud 4-socket C460 M2 C460 M2Computing Two-Socket Record Two-Socket x86 RecordPerformance VMmark 2.0 VMmark 2.1 SPECjbb*2005C460 M2 Overall B200 M2 Overall C220 M3 SPECfp*_rate_base2006 C220 M3 1,584,567 BOPS 496 base score Oracle E-Business Suite Oracle E-Business Suite Oracle E-Business Suite Oracle E-Business Suite TPC-C TPC-H TPC-HBest Ex-large Model Payroll Medium Model Xtra Large Model Payroll Xtra Large Model Payroll Oracle DB 11g & OEL Microsoft SQL Server VectorWiseEnterprise Batch B200 M2 Order-to-Cash B200 M2 Batch B230 M2 B200 M3 C250 M2 C460 M2 C250 M2 Two-Socket Record Two-Socket RecordApplicationPerformance Oracle E-Business Suite Medium Model Payroll Oracle E-Business Suite SPECompM*base2001 Medium Model Payroll C240 M3SPECjEnterprise2010 SPECjEnteprise2010 Oracle E-Business Suite Large Model SPECfp*_base2006 Overall B440 M1 2-node B440 M2 TPC-H C220 M3 VectorWise Batch B200 M2 Batch B200 M2 Order-to-Cash B200 M3 C250 M2 94,065 base score* 89.9 base score* SPECjAppServer2004Best SPECjbb2005 SPECjbb2005 SPECjAppServer2004 SPECjbb2005 SPECjbb2005 1-node 2-socket C250 M2 Overall Record B200 M2 X86 2-socket X86 4-socket C460 M1 Overall Record B230 M1 2-node B230 M1 X86 2-socket X86 2-socket C220 M3EnterpriseMiddleware Oracle E-Business Suite B200 M3 Oracle E-Business Suite B200 M3 SPECjbb2005 SPECjbb2005 SPECjbb2005 SPECjbb2005 SPECjbb2005Performance X86 2-socket Payroll B230 M1 Extra Large Model 2-socket C260 M2 2-socket B230 M2 Order-To-Cash LargeM2 2-socket B230 M2 4-socket B440 Model 828,729 Employees/hr 206,044 Lines/hr SPECompMbase2001 SPECompLbase2001 LinPack LS-Dyna SPECompMbase2001 SPECompMbase2001 SPECompMbase2001Best 2-socket B200 M2 2-socket B200 M2 2-socket B200 M2 4-socket C460 M1 4-socket C460 M1 4-socket C460 M1 2-socket C240 M3CompetitorCPerformance SPECompMbase2001 SPECompLbase2001 SPECompMbase2001 SPECompLbase2001 SPECompMbase2001 SPECompMbase2001 SPECompLbase2001 2-socket B200 M2 2-socket B200 M2 2-socket B230 M2 2-socket B230 M2 4-socket C460 M2 4-socket C460 M2 2-socket C220 M3 © 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 4 Data Current as of March 15, 2012
  • WW UCS momentum is fueled by game-changing innovation; Cisco is quickly passingX86 Server Blade Market Share, Q4 CY121 UCS #3 with 12.3% established players x86 Blade servers are growing over twice as fast as the overall UCS momentum is fueled by game- x86 computing market changing innovation; Cisco is quickly passing established players UCS After Three Short Years US UCS #2 with 19.1% 11,000 UCS Customers WW $1.3B annualized revenue run rate for CY11Q4 UCS FY12Q2 growth of 91% Y/Y Source: 1 IDC Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker, Q4 2012, February, 2012, Revenue Share 2 IDC Q3 CY11 Server Forecaster, Based on Blade Revenue © 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 5
  • WW x86 Blade Servers Q42009 to Q42011 Share Changes Market Share of WW Total Market Share of WW Factory Revenue Total Units Vendor Market Share Change Market Share Change Cisco 10.8% 9.1% HP -6.9% -5.8% IBM -5.9% -5.3% All Others 1.9% 2.0% USA x86 Blade Servers Q42009 to Q42011 Share Changes Market Share of WW Total Market Share of WW Factory Revenue Total Units Vendor Market Share Change Market Share Change Cisco 16.2% 14.5% HP -7.8% -4.3% IBM -7.3% -7.3% All Others -1.0% -2.9%© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker, Q4 2012, February, 2012, Revenue Share 6
  • SERVER-RELATED SPEND (CAPEX+OPEX) WW Spending on Servers, Power & Cooling, and Mgmt. / Administration $300 80% OpEx $250 Customer Spending ($B) $200 $150 $100 $50 20% CapEx $0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Power & Cooling Expense Mgmt. & Administration—Virtual Servers Mgmt. & Administration—Standalone Servers Server Spending© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Source: IDC, ―New Economic Model for the Datacenter‖; IDC 2011 7
  • UCS has Fewer Management Touch Points 16 blades – 1 x Legacy Chassis 16 blades – 2 x Cisco UCS 5108 Fabric Interconnects 0 Fabric Interconnects 2 Intra Chassis Switches 2 Intra Chassis Switches 0 Chassis Mgmt Module 2 Chassis Mgmt Module 0 Total Mgmt Points 4 Total Mgmt Points 1© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 8
  • Legacy doubling servers = doubling touches; UCS = 1 touch point 64 Blades – 4 x Legacy Chassis 80 Blades – 10 x Cisco UCS 5108 Fabric Interconnects 0 Fabric Interconnects 2 Intra Chassis Switches 8 Intra Chassis Switches 0 Chassis Mgmt Module 8 Chassis Mgmt Module 0 Total Mgmt Points 16 Total Mgmt Points 1 Mgmt switch SAN A LAN LAN LAN Mgmt switch LAN Mgmt switch SAN B SAN AMgmt switch SAN B © 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 9
