Server Consolidation Planning

Virtualization Assessment
Prepared for [Client]

Project: Server Consolidation Phase I and II Issue: 2.0 Classification: Confidential

Server Consolidation Assessment

Document Control
This is a controlled document produced by International Network Services (INS). The control and release of this document is the responsibility of the INS document owner. This includes any amendment that may be required.
Issue Control Document Reference Issue Classification Document Title Approved by Released by Owner Details Name Office/Region Contact Number E-mail Address Revision History Issue Draft 0.1 Draft 1.7 Draft 1.8 Draft 1.9 2.0 Date August 22, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 26, 2005 Author Seth Robbins Tom Hazen Dan Radomski Dan Radomski Dan Radomski Initial Draft Revisions Added Financial Sections Updates per EMC review Final Edits Comments Seth Robbins Newton MA 508-450-9755 Seth.robbins@ins.com Server Consolidation 2.0 Confidential Project Number Date Author September 26, 2005 Seth Robbins

Server Consolidation Phase I and II Tom Hazen Dan Radomski

Distribution List Name Title Company Contact Info.

2011 International Network Services Inc. All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the document owner or maintainer

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page ii

Server Consolidation Assessment

Table of Contents
1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................1 1.1Server Baseline.....................................................................................................................2 1.2Application Assessment.......................................................................................................3 2INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY & UTILIZATION..................................................5 2.1Summary...............................................................................................................................5 2.2Processors per Server..........................................................................................................5 2.3CPU Utilization....................................................................................................................5 2.4Memory Utilization..............................................................................................................6 2.5Obsolete Servers...................................................................................................................7 2.6Operating Systems Installed...............................................................................................7 3CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS...................................................................................8 3.1Summary...............................................................................................................................8 3.2Virtualization Scenarios......................................................................................................8 3.2.1DL360/DL380.................................................................................................................8 3.2.2BL45p..............................................................................................................................9 3.2.3DL585..............................................................................................................................9 3.2.4DL580..............................................................................................................................9 3.2.5DL585 Dual Core............................................................................................................9 4FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................10 4.1TCO Assumptions:.............................................................................................................10 4.2Cost Savings / Total Cost of Ownership Summary.........................................................11 4.2.1Cumulative Monthly Total Cost of Ownership.............................................................12 4.2.2Initial Costs....................................................................................................................16 4.2.3Summary of TCO Results.............................................................................................16 4.2.4Reduction of Power.......................................................................................................17 5CONSOLIDATION RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................18 5.1Summary.............................................................................................................................18 5.2Recommendations..............................................................................................................18 5.3Next Steps............................................................................................................................19 APPENDIX A.PERFORMANCE METRIC DEFINITIONS..........................................20 APPENDIX B.APPLICATION SERVER CANDIDATES............................................21

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page iii

Server Consolidation Assessment

Table of Figures
FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF CPU(S) PER SERVER........................................................5 FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF SERVERS AT N% CPU UTILIZATION..............................6 FIGURE 3: MEMORY USAGE......................................................................................6 FIGURE 4: OPERATING SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY................................7 FIGURE 5: SERVER POWER REQUIREMENTS......................................................13 FIGURE 6: CUMULATIVE MONTHLY TCO - DL585................................................14 FIGURE 7: COMPONENTS OF 3 YEAR TCO...........................................................15 FIGURE 8: INITIAL COSTS........................................................................................16 FIGURE 9: REDUCTION IN POWER REQUIREMENTS...........................................17

Table of Tables
TABLE 1: TCO COMPARISON....................................................................................2 TABLE 2: APPLICATION SUPPORT RESULTS........................................................4 TABLE 3: VIRTUALIZATION SCENARIOS.................................................................8 TABLE 4: COMPONENTS OF TCO - CUMULATIVE................................................15 TABLE 5: TCO COMPARISON..................................................................................16 TABLE 6: PERFORMANCE METRIC DEFINITIONS................................................20

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page iv

Executive Summary
[Client], which provides [Region A] Region with a comprehensive, integrated continuum of care, needs to address three immediate pain points: Reduce management overhead - no headcount growth for managing increased complexity Data Center Environmental Constraints - current data center is getting full Data Center Migration - want to simplify migration and reduce environmental requirements at new site To help eliminate these constraints, INS and [Client] have successfully completed the planning stage to move their production environment to a consolidated set of servers based upon VMware technology. Specifically, INS and [Client] completed the following during Phase I and Phase II of this project: Validated Business requirements and drivers toward server consolidation Evaluated current major application deployments as candidates for movement to the virtualized environment Analyzed server statistics to determine consolidation scenarios Created technology and financial recommendations as a preliminary design for the desire future state The following results should be achieved by the successful implementation:
Improvement in hardware utilization levels; increase overall CPU utilization from approximately 6% to 60% allowing the optimization of [Client]s

resources. A greater than 70% reduction in datacenter space required for operation of the Windows environment, in turn providing less management overhead. Redeployment of existing physical hardware in support of other initiative, such as Disaster Recovery.

Table 1 Summarizes the results of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis. The 4-way scenarios (BL45P & DL58*) offer lower 3 year TCO than the 2-way servers. The HP DL585, using 2.6 GHz processors and 24GB of memory will offer the best combination of cost, flexibility/expandability, and proven track record in VMware ESX deployments.

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 1

The requirement for server rack space is also greatly reduced. In all cases (except the DL380), the rack space requirements is reduced by more than a factor of 5 when compared with the requirements of the current model (152U).

Server
Table 1: TCO Comparison

DL360
1.1 Server Baseline

Though one of the initial assumptions was that [Client] would retain its HP Hardware platform, pricing for the Dell PowerEdge 6850 was also obtained. The cost of the Dell PowerEdge 6850 was significantly less than the HP 4-way servers, yielding a 3 year TCO of approximately $500,000. This report presents the work completed by INS and [Client Short] and provides the recommended next steps to continue the consolidation effort.

DL380
Server Consolidation Confidential

The first task completed for this assessment was the installation of an AOG Collector in the [Client] datacenter. The Collector was initially used to identify all of the domains in the [Client Short] environment. Once the domains were discovered, the [Client] and Internet Service domains were scanned (using the LANMAN protocol) for Windows systems. The initