For those of you who follow the Cisco Data Center blog in general and my blogs in particular, you’re probably thinking it is time I updated you on this topic. You’re right! But it is almost time for Cisco Live and I will be presenting it there. Read More »
I recently wrote a blog titled Blade Server TCO and Architecture – You Cannot Separate Them and thought a little more on the architecture side would be a good thing.
With so much misinformation (dis-information?) about UCS running around in the ether, I thought the straight forward comparison offered here would be valuable. It is important to dispel myths and analyze reality before making the important decisions around server and networking refreshes / upgrades, which by necessity affect long term data center architecture. I hope you will find this presentation -- Cisco UCS, HP and IBM -- A Blade Architecture Comparison, useful in your decision making process.
For me, there are three primary drivers that differentiate the Cisco UCS architecture from everyone else’s designs and they can be divided into the buckets below:
You could, and probably should, ask what is left out? That’s pretty easy. I did not specifically call out Performance and TCO, for a good reason. If you can execute on the three bullets above like Cisco UCS does, Performance and TCO are the natural derivatives. You shouldn’t have to target them separately. It’s kind of a “If you build it, they will come” scenario. That’s why I made the statements in the TCO and Architecture blog that “…Server cost is irrelevant (to OpEx) because: changing its contribution to total TCO has a vanishingly small impact….” and “…It [architecture] is the single most important component of OpEx…” For more on this and how server cost and TCO intersect, please check out this blog -- Blade Server TCO and Architecture – You Cannot Separate Them. It takes a look at the OpEx and CapEx components of TCO, and how altering either of them effects the actual total 3-year TCO. You may be surprised.
Cisco is providing trade-in credits for customers’ old generation servers and blade chassis, helping ease the transition and upgrade to a new UCS blade architecture. The UCS Advantage presentation below has more details on this fantastic program that can further enhance the already compelling TCO benefit of upgrading to Cisco UCS.
Special note: For more on the benefit that Cisco UCS delivers for I/O and throughput, I suggest a great blog by Amit Jain -- How to get more SAN mileage out of UCS FI. Amit does an excellent compare / contrast of FC and FCoE technologies (“…8 Gb FC yields 6.8 Gb throughput while 10 Gb FCoE yields close to 10 Gb throughput…”).
Tags: blade architecture, blade architecture comparison, blade server, blade server architecture, blade server TCO, capex, Cisco, Cisco UCS, data center, data center TCO, HP blades, HP BladeSystem, IBM blades, IBM Flex Fabric, opex, server, server TCO, tco, technology, UCS
I have heard this a lot over the years, in one way or another – “The only price that really counts is what I actually pay for my server.”
Alright, so why bother with a TCO analysis? The truth is that server acquisition costs only contribute 20% (or less) to a 3 year server TCO. Management and other OpEx costs contribute the remaining 80%. If you go to 5 years, the acquisition cost starts to fade into obscurity.
There are a number of studies you can find online that call out server acquisition cost at 15% to 17% of TCO, or even less. One is an Information Week report that quotes a 2007 IDC study. The Information Week article is very good, with multiple sources and definitely worth a read. Since 2007 there have been myriad improvements in processor performance, as well as, server and architectural innovations (Cisco UCS). All of these supply ample rationale for a low CapEx component for Server / Data Center Total Cost of Ownership, see the figures below.
[The WW Server Related Spend… chart is from IDC, “New Econmoinc Model of the Datacenter”; IDC 2011] [Only the graph is from the cited source, the table is my analysis of the numbers presented by the graph.]
Summary of the figures above:
Server purchase spend and associated power & cooling spending is flat (red and green bands above)
Physical server management cost is the down (blue aband bove)
Virtual server management cost are way up and increasing (orange band above)
Almost a year ago, I wrote my first blog post detailing what customers have been saying about their UCS experiences in our Case Studies, Solution Briefs, etc.
The findings have been updated with the latest studies. While the percentages haven’t changed much, the number of customers reporting similar results (like Cisco’s market share) has gone up dramatically.
These results are limited to where the customers specifically stated a savings or where the savings is easily derived from the numbers stated.
- 61% reduction of ongoing administrative/management costs based on 27 customers.
- 54% reduction in power & cooling based on 44 customers.
- 77% reduction in cabling with an average cost savings of 71% based on 21 & 6 customers respectively.
- 41% reduction in other operations costs based on 13 customers
- 84% reduction in provisioning times based on 71 customers.
To help explain how customers achieved these results, the Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS): Changing the Economics of the Datacenter presentation walks you through UCS technology innovations and how they lead to TCO improvements. Along with this data, the presentation has been updated with current cost comparisons as well as third party deployment test reports.
Would you like to learn more about how Cisco UCS can help you? There are more than 270 datacenter case studies currently on Cisco.com. Additionally, there is a TCO/ROI tool that will allow you to compare your existing environment to a new UCS Solution. For a more in-depth TCO/ROI analysis, contact your Cisco partner.
Complexity and Cost Comparison: Cisco UCS vs. IBM Flex System is report recently published by Principled Technologies.
They evaluated both the technologies and costs of each solution and found a UCS solution is both less expensive to deploy and less complex to manage than an IBM Flex System.
Off all the ways Principled Technologies shows how UCS is a superior solution, I wanted to touch on just one: highly available and scalable management. A UCS management domain consists of a pair of Fabric Interconnects and supports up to 160 blade and/or rack servers. In contrast, IBM is limited to 54 blade servers plus a non-redundant Flex System Manager node. Quoting from the paper:
Because IBM Flex System Manager nodes do not failover automatically like the Cisco UCS solution, administrators must manually connect to a backup node and bring it online. Each target system has an OS agent that remains registered to the original FSM node and does not recognize the new FSM. Admins must manually unregister each of these agents from the failed node and then register the new FSM node. [page 7]
Read the full report to learn the many additional ways which UCS is shown to be superior solution and why Cisco has leapt ahead of IBM and is now the #2 blade server vendor worldwide1
Would like to learn more about how Cisco is changing the economics of the datacenter, I would encourage you to review this presentation on SlideShare or my previous series of blog posts, Yes, Cisco UCS servers are that good.
- Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker, Q1 2013 Revenue Share, May 2013
Tags: 2208XP, 6248UP, 6296UP, B200 M3, blade server, capex, Cisco, CMM, CN4093, Fabric Interconnect, fex, Flex System, FSM, G8264R, IBM, patterns, Principled Technologies, rack server, ROI, service profile, tco, UCS, UCS Manager, x240