• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
VALUE PROPOSITION FOR IBM POWER SYSTEMS Comparing Costs of IBM PowerVM and x86 VMware for Enterprise Server Virtualization
 

VALUE PROPOSITION FOR IBM POWER SYSTEMS Comparing Costs of IBM PowerVM and x86 VMware for Enterprise Server Virtualization

on

  • 465 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
465
Views on SlideShare
465
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

    VALUE PROPOSITION FOR IBM POWER SYSTEMS Comparing Costs of IBM PowerVM and x86 VMware for Enterprise Server Virtualization VALUE PROPOSITION FOR IBM POWER SYSTEMS Comparing Costs of IBM PowerVM and x86 VMware for Enterprise Server Virtualization Document Transcript

    • April 2009MANAGEMENT BRIEF VALUE PROPOSITION FOR IBM POWER SYSTEMS Virtualization Impact for Enterprise UNIX and Linux Server Infrastructures International Technology Group 4546 El Camino Real, Suite 230 Los Altos, California 94022-1069 ITG Telephone: (650) 949-8410 Facsimile: (650) 949-8415 Email: info-itg@pacbell.net
    • Copyright © 2009 by the International Technology Group. All rights reserved. Material, in whole or part, contained in this document may not bereproduced or distributed by any means or in any form, including original, without the prior written permission of the International TechnologyGroup (ITG). Information has been obtained from sources assumed to be reliable and reflects conclusions at the time. This document wasdeveloped with International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) funding. Although the document may utilize publicly available material fromvarious sources, including IBM, it does not necessarily reflect the positions of such sources on the issues addressed in this document. Materialcontained and conclusions presented in this document are subject to change without notice. All warranties as to the accuracy, completeness oradequacy of such material are disclaimed. There shall be no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the material contained in thisdocument or for interpretations thereof. Trademarks included in this document are the property of their respective owners.
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 COST PICTURE 2 UNIX Server Infrastructures 2 IT Costs 2 Linux Server Infrastructures 5 IT Costs 5 Costs of Downtime 5 New UNIX System Deployments 6 Cost Comparisons 6 Costs of Downtime 9 DETAILED DATA 10 UNIX Server Infrastructure Comparisons 10 Installations and Scenarios 10 IT Costs 11 Costs of Downtime 13 Linux Server Infrastructures 13 Installations and Scenarios 13 IT Costs 14 Costs of Downtime 15 New UNIX System Deployments 15 Installations and Scenarios 15 IT Costs 17 Costs of Downtime 18 Cost Assumptions 19 Server Costs 19 Personnel Costs 19List of Figures 1. Conventional and Power Virtualized UNIX Server Scenarios: Five-year Operating Costs 2 2. Conventional and Power Virtualized UNIX Server Scenarios: Five-year Overall Costs (Virtualized Scenarios include Operating and Acquisition Costs) 3 3. Five-Year I/O-related Costs for Partitioned IBM Power Servers: Averages for All Power Virtualized Scenarios 4 4. Conventional and Power Virtualized UNIX Server Scenarios: Five-year Costs of Downtime 4 5. x86 and Power Linux Server Scenarios: Average Five-year Costs for All Installations 5 6. x86 and Power Linux Server Scenarios: Five-Year Costs of Downtime 6 7. New UNIX System Deployments: Five-year IT Costs 7 8. Numbers of Hard Partitions Supported: HP and Sun UNIX Server Platforms 8 9. New UNIX System Deployments: Five-year Costs of Downtime 9 10. Profile Installations and Scenarios for UNIX Server Infrastructure Cost Comparisons 10 11. Cost Breakdowns for UNIX Server Infrastructure Comparisons 12 12. Profile Installations and Scenarios for Linux Server Infrastructure Cost Comparisons 13 13. Cost Breakdowns for Linux Server Infrastructure Comparisons 14 14. Profile Installations and Scenarios for New UNIX System Deployments Comparisons 15 15. Cost Breakdowns for New UNIX System Deployment Comparisons 18International Technology Group i
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARYServer virtualization has emerged of one the critical technologies of our time. The potential clearly existsto significantly reduce costs and complexities of enterprise server infrastructures, to create new flexibilityin server reconfiguration and provisioning, and to improve availability and other variables of servicequality for server-based applications throughout organizations.Although industry debate tends to focus on the application of VMware and equivalents to x86 serverconsolidation, in reality UNIX server virtualization technologies are – by wide margins – moresophisticated and mature than their x86 counterparts.The Power platform is, in turn, the recognized industry leader in UNIX server virtualization. Because thetechnologies it employs have evolved rapidly over the last few years, even many longstanding Powerusers have yet to fully exploit its potential.This report deals with this potential. Specifically, it looks at three opportunities to reduce IT costs throughuse of latest-generation IBM Power servers and PowerVM technology: 1. By replacing existing UNIX server infrastructures with virtualized Power servers, five-year operating costs may be reduced by an average of 61 percent. Comparisons are between the use of diverse multivendor bases of UNIX servers, which are representative of most large organizations today, and current-generation Power servers exploiting the full potential of PowerVM virtualization capabilities. If costs of acquiring new Power server hardware and systems software to realize these savings are allowed for, overall costs are still significantly lower. Five-year costs, including acquisition and operating costs, average 54 percent less. 2. By replacing existing Linux server infrastructures with virtualized Power servers, five-year operating costs may be reduced by an average of 58 percent. Comparisons are between Linux applications deployed on distributed x86 servers and on current- generation Power servers again exploiting the potential of PowerVM capabilities. If acquisition costs are included in Power virtualized scenarios, five-year costs average 52 percent less. 3. For large-scale new UNIX system deployments, five-year acquisition and operating costs for use of Power servers average 43 percent less than those for Hewlett-Packard Integrity and 60 percent less than those for Sun Microsystems M and T series servers. Comparisons are between database-intensive systems with high levels of virtualization deployed on Power servers using PowerVM; on HP Integrity servers using the company’s Virtual Server Environment (VSE); and on Sun servers employing dynamic domains, Logical Domains (LDoms), and Solaris Containers and Zones technologies.Use of Power servers and PowerVM may also result in lower costs of downtime – meaning costs incurredby organizations due to disruptions affecting business processes and user productivity – than for existingUNIX and Linux server infrastructures, and for new UNIX system deployments. These results areoutlined in the following section.Additional information on the methodologies and assumptions employed, along with breakdowns ofinstallations, configurations and costs are presented in the Detailed Data section of this report.International Technology Group 1