  • No Infrastructure Penalty to Scale BLADE CHASSIS SAVINGS AT SCALE—BLADE SLOT SOLUTION 34% to 38% with UCS $400,000 Blade Chassis Infrastructure cost to $345,846 $350,000 support servers is critical. The Chassis and I/O. Chassis and I/O Cost $300,000 $288,205 Competitor is $39,872 more to get ready to add a 17th server. $250,000 $230,564 $214,918 Cisco UCS is 34% less expensive $200,000 $172,923 $197,445 $179,971 $150,000 $162,498 $115,282 $145,025 $100,000 $127,551 $52,645 $110,078 $98,522 $86,966 $50,000 $75,410 $63,854 $0 16 17 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 Total Number of Chassis Blade Server Slots Competitor Chassis, Switches & Mgmt.UCS 5108 with pair of UCS 6248UP Fl (four 10 Gbps uplinks per chassis = 5Gb/s per blade) vs. Cisco UCSCompetitor’s Chassis with one pair of CNA switches, and mgmt.Competitor’s pricing publically available on April 16, 2012. Cisco UCS pricing MSRP on April 16, 2012. Pricing is for blade chassis and networking only.© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Servers are not included. 10
  • Cisco UCS 127+ Server Settings Multi Chassis Access Layer 12 Server Settings Unified Fabric Converged Switches Chassis Modules Unified FabricConvergedAdapter Adapters Unified Fabric Server Blades Their Server Profile DOESN’T STACK UP to Cisco UCS Service Profile© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 11
  • Legacy Design Blade Chassis Cisco UCS Architecture Other Vendor UCS Manager Server Hardware Management 1 Console Multiple Layers of Software Required No Added Cost Control Chassis Power & Capping $ Rack and Blade Together Virtual Address Enterprise Manager System Mgr. Update Central Console Virtual Address Hdwr Manager Out of Band Management Onboard Administrator 16 blade servers 16 blade servers 0 rack servers 6 rack servers Separate Management - Every Chassis, All Software Unified Compute Unified ManagementSeparate Enet & Fibre Channel I/O leaving the chassis Unified Networking © 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 12
  • Legacy Design Blade Chassis Cisco UCS Architecture Other Vendor UCS Manager Server Hardware Management 1 Console Multiple Layers of Software Required No Added Cost Control Chassis Power & Capping $$$$ Rack and Blade Together Virtual Address Enterprise Manager $$$$ System Mgr. Update Central Console Virtual ConnectVirtual ConnectVirtual Connect Virtual Connect Manager Manager Manager Manager Competitor iLO Competitor iLO Competitor iLO Competitor iLO Advanced for Advanced for Advanced for Advanced for BladeSystem BladeSystem BladeSystem BladeSystem Onboard Onboard Onboard Onboard Administrator Administrator Administrator Administrator 64 blade servers Up to 160 servers 0 rack servers Blade &/or Rack mount Separate Management - Every Chassis, All Software Unified Compute Unified Management Separate Enet & Fibre Channel I/O leaving the chassis Unified Networking© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 13
  • Cisco Solution TCO advantage increases at scale All chassis fully populated with servers (starting at qty 16) 64GB Identical servers with two E5-2620 Intel Xeon processors with 64GB memory (eight 8GB DIMMs)$1,200,000 3 Year Hardware Warranty 3 Year Power Costs$1,000,000 Hardware Management Server Deployment $800,000 Cabling TOR Switches $600,000 Chassis & Interconnects Server Hardware $400,000 Other Vendor Trend Line Cisco Trend Line $200,000 Servers Other Vendor Parity Server Cisco: B200 M3 $0 Other Cisco Other Other Other Other Other Cisco Cisco Cisco Cisco Cisco Vendor Vendor Vendor Vendor Vendor Vendor # of Servers 8 16 32 48 64 80© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Other vendor retail and Cisco MSRP pricing on 3/30/2012. 14
  • Operational Efficiency Deployment Unified Open Interface Time: Management Simplified Allocation of Resources 90% Administrator Shorter Productivity: 80% Higher Highest Server Increased Performance in reduced footprint Density Optimization of Energy Resources High Increased performance and scale Infrastructure Performance CAPEX: Optimized Virtualization Performance 30%Virtual Networks Lower Application Highest Performance: Scale, low Unprecedented Bandwidth and Scale 40% Faster latency Consolidation of Infrastructure networking Application Power and Improved Application Performance Cooling Cost: Performance Proven Configuration Designs 60% Leadership Lower Over 100 UCS Customer Case Studies Proving Real Results © 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 15
  • A Differentiated / Revolutionary Approach Networking with fewer components Automated Deployment / Provisioning Lower cost and easier scaling Unification leads to reduced Complexity Fewer Management Touch Points Management via a single interface Brings out the best of Intel Xeon No Trade-offs for Function Processors Enhanced Design Capability Optimized Resource Utilization for Designed for the Future, Today Compute, Networking and Better TCO / ROI Management Cisco UCS—Unified Infrastructure, Scalability and Management Automation© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 16
  • Thank you.© 2011 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 17