Informationweek Trend Reports

IT Success=Storage&Data center Performance

Issue link: http://dc.ubm-us.com/i/798459

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 6 of 6

MARCH 2017 7 www.InformationWeek.com « P R E V I O U S [Data Center Efficiency…] operations. Some of Y's savings in operating expenses are lost to the need to spend money on new, more efficient servers and software. But the institute's main point is still driven home: finding and eliminating under-utilized and zombie servers reduces costs on several fronts. Optimizing and upgrading those servers that remain in use realizes further savings that over a seven-year period more than offsets the required capital expense. almost $93 million through reduced energy costs, server license fees, server maintenance costs, depreciation expenses, IT personnel costs and other operating expenses. In contrast, data center X is estimated to have wasted at least $28 million. Whatever its viewers may think of the assumptions behind it, the chart is an attempt to illustrate the growing cost of continuing the course of a traditional IT staff versus taking aggressive steps to optimize data center it succeeds in shutting down "comatose" or zombie servers over time and consolidating under-utilized servers via virtualization, and implementing a data center infrastructure management system. Overall, it is able save YEAR 7 Over a 7-year span, Data Center Y's direct savings total $65.24 million. The success of their continued efficiency efforts is in the Delta of nearly $100 million compared to the unnecessary spending by Data Center X. When compounded over the same time span, this results in an ROI of more than 10:1 from Data Center Y's modest investments in efficiency. By contrast, Data Center X is overspending every year, watching as costs keep rising and wasting resources, while missing out on opportunities to invest their capital more effectively and improve their environmental footprint. And the story doesn't end there for Data Center X; the impact of their inaction is even more far reaching. With current capacity maxed out, they will probably have to construct a new facility, which can cost approximately $12 million per MW or more, plus any associated jump in baseline operating expenses. Together, these illustrate the Exorbitant Cost of Doing Nothing. If only they'd implemented efficiency measures early, they could have been applying their savings to grow the business, from launching new strategic initiatives to making additional capital investments. year. servers, and growing white Business as usual— Does nothing Cost: another $5.94 million wasted... The total of all the money wasted over the years = $27.73 million, or as much as $82 million if cumulative from the starting baseline expense point. RESULTS By end of Year 6 $78.91M By end of Year 7 $92.98M Wasted Wasted $5.65M $66.71M = $6.55M $5.94M + $78.91M = + $8.13M ? Their choice cost them millions. What choice will you make? Don't let your dollars go to waste just to support business as usual—start saving now! Image source: Uptime Institute

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

view archives of Informationweek Trend Reports - IT Success=Storage&Data center Performance