    • COST PICTUREUNIX Server InfrastructuresIT CostsThis set of five-year cost comparisons is based on three composite profile installations in large financialservices, manufacturing and retail companies with between $15 billion and $35 billion in revenues. Foreach profile installation, two sets of scenarios were developed: 1. Conventional scenarios. These include diverse bases of between 78 and 242 UNIX servers, including a variety of HP, IBM, Silicon Graphics and Sun models. The demographics of these server bases and the efficiency with which they are used are representative of most large organizations today. Virtualization is employed to a limited degree. 2. Power virtualized scenarios. In these, the same applications and workloads run on current- generation Power servers exploiting the full potential of PowerVM virtualization capabilities.Five-year operating costs for Power virtualized scenarios range from 54 to 65 percent less, and average 61percent less than those for conventional equivalents. Figure 1 summarizes these results. Figure 1 Conventional and Power Virtualized UNIX Server Scenarios: Five-year Operating CostsOperating costs, in this context, include hardware maintenance, update subscriptions and support forsystems and database software, personnel for system administration-related functions, and facilities costsfor data center occupancy, power and cooling.Database costs are for Oracle databases and management tools. Calculations reflect the change in Oracledatabase pricing for POWER6-based servers in March 2009.International Technology Group 2
    • Lower costs were enabled through multiple virtualization capabilities. Both forms of partitioningsupported by PowerVM – firmware-based logical partitions (LPARs) and software-based WorkloadPartitions (WPARs) – were employed aggressively to achieve high levels of server consolidation fordiverse applications, databases and workloads.Consolidation was achieved without impairing performance or availability. Closely integrated Powerserver system and workload management facilities were exploited to enable organizations to realize highlevels of capacity utilization, while minimizing risks that partition workloads on the same server wouldinterfere with each other, or cause performance bottlenecks or outages.Full time equivalent (FTE) staffing levels for system administration-related functions such as asset,capacity, change, configuration and performance management are significantly lower for Powervirtualized scenarios. Personnel costs for these functions are correspondingly less.This is due to reductions in numbers of physical servers; reduced diversity of hardware and softwareplatforms; replacement of older-technology servers and systems software with latest-generation Powerhardware and software; improved management tools and practices, including increased automation; anduse of PowerVM virtualization capabilities.If costs of acquiring new Power server hardware and systems software to realize these savings wereallowed for, overall costs were still significantly lower. Five-year costs ranged from 46 to 59 percent less,and averaged 54 percent less than those for conventional scenarios.Figure 2 summarizes these results. Figure 2 Conventional and Power Virtualized UNIX Server Scenarios: Five-year Overall Costs (Virtualized Scenarios include Operating and Acquisition Costs)In Power virtualized scenarios, use of Virtual I/O Servers resulted in I/O-related costs for serversemploying LPARs that averaged 73 percent less than would have been the case if dedicated adapters wereemployed. Figure 3 summarizes these results.International Technology Group 3
    • Figure 3 Five-Year I/O-related Costs for Partitioned IBM Power Servers: Averages for All Power Virtualized ScenariosSavings were realized in acquisition, maintenance and support costs through use of fewer physical localarea network (LAN) and storage area network (SAN) adapters, as well as in costs for relatedinfrastructure components such as cabling, hubs and switches.Costs of DowntimeFive-year costs of downtime for Power virtualized scenarios ranged from 43 to 54 percent less, andaveraged 47 percent less than those for conventional equivalents. Figure 4 summarizes these results. Figure 4Conventional and Power Virtualized UNIX Server Scenarios: Five-year Costs of Downtime COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES MANUFACTURING RETAIL CONVENTIONAL SCENARIOS Availability levels 99.5% – 99.94% 99.83% – 99.9% 98.7% – 99.9% Five-year costs ($000) 26,266.8 46,165.3 14,552.5 POWER VIRTUALIZED SCENARIOS Availability levels 99.8% – 99.97% 99.9% – 99.96% 99.3% – 99.95% Five-year costs ($000) 12,148.3 26,285.4 7,453.0In this presentation, availability percentages reflect hours of system-level outages relative to annual hoursof operation of companies, or business areas within companies that are supported by specific applications.Costs of downtime for the financial services company represent lost operating profit, meaning net revenueafter deduction of personnel, occupancy, equipment and other overhead. For the manufacturing and retailcompanies, the comparable metric is lost gross profit, meaning profit net of cost of goods sold, but beforededuction of selling, general and administrative (SG&A) and other expenses.Key Power availability strengths that contributed to lower costs of downtime included reliability,availability and serviceability (RAS) features of Power hardware and the AIX operating system, and theIBM PowerHA for AIX clustered failover solution.LPARs also assisted in avoiding planned outages by allowing users to upgrade or modify softwarewithout taking systems offline. Two newer capabilities made it possible to transfer partitions betweenservers if these needed to be shut down: (1) Live Partition Mobility involved no interruption of service,while (2) Live Application Mobility involved interruptions of typically no more than 20 seconds.Power server system and workload management capabilities further reduced risks of bottlenecks andoutages caused by workload spikes and operational errors.International Technology Group 4
