IBM i Total Cost of Ownwership


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IBM i Total Cost of Ownwership

  1. 1. IBM i Total Cost of OwnwershipIBM i Total Cost of OwnwershipAS 400 (Photo credit: read an intersting article on the ITJungle website about the IBM i (AS/400) Total Cost ofOwnership which sustains that the IBM midrange systems are still valid competitors against theUnix and Windows boxes. I have re-published it below for your convenience.New ITG Report Is Reinforcement For The IBM i AdvocatePublished: December 10, 2012by Dan BurgerChoosing one computer system over another has the potential to significantly reduce costs, buteach individual company has to do some homework before coming to a decision. It isdisappointing, to say the least, that many of these decisions are made regardless of whetherthey make good business sense. Can a business case for IBM i running on Power Systems bemade when compared to Windows and Linux alternatives? Yes, indeed, when bolstered byreports like the one recently released by ITG.ITG, which is called on regularly to assemble total cost of ownership studies that build afavorable case for IBM‘s midrange and enterprise customer base, has calculated that savingsin the range of 40 percent and up are realistic. Total cost of ownership (TCO) adds majorindirect costs to the up-front charges for hardware, software (including the operating system anddatabase and other licenses, maintenance for both), and the personnel required to operate thesystems.Much of this TCO data is swept under the rug when organizations make computing decisions, or 1/5
  2. 2. at least it is downplayed. Some of that is intentional because it doesn’t fit someone’s personalor professional agenda, while some of it is unavailable or assumed to be too difficult todetermine.The total cost of ownership song has been sung by IBM i advocates ever since Unix and X86machines became a threat in the midrange more than two decades ago, and a similar tune waschanted for System/3X iron in the proprietary minicomputer era that preceded it. Cheaperalternatives at the point of sale necessitated a change of perspective to what most refer to as“the big picture.” It’s a legitimate way to do comparisons. In the automotive market, cheap carsused to be synonymous with poor value. Now that is rarely the case. In computers, particularlyenterprise systems, there’s still a case to be made that inexpensive on the front end equateswith more expensive over the lifecycle of the equipment.The latest ITG report makes that case again. I’m not sure how many of these TCO reports ITGhas cranked out for IBM, but it’s more than a few. This one goes down essentially the samepath as the ones before it. Changes in the market correspondingly bring changes to the report.But the central case that is laid out revolves around the fact that systems running on Windowsand Linux require more boxes and more people to manage them and are, therefore, moreexpensive when the long-term cost of those two factors are taken into account.The point of the ITG report, whether you want to scrutinize it or not, is that it is a weapon for theunarmed IBM i advocate who is making a business case for this platform. It providescomparisons, examples, and options. And, most importantly it demonstrates a degree of fiscalaptitude and cost structure analysis that can get the attention of the C-level decision makerswho do not understand techno geek-speak. Someone who thinks in terms of not only direct butindirect costs for both equipment and labor, as well as how his department can support theorganization, and backs up that thinking with a report from an independent authoritative source,makes his or her case stronger.Advocates for the IBM i platform have a better chance of impressing management withinformation that represents “the real cost of computing” and that supports the idea investing ina system that reduces cost over a three-year period means the IT budget can afford innovation.Of course, you have to be able to show you have the right stuff to innovate as well.I’d bet most IBM i advocates already know a fair and balanced comparison between an IBM isystem and an Intel system requires more servers and more people to support those servers onthe Intel side. But how many can back it up with a report? ITG has done that with Power 720and 740 systems running IBM i 7.1 with the built-in DB2 for i database and PowerVM hypervisorcompared to X86 servers running Microsoft Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008, andequipped with the VMware ESXi 5 hypervisor. Other X86 machines match up Linux with theOracle‘s 11g database and on top of VMware ESXi 5.The way the systems were configured, as many as ten physical Windows servers, twodedicated as VMware hosts, were used in comparison to the Power Systems 720 and 740 duo.The configuration was designed to handle production ERP, CRM, e-commerce, business 2/5
  3. 3. intelligence, and supply chain management applications, plus development and testing. It alsofeatured high availability as the cost of downtime was emphasized in this study.The Power Systems and X86 server configurations used in the ITG report are representedin this diagram. (Illustration reprinted from the ITG report.) Click graphic to enlarge.The overall three-year cost averages were pegged at $480,200 for the IBM i setup, $862,200 forthe Windows setup, and $1,118,300 for the Linux setup.Even though the cost of individual X86 servers will always be less expensive than an equivalentPower Systems box, ITG says the number of X86 servers and the necessary software requiredresults in higher acquisition costs. Separate servers were required to handle database,applications, and Web serving, as well as to support test, development, and productioninstances. Failover clusters were used for Windows database servers and costs on the X86 side 3/5
  4. 4. were also affected by the price of system administration tools, security, and other functions toprovide capabilities equivalent to those included in the base IBM i 7.1 offering.ITG determined those costs and concluded the initial acquisition costs of the IBM i system was24 percent less than the Windows system and 47 percent less than the Linux system.The overall three-year costs per platform give IBM i the advantage in every category, butthe greatest savings is attributed to personnel costs. (Illustration reprinted from the ITGreport.) Click graphic to enlarge.The biggest differentiator in the total cost of ownership was attributable to personnel. The costof managing the Windows setup was 2.3 times higher and the Linux/Oracle setup was 2.6 timeshigher than the IBM i setup. The difference in the two X86 systems was tied to the higher cost ofthe Oracle database and the lower productivity of administrators working on the Linux/Oraclesystem.There will be people who will find fault with the way this report was set up and the way thecomparisons were made. It is a fair criticism based on the many reports that are commissionedand conducted on behalf of IT companies that carefully plan what the outcomes should be.“The purpose of the report is to provide general guidelines,” Ian Jarman, analytics marketingmanager for Power Systems and System z and a former IBM i product manager, told me lastweek on the phone. “Does the IBM client have more or less servers [than these competitors]?There are always fewer IBM i servers. This report puts structure around that. It identifies theimpact in other areas such as maintenance, software licenses, support, personnel, andfacilities.”Jarman says these are the key costs and should be the focus of discussions about investing inbusiness applications and how to manage IT efficiently. He defends the ITG report calling it wellresearched and expressed confidence in the review and the data that goes into it.“ITG has a strong reputation and the skills and experience to do research across multipleplatforms,” Jarman said. “We give a framework to ITG for research, and we review theirresearch. We make sure they portray IBM i as we view it, but it is researched independently.” 4/5
  5. 5. Allison Butterill, IBM i product offering manager, was on the same conference call with Jarman and myself. She pointed out that it’s the IBM i shops that request these reports are researched and published. “Groups like the COMMON advisory council and the LUG (large user group) use them to justify [to upper-level management] new projects or upgrades. These reports help them make business cases to management. They are valuable and they focus on different priorities. Our customers are adamant that this is important for them.” The entire report can be seen here. RELATED STORIES Arming The IBM i Nation ITG Says IBM i + DB2 for i Still Offers Lowest TCO IBM Touts System i TCO in ITG Report PowerVM Outshines Other VMs In IBM-Backed Report 5/5Powered by TCPDF (