    • Linux Server InfrastructuresIT CostsIn addition to the AIX operating system, Power servers may also run the major Linux distributions innative mode. To address this potential, comparisons were made for different sets of Linux-basedapplications for the three profile companies. Comparisons were based on mixes of business as well asWeb and intranet serving, file serving, software development and other applications.Two sets of scenarios were then compared. First, in x86 server scenarios, applications were deployed onone- to four-way Intel-based servers from Dell, HP, IBM and other vendors, with limited use of VMwareand Xen virtualization tools. Second, in Power server scenarios, multiple Linux operating systeminstances were hosted on Power servers using PowerVM.For x86 server scenarios, operating costs – primarily hardware maintenance, personnel and facilities –were calculated. For Power server scenarios, operating costs as well as acquisition costs for serverhardware and PowerVM licenses were calculated. Figure 5 summarizes results. Figure 5 x86 and Power Linux Server Scenarios: Average Five-year Costs for All InstallationsFive-year operating costs for Power server scenarios ranged from 55 to 61 percent less, and averaged 58percent less than those for x86 server scenarios. If acquisition costs are included in Power virtualizedscenarios, five-year costs for these ranged from 50 to 57 percent less, and averaged 52 percent less.Costs of Linux operating systems and databases were not included. Operating system costs would dependon the number of instances employed, which was the same for x86 as for Power server scenarios.Database costs were not included because Linux servers were not widely employed as database servers inthe organizations upon which profile installations were based.Factors causing lower costs for Power scenarios included high levels of consolidation and capacityutilization enabled by LPARs; lower staffing levels and personnel costs for system administration-relatedfunctions; and lower facilities costs due to use of significantly fewer physical servers.Costs of DowntimeCosts of downtime were also compared for x86 and Power virtualized scenarios for Linux serving,although a different quantification method was employed.International Technology Group 5
    • Linux servers in the organizations upon which profile installations were based did not typically supportbusiness-critical systems for which downtime could be measured in the same manner as for UNIX servercomparisons. It was thus decided to employ lost productivity values based on interruptions caused toapplication users.Using this approach, results for costs of downtime were calculated as shown in figure 6. Figure 6 x86 and Power Linux Server Scenarios: Five-Year Costs of Downtime COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES MANUFACTURING RETAIL x86 SERVER SCENARIOS Availability levels 99.45% – 99.93% 98.5% – 99.75 99.25% – 99.85% Five-year costs ($000) 1,943.7 2,686.8 2,086.2 POWER SERVER SCENARIOS Availability levels 99.93% – 99.98% 99.85% – 99.95% 99.88% – 99.98% Five-year costs ($000) 275.3 689.1 452.0Costs of downtime for Power server scenarios ranged from 74 to 86 percent less, and averaged 79 percentless than those for x86 server equivalents.New UNIX System DeploymentsCost ComparisonsFive-year IT costs as well as costs of downtime were also compared for new UNIX system deploymentsemploying HP Integrity, IBM Power and equivalent Sun platforms.Three different composite installation profiles were employed for these comparisons. These were fordeployments of database-intensive systems with high levels of virtualization in telecommunications,distribution and manufacturing companies with revenues of between $500 million and $12 billion.Installations included business-critical as well as secondary applications supported by multiple high-end,midrange and small server platforms.Three sets of scenarios were developed: 1. HP VSE scenarios were built around HP Integrity servers employing the HP-UX 11v3 operating system and the three forms of partitioning – (1) hardware-based nPars and software-based (2) vPars and (3) Integrity Virtual Machines – supported by the company’s Virtual Server Environment (VSE). 2. IBM PowerVM scenarios were built around IBM Power servers employing the AIX 6.1 operating system, along with PowerVM including LPARs and AIX WPARs. 3. Sun scenarios were built around multiple Sun server platforms employing the Solaris 10 operating system. These included SPARC Enterprise M series servers employing the company’s hardware-based partitioning technology, dynamic domains; T series (CoolThreads) servers employing software- based LDoms; and Sun x64 servers. The Sun application-based partitioning technology, Solaris Containers and Zones, was employed on all three platforms.International Technology Group 6
    • For clustered failover, HP Serviceguard and IBM Power HA solutions were employed in HP and IBMscenarios respectively, and an equivalent third-party solution was employed in Sun scenarios.Five-year IT costs were then calculated for these scenarios for each profile installation. Costs includedacquisition of hardware and licenses for operating systems; virtualization tools; cluster solutions andOracle 11g databases and management tools; hardware maintenance and software update subscriptionsand support; and facilities costs for data center occupancy, power and cooling.Database costs again reflected the change in Oracle pricing for POWER6-based servers in March 2009.Personnel costs for system administration and related functions are not included, as these would havebeen largely similar, at least for HP VSE and IBM PowerVM scenarios.Results are summarized in figure 7. Figure 7 New UNIX System Deployments: Five-year IT CostsFive-year IT costs for PowerVM scenarios range from 38 to 50 percent less, and average 43 percent lessthan those for HP VSE equivalents; and range from 48 to 67 percent less, and average 60 percent less thanthose for Sun equivalents.Lower IT costs for PowerVM scenarios are due to multiple factors. One is the higher granularity of IBMLPARs compared to Hewlett-Packard’s nPars and Sun’s dynamic domains.Among the organizations that provided input for this report, “hard” partitioning technologies werepreferred for business-critical production environments whose performance and availability requirementswere more demanding than the norm. This was consistent with general industry experience.International Technology Group 7
    • HP and Sun employ hard partitioning technologies based on cell boards in Integrity and M series serversrespectively. In the case of HP, nPars can be configured in increments of four Itanium2 processors (eightcores), corresponding to the cell board structure of larger Integrity models. nPars are not supported onsmaller Integrity models with up to four processors, which are not cell board-based.Sun dynamic domains can be configured in increments of one system board (cell board) with fourprocessors (16 cores using quad-core SPARC64 processors), or one-quarter of a system board with oneprocessor (four cores), along with one quarter of the board’s memory and I/O resources.There are, however, limitations in the overall number of dynamic domains supported, which areillustrated in figure 8. Dynamic domains are supported only on M series servers. Figure 8 Numbers of Hard Partitions Supported: HP and Sun UNIX Server Platforms HEWLETT-PACKARD rx2660 Model rx6600 rx7640 rx8640 Superdome rx3600 Processors 1–2 1–4 1–8 1 – 16 1 – 64 nPars n/a n/a 1–2 1–4 1 – 16 SUN MICROSYSTEMS Model M3000 M4000 M5000 M8000 M9000 Processors 1 1–4 1–8 1 – 16 1 – 64 Dynamic domains 1 1–2 1–4 1 – 16 1 – 24Granularity limitations affected configuration sizes for Integrity as well as M series servers. Incomparison, firmware-based LPARs allowed use of smaller partitions – granularity of up to 0.1 of a coreis supported – and Power server mechanisms for allocating and reallocating resources between these werealso more effective than HP and Sun equivalents.As a result, system-level capacity utilization for hard-partitioned applications and databases was higherfor Power servers than for HP and Sun M series equivalents. Moreover, it was possible to employ LPARson comparatively small servers. LPAR capability is supported on all Power models.(It is occasionally argued that nPars and dynamic domains allow for “electrical isolation,” whichincreases reliability as well as security. In practice, however, users have not found availability levels to belower for Power servers, and LPARs provide comparable partition isolation for security purposes.)Sun configurations were also affected by the fact that the company’s LDoms partitioning technology,which enables software-based hosting of operating system instances, is supported only for the company’sT series servers.Superior price/performance levels for Power servers also contributed to lower costs for PowerVMscenarios The Itanium2 processor architecture is aging, and lags far behind POWER6 in all majorindustry performance ratings. Sun’s SPARC64 is generally recognized to be an even weaker design,delivering even lower performance relative to Power servers for comparable configurations.Higher system performance, as well as higher capacity utilization enabled by PowerVM, offset whatmight otherwise have been a Power server disadvantage in database costs – Oracle license costs arecalculated at 0.5 of a processor for Itanium2, 0.75 for SPARC64, and 1.0 for POWER6 processors.For all profile installations, however, five-year Oracle database license and support costs weresignificantly lower for PowerVM than for HP VSE and Sun scenarios.International Technology Group 8
    • Finally, HP as well as IBM platforms benefited from integrated system and workload managementcapabilities that are, by wide margins, superior to those offered by Sun for Solaris servers. As a result,Sun platforms suffered a penalty relative to Integrity and Power servers in comparative capacityutilization levels.Costs of DowntimeCosts of downtime for new UNIX system deployments were calculated in a manner similar toconventional and Power virtualized scenarios for UNIX server infrastructure comparisons.Results are summarized in figure 9. Figure 9 New UNIX System Deployments: Five-year Costs of Downtime COMPANY TELECOMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTION MANUFACTURING HP VSE SCENARIOS Availability levels 99.94% – 99.97% 99.97% – 99.98% 99.94% Five-year costs ($000) 5,497.0 4,847.7 1,338.1 IBM POWERVM SCENARIOS Availability levels 99.96% – 99.98% 99.97% – 99.98% 99.95% Five-year costs ($000) 5,238.3 4,568.9 1,115.1 SUN SCENARIOS Availability levels 99.93% – 99.97% 99.94% – 99.97% 99.92% Five-year costs ($000) 8,877.3 6,377.1 1,784.2In this presentation, availability levels again reflect hours of system-level uptime relative to annual hoursof operation of companies, or business areas within companies that are supported by specific applications.Costs of downtime again represent lost gross profit, meaning profit net of cost of goods and/or services,but before deduction of SG&A and other expenses.Costs of downtime for the HP VSE and IBM PowerVM scenarios are generally similar. This reflects highlevels of hardware RAS and strong clustered failover offerings, along with capabilities for partition-basedsoftware upgrades and maintenance, live partition movement between physical servers, and otheravailability optimization functions for both vendors’ platforms.Marginally higher costs of downtime for HP VSE scenarios for reflect slightly higher levels of planneddowntime for Superdome platform, as well as lower availability levels for secondary applicationsdeployed on other Integrity servers.Costs of downtime for Sun scenarios were significantly higher than for HP VSE and PowerVM scenarios.This reflects less effective hardware as well as software availability optimization across all Sun platforms.Live partition movement, for example, is supported only for LDoms on Sun T series servers, which wereemployed for secondary applications in the Sun telecommunications company scenario.International Technology Group 9
    • DETAILED DATAUNIX Server Infrastructure ComparisonsInstallations and ScenariosComparisons of five-year costs for conventional and Power virtualized scenarios for UNIX serverinfrastructures are based on the composite profile installations summarized in figure 10. Figure 10 Profile Installations and Scenarios for UNIX Server Infrastructure Cost Comparisons COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES MANUFACTURING RETAIL Business Profile $400 billion assets $33 billion revenues $35 billion revenues $15 billion revenues Consumer products Specialty chain 14 million customers 28 manufacturing plants 1,000+ outlets 1,650 branches 25 distribution centers 10 distribution centers 55,000 employees 50,000 employees 150,000 employees Focus of 69 major applications 30 major applications 36 major applications Comparisons System groups: System groups: System groups: • Corporate systems • Core ERP systems • Corporate systems • Retail banking • Supply chain management • Supply chain management • Commercial banking • Product management • Logistics & transportation • Financial services • Business intelligence • Marketing, sales & service • Online systems • eProcurement • Business intelligence • Intranet infrastructure • BPM, CRM, PLM • eCommerce CONVENTIONAL SCENARIOS Servers Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard Hewlett-Packard Superdome, rx8640, rx8620, Superdome, rx7640, rx7620, rx8640, rx8620, rx7620, rx7620, rx6600, rx4640, rx6600, rx4640, rx3600, rx6600, rx4640, rx2660, rx3600, rx2660, rx2620, rx2660, rx2620, rp8400, rx2620, rx2600, rx1600 rx2600, rp8420, rp8400 rp5470 IBM IBM IBM pSeries 670, 650, 615 pSeries 690, 670, 650, 615 pSeries: 670, 650, 615 System p 570, 550, 520, 510, System p 595, 570, 550, 510, System p 570, 550, 520, 510 505, 185 505, Power 570, BladeCenter Power 570 Sun Microsystems Sun Microsystems Sun Microsystems E15K, E4900, E4800, V890, E25K, E6800, E4900, E4800, E20K, E15K, V890, V880, V490, V480, V440, V250, E2900, M4000, V890, V880, V490, V40Z, X4600, X4200, V240, V40Z, V20Z, X4600, V490, V480, V40Z, X4600, X4100, X2000 X4500, X4200, X2000, X4500, X4200, X4100, X2000, various Blade 6000, various Silicon Graphics Altix 450 Total: 242 servers Total: 78 servers Total: 98 servers Personnel 28 FTEs 13 FTEs 14 FTEs POWER VIRTUALIZED SCENARIOS Servers 9 x 570, 7 x 550, 3 x 520 5 x 570, 9 x 550 5 x 570, 5 x 550 3 x JS43, 16 x JS23 6 x JS23, 3 x JS12 3 x 520, 1 x JS43, 14 x JS23 5 x JS12, 2 x BladeCenter H BladeCenter H 8 x JS12, 2 x BladeCenter H Totals: Totals: Totals: 43 servers 23 servers 36 servers 125 LPARs 58 LPARs 74 LPARs 106 WPARs 47 WPARs 69 WPARs Personnel 15 FTEs 8 FTEs 9 FTEsProfile installations were constructed using data on applications, server bases, configurations, utilizationand service levels, staffing and other variables supplied by 16 companies in the same industries andapproximate size ranges, with generally similar business profiles.International Technology Group 10
    • Companies employed a variety of Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun and other servers employing HP-UX, AIX,Solaris and other UNIX variants.Using this data, two sets of scenarios were developed: 1. Conventional scenarios are based on data reported by the 16 companies, and are built around diverse multivendor server bases that include different technology generations and systems software versions. Conventional management and operating practices are employed. 2. Virtualized scenarios are for the same applications and workloads deployed on latest-generation Power servers. Configurations for these scenarios were developed on a case-by-case basis within major system groups. Where appropriate, multiple applications were configured on the same physical servers using LPARs and/or WPARs. In translating configurations employed in conventional scenarios into Power server configurations employed in virtualized scenarios, the following approach was employed. Power server configurations delivering performance equivalent to conventional scenario servers were developed for each of the main applications in profile installations. Configurations were developed for production and non-production instances. Further calculations were undertaken to allow for the effects of virtualization. Nominal configuration requirements were first determined for groups of instances were deployed on separate servers, but represented realistic candidates for consolidation onto a single Power physical server. An overall utilization value reflecting realistic potential consolidation efficiencies was then assigned to each group of instances, and allowance was made for other factors affecting capacity requirements. The resulting configuration was then rounded to next largest capacity increment offered by IBM; e.g., a nominal configuration of 3.3 x 4.2 GHz cores with 12.6 GB of RAM was rounded to a 4 x 4.2 GHz 550 model with 16 GB of RAM. Other hardware components were configured similarly. Allowance was made for use of other PowerVM capabilities, including Virtual I/O Servers and Integrated Virtual Ethernet.All installations and scenarios include database, application and, where appropriate, Web and intranetservers; and production systems as well as non-production instances for functions such as development,test, quality assurance and training. Clustered failover configurations are employed in conventional andPower virtualized scenarios for systems requiring high levels of availability.Financial services company scenarios include a variety of custom and packaged software solutions.Manufacturing company scenarios are built primarily around SAP and complementary third-partyapplications, including business process management (BPM), customer relationship management (CRM)and product lifecycle management (PLM) solutions.Retail company scenarios include a mix of applications from EXE Technologies, i2 Technologies, JDASoftware, Oracle (including PeopleSoft offerings) and other vendors. Costs of applications software werenot included in calculations.IT CostsFor conventional scenarios, calculations are for operating costs only. These include hardwaremaintenance, update and support subscriptions for systems and database software, along with personneland facilities costs.International Technology Group 11
    • For Power virtualized scenarios, calculations are for operating costs, which include the same components,along with costs of hardware and systems software acquisition for new servers. Hardware maintenancecosts are for 24x7 coverage.For both sets of scenarios, systems software includes operating systems, virtualization software, clusteredfailover solutions and related tools. For Power virtualized scenarios, systems software includes IBM AIX6.1, PowerVM, PowerHA and – for BladeCenter configurations – BladeCenter Open Fabric Manager.Costs for database update and support subscriptions are for Oracle databases and management tools.Calculations do not include initial license costs. For Power virtualized scenarios, database costs are forOracle 11g equivalents. Calculations reflect the change in Oracle pricing for POWER6-based serversannounced in March 2009; i.e., calculations are based on a value of 1.0 processor.Detailed breakdowns of IT costs are presented in figure 11. Figure 11 Cost Breakdowns for UNIX Server Infrastructure Comparisons COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES MANUFACTURING RETAIL CONVENTIONAL SCENARIOS Maintenance 4,819.7 2,775.8 1,612.5 Systems software support 1,990.7 598.8 537.1 Database software support 13,803.7 5,733.0 5,051.1 Personnel 16,623.0 7,717.8 8,311.5 Facilities 1,173.1 548.4 432.3 TOTAL ($000) 38,410.2 17,373.8 15,944.7 POWER VIRTUALIZED SCENARIOS Hardware 2,025.5 1,345.1 1,086.3 Systems software 444.2 215.9 185.8 Acquisition costs (Subtotal) 2,469.8 1,561.0 1,272.2 Maintenance 461.4 251.1 215.6 Systems software support 1,122.0 303.8 234.2 Database software support 2,546.4 1,655.3 1,443.5 Personnel 8,905.2 4,749.4 5,343.1 Facilities 275.7 163.4 121.3 Operating costs (Subtotal) 13,310.8 7,122.9 7,357.8 TOTAL ($000) 15,780.6 8,683.9 8,629.9Additional detail on the basis of calculations for personnel and facilities costs for these and othercomparisons may be found at the end of this section.International Technology Group 12
    • Costs of DowntimeCosts of downtime for UNIX server infrastructures were calculated using industry- and company-specificvalues assuming consistent levels of availability and business cost structures over a five-year period.For the financial services company, costs of downtime consists primarily of lost transaction fees andcustomer lifetime value (CLV) for outages affecting online banking, brokerage and other customer self-service systems, along with CRM systems and Internet infrastructure servers supporting these.Costs of downtime for the manufacturing company were calculated based primarily on outages affectingthe company’s core SAP ERP, supply chain management and procurement systems. For the retailcompany, costs were calculated based on outages affecting the company’s supply chain systems as well asInternet marketing, sales and customer service systems.The impact of outages on the retail company’s Internet systems includes the effects not only of lost onlinesales, but also of storefront sales lost because customers are unable to obtain information on products,promotions, pricing, availability, store locations and other subjects.Linux Server InfrastructuresInstallations and ScenariosComparisons of five-year costs for x86 and Power Linux server infrastructures are based on thecomposite profile installations and scenarios summarized in figure 12. Figure 12 Profile Installations and Scenarios for Linux Server Infrastructure Cost Comparisons COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES MANUFACTURING RETAIL Applications Market value & risk analytics SAP xApps Internal portal, e-procurement Equities trading, market data Computer aided design Promotional e-mail Mortgage loans, antifraud Departmental applications Departmental applications Departmental applications Software development & test Office applications Content management File serving POS software development Software development & test Web infrastructure, various File serving, fax serving Intranet applications Network management Intranet infrastructure, various Web infrastructure, various x86 SCENARIOS Servers Dell, HP, IBM HP, IBM Dell, HP, IBM, various 128 physical servers 29 physical servers 84 physical servers 56 VMs 15 VMs 30 VMs Personnel 5.1 FTEs 1.05 FTEs 2.55 FTEs POWER VIRTUALIZED SCENARIOS Servers 3 x 550 4/8 x 4.2 GHz 2 x 520 2/4 x 4.7 GHz 2 x 550 4/8 x 4.2 GHz 4 x 520 2/4 x 4.7 GHz 185 LPARs 44 LPARs 120 LPARs Personnel 2.15 FTEs 0.45 FTE 1.25 FTEsThe same companies are employed as for UNIX server infrastructure comparisons. Installation profiles,however, are different. Application portfolios, server bases and staffing levels were developed using datafrom 23 companies, including companies that, in some cases, did not supply UNIX server data.International Technology Group 13
    • These companies employed x86 servers from Dell, HP (including Compaq), IBM and other vendors.Bases included different hardware generations – ranging from Pentium 4-based servers installed in 2002to recent Intel Xeon- and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) Opteron-based servers – running Red Hat,SUSE and other Linux distributions.x86 server scenarios are based on user-reported data. Power server scenarios were developed, andconfigurations sized in the same manner as for Power virtualized scenarios for UNIX server infrastructurecomparisons. PowerVM Standard Edition is employed on all Power servers.It is assumed that Linux applications are deployed on Power servers in native mode in a manner thateffectively exploits the potential of PowerVM and that management and operating practices aresupportive of this potential.IT CostsFor x86 server scenarios, calculations are for operating costs only. These include hardware maintenance,and update and support subscriptions for VMware and Xen software, personnel and facilities costs.For Power server scenarios, calculations are for operating costs, which include the same components,along with costs of hardware acquisition and PowerVM licenses for new servers. Operating costs include24x7 hardware and software maintenance.Detailed breakdowns of IT costs are presented in figure 13. Figure 13 Cost Breakdowns for Linux Server Infrastructure Comparisons COMPANY FINANCIAL SERVICES MANUFACTURING RETAIL x86 SERVER SCENARIOS Maintenance 190.1 42.6 85.1 Virtualization software 20.6 4.1 6.2 Personnel 2,721.5 560.3 1,360.7 Facilities 225.2 82.4 154.5 TOTAL ($000) 3,157.4 689.4 1,606.5 POWER SCENARIOS Hardware 232.0 26.0 92.8 Maintenance 50.8 8.2 20.3 Virtualization software 46.0 9.2 18.4 Personnel 1,147.3 240.1 667.0 Facilities 49.5 10.5 11.5 TOTAL($000) 1,525.6 294.0 810.0For reasons discussed earlier, calculations do not include acquisition or ongoing costs for Linux operatingsystems and databases.International Technology Group 14
    • Costs of DowntimeCosts of downtime for Linux server infrastructure comparisons are for user productivity loss.This was measured in terms of (1) idle time, reduced productivity or both for periods when applicationswere not available to users during working hours and (2) reduced productivity following an outage; e.g., aone-hour outage causing a 60 percent productivity reduction might be followed by a two-hour period inwhich a 20 percent productivity loss occurs.Productivity loss calculations were developed for each user community supported by Linux applications.Costs are based on industry median salaries, benefits and other compensation for large U.S. financialservices, manufacturing and retail companies for the occupational groups using applications.Productivity losses were quantified based on the number of individuals using each application who wouldbe affected by outages, their average remuneration per hour, and percentage values for reductions in theirproductivity during and subsequent to outages.New UNIX System DeploymentsInstallations and ScenariosComparisons of five-year costs for new UNIX system deployments are based on the composite profileinstallations and scenarios summarized in figure 14. Figure 14 Profile Installations and Scenarios for New UNIX System Deployments Comparisons TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY BUSINESS PROFILE APPLICATIONS $12 billion revenues CRM, billing, financial & operational systems, 20+ million customers data warehouse, application servers, identity Fixed line, mobile, broadband & management, intranet, customer portal, data network services development & test 20,000+ employees CONFIGURATIONS HP VSE SCENARIO IBM POWERVM SCENARIOS SUN SCENARIOS 2 x Integrity Superdome 2 x Power 595 2 x Enterprise M9000 64/128 x 1.6 GHz each 24/48 x 5.0 GHz each 56/224 x 2.52 GHz each 28 nPars + 80 vPars 110 LPARs 28 dynamic domains rx8640 4 Virtual I/O Servers 52 Zones 12/24 x 1.6 GHz Power 550 2 x T5440 2 nPars + 15 Integrity VMs 4/8 x 5.0 GHz 4/32 x 1.4 GHz each rx7640 2 LPARs + 15 WPARs 25 LDOMs 8/16 x 1.6 GHz Virtual I/O Server 3 x T5140 10 Integrity VMs Power 550 2/16 x 1.2 GHz each 2 x rx6600 4/8 x 4.2 GHz – 10 WPARs 20 LDOMs 4/8 x 1.6 GHz each 2 x Power 520 Solaris 10 20 Integrity VMs 2/4 x 4.2 GHz – 20 WPARs Third-party clustered failover HP-UX 11v3 VSE AIX 6.1, PowerVM (M1000e) & system Serviceguard (Superdomes) PowerHA (Power 595s) management tools Oracle 11g, Enterprise Manager Oracle 11g, Enterprise Manager Oracle 11g, Enterprise ManagerProfile installations were constructed using data on applications, server and partition configurations,utilization and service levels, and other variables supplied by 15 companies in the same industries andapproximate size ranges, with generally similar business profiles.International Technology Group 15
    • Figure 14 (Continued) DISTRIBUTION COMPANY BUSINESS PROFILE APPLICATIONS $7 billion revenues ERP, CRM, order management, warehouse Chemical products distributor management, transportation management, 40 distribution centers business intelligence, procurement 10,000 employees CONFIGURATIONS HP VSE SCENARIO IBM POWERVM SCENARIO SUN SCENARIO 2 x Integrity Superdome 2 x Power 570 2 x Enterprise M8000 36/72 x 1.6 GHz – 4 nPars 12/24 x 4.2 GHz – 36 LPARs 16/64 x 2.52 GHz 30 vPars & Integrity VMs 2 Virtual I/O Servers 8 dynamic domains 32/64 x 1.6 GHz 8/16 x 4.7 GHz 16/64 x 2.4 GHz 6 nPars + 20 vPars 28 LPARs 4 dynamic domains + 31 Zones 2 Virtual I/O Servers Enterprise M5000 2 x rx7640 8/16 x 1.6 GHz – 2 nPars 2 x Power 550 8/32 x 2.4 GHz 8/16 x 1.6 GHz – 12 Integrity VMs 4/8 x 4.2 GHz – 2 LPARs 2 dynamic domains HP-UX 11v3 VSE 4/8 x 3.5 GHz – 12 WPARs Sun Fire x4440 Serviceguard (Superdomes) AIX 6.1, PowerVM 4/16 x 2.5 GHz – 13 Zones Oracle 11g, Enterprise Manager PowerHA (Power 570s) Solaris 10 Oracle 11g, Enterprise Manager Third-party clustered failover (M8000s) & system management tools Oracle 11g, Enterprise Manager MANUFACTURING COMPANY BUSINESS PROFILE APPLICATIONS $500 million revenues ERP, supply chain management, HRMS, business Food & beverage products intelligence, development & test 6 manufacturing plants 35 distribution facilities 1,800 employees CONFIGURATIONS HP VSE SCENARIOS IBM POWERVM SCENARIO SUN SCENARIO rx8640 2 x Power 550 Enterprise M8000 12/24 x 1.6 GHz 4/8 x 5.0 GHz 8/32 x 2.52 GHz 2 nPars + 6 vPars 10 LPARs 2 dynamic domains + 7 Zones rx7640 2 Virtual I/O servers Enterprise M5000 8/16 x 1.6 GHz 4/8 x 4.2 GHz 8/32 x 2.4 GHz 2 nPars + 8 vPars 10 LPARs 2 dynamic domains + 9 Zones rx6600 2 x Power 520 Sun Fire x4240 4/8 x 1.6 GHz – 9 Integrity VMs 2/4 x 4.7 GHz – 9 WPARs 2/8 x 2.7 GHz – 10 Zones rx2660 1/2 x 4.2 GHz – 3 WPARs Sun Fire x4140 2/4 x 1.66 GHz – 3 Integrity VMs AIX 6.1, PowerVM 1/4 x 2.7 GHz – 4 Zones HP-UX 11v3 VSE PowerHA (Power 570 & 550) Solaris 10 Serviceguard (rx8640 & rx7640) Oracle 11g, Management tools Third-party clustered failover Oracle 11g, Management tools (M8000 & M5000) & system management tools Oracle 11g, Management toolsCompanies employed HP Integrity, IBM Power and System p, or Sun Microsystems SPARC-based, Tseries and x86 servers running HP-UX, AIX and Solaris operating systems respectively. All companiesemployed Oracle databases.International Technology Group 16
    • Where companies employed older versions of platforms, configurations were updated to current-generation models using vendor or industry comparative performance data. Comparable configurationswere then developed of the other two vendors’ platforms based on industry comparative performance dataand partition granularity; e.g., if an IBM LPAR was sized to utilize 1.2 POWER6 cores, this would betranslated into the next-largest HP nPar or Sun dynamic domain increment.A similar approach was employed for partitions utilizing shared resources. Comparative sizing was basedon the overall number of processors and amount of memory in the resource pool.Where this approach was more cost-effective than use of dedicated adapters, Power servers are equippedwith one or (for redundancy purposes) two Virtual I/O Servers running in dedicated LPARs.Configurations were equipped with operating systems, virtualization tools and, where appropriate,clustered failover solutions. Software for Integrity servers included HP Virtual Server OperatingEnvironment (VSE-OE) Version 4.1, which includes HP-UX 11v3, and Serviceguard. Power servers wereequipped with AIX 6.1, PowerVM Standard or Enterprise Edition as appropriate, and PowerHA.Sun servers were equipped with Solaris 10, which includes support for dynamic domains on M seriesservers, LDoms on T series servers, and Solaris Containers and Zones on these and x86 servers; and awidely used third-party clustered failover solution. Logical Domains 1.1 was employed on T seriesservers.Database servers were equipped with Oracle 11g Enterprise or Standard Edition, and Oracle EnterpriseManager (for the telecommunications and distribution companies), or Diagnostics and Tuning Packs (forthe manufacturing company).Telecommunications company scenarios include use of Amdocs, SAP, SAS, Siebel and proprietarysystems; distribution company scenarios include ERP, CRM and operational systems supporting multiplebusiness units; and manufacturing company scenarios include JD Edwards ERP and CRM systems. Costsof applications software are not included in calculations.Scenarios include development, test, and other non-production and production instances. Non-productioninstances are in most cases deployed on failover servers.IT CostsFor all installations and scenarios, calculations include acquisition, as well as hardware maintenance,update and support subscription, and facilities costs. All hardware maintenance and software supportcosts are for 24x7 coverage. For reasons discussed earlier, personnel costs are not included.Calculations for Oracle database and management tool costs again reflect the company’s change inpricing for POWER6-based servers announced in March 2009; i.e., calculations are based on a value of1.0 processor.Detailed breakdowns of IT costs are presented in figure 15.International Technology Group 17
    • Figure 15 Cost Breakdowns for New UNIX System Deployment Comparisons COMPANY TELECOMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTION MANUFACTURING HEWLETT-PACKARD VSE SCENARIOS Hardware 5,234.4 2,971.5 592.4 Maintenance 2,709.7 1,444.5 111.1 Systems software 1,164.8 753.5 197.2 Database software 6,552.0 3,822.0 1,186.5 Facilities 304.3 224.0 55.6 TOTAL ($000) 15,965.2 9,215.5 2,142.8 IBM POWERVM SCENARIOS Hardware 3,159.4 1,195.3 174.9 Maintenance 891.7 141.7 20.8 Systems software 682.9 995.9 89.8 Database software 4,914.0 2,184.0 830.6 Facilities 174.9 120.4 33.8 TOTAL ($000) 9,822.9 4,637.3 1,149.9 SUN SCENARIOS Hardware 7,588.1 2,726.4 627.5 Maintenance 591.1 276.5 110.1 Systems software 435.4 238.8 70.5 Database software 17,199.0 5,460.0 2,610.3 Facilities 501.6 281.3 102.1 TOTAL ($000) 26,315.2 8,983.0 3,520.5Costs of DowntimeCosts of downtime for new UNIX system deployment comparisons were determined in the same manneras for UNIX server infrastructures, using industry- and company-specific values assuming consistentlevels of availability and business cost structures over a five-year period.For the telecommunications company, costs of downtime were calculated for outages affecting billing,CRM, financial and operational systems, as well as customer-facing online applications. Calculationsinclude allowance for lost sales and CLV due to interruptions in call center as well as online customerservice.For the distribution company, costs of downtime were calculated for outages affecting ERP, CRM, ordermanagement, warehouse management, transportation management and procurement systems. For themanufacturing company, the focus was on outages affecting the company’s ERP and CRM systems.Allowance was also made in both cases for lost sales due to customer service interruptions.International Technology Group 18
    • Cost AssumptionsServer CostsFor all comparisons, costs for server hardware acquisition and maintenance, and for software licenses,and update and support subscriptions were calculated based on vendor list prices. These were discountedto reflect prevailing “street” prices for installed bases and new deployments comparable to those in profileinstallations.Facilities costs include data center occupancy, power and cooling equipment and energy costs over a five-year period. Occupancy cost calculations were based on EIA 42U rack mount units and service clearancesfor these, plus allowance for inactive areas. A conservative assumption for annual cost per square foot forexisting facilities was employed (i.e., costs do not include new facilities construction).Costs for power and cooling equipment were based on configurations of such equipment appropriate forthe servers employed in each installation and scenario. Costs were calculated for acquisition andmaintenance over a five-year period, using discounted list prices for equipment from leading vendors.Energy costs were calculated using vendor electricity consumption values for servers, as well as powerand cooling equipment. Specific utilization levels and hours of operation for each profile installation wereapplied, and a conservative assumption for average price per kilowatt/hour was employed to determinefive-year costs.Personnel CostsPersonnel costs are for the numbers of full time equivalent (FTE) staff for system administration-relatedfunctions shown in figures 10 and 12.Calculations were based on annual salaries of $79,316 for AIX system administrators, as well as forUNIX system administrators for other platforms for conventional scenarios for UNIX serverinfrastructure cost comparisons; and $71,292 for Linux system administrators for x86 and Power serversfor Linux server infrastructure comparisons.Salaries were increased by 49.7 percent to allow for benefits, bonuses, training and other personnel-related overhead, and overall costs were calculated for a five-year period.All values for server as well as personnel costs are for the United States.International Technology Group 19
    • ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY GROUP ITG sharpens your awareness of what’s happening and your competitive edge . . . this could affect your future growth and profit prospectsThe International Technology Group (ITG), established in 1983, is an independent research andmanagement consulting firm specializing in information technology (IT) investment strategy, cost/ benefitmetrics, infrastructure studies, deployment tactics, business alignment and financial analysis.ITG was an early innovator and pioneer in developing total cost of ownership (TCO) and return oninvestment (ROI) processes and methodologies. In 2004, the firm received a Decade of Education Awardfrom the Information Technology Financial Management Association (ITFMA), the leading professionalassociation dedicated to education and advancement of financial management practices in end-user ITorganizations.The firm has undertaken more than 100 major consulting projects, released approximately 160management reports and white papers, and delivered nearly 1,800 briefs and presentations to individualclients, user groups, industry conferences and seminars throughout the world.Client services are designed to provide factual data and reliable documentation to assist in the decision-making process. Information provided establishes the basis for developing tactical and strategic plans.Important developments are analyzed and practical guidance is offered on the most effective ways torespond to changes that may impact or shape complex IT deployment agendas.A broad range of services is offered, furnishing clients with the information necessary to complementtheir internal capabilities and resources. Customized client programs involve various combinations of thefollowing deliverables: Status Reports In-depth studies of important issues Management Briefs Detailed analysis of significant developments Management Briefings Periodic interactive meetings with management Executive Presentations Scheduled strategic presentations for decision-makers Email Communications Timely replies to informational requests Telephone Consultation Immediate response to informational needsClients include a cross section of IT end users in the private and public sectors representing multinationalcorporations, industrial companies, financial institutions, service organizations, educational institutions,federal and state government agencies as well as IT system suppliers, software vendors and service firms.Federal government clients have included agencies within the Department of Defense (e.g. DISA),Department of Transportation (e.g. FAA) and Department of Treasury (e.g. U.S. Mint). International Technology Group 4546 El Camino Real, Suite 230 Los Altos, California 94022-1069 ITG Telephone: (650) 949-8410 Facsimile: (650) 949-8415 Email: info-itg@pacbell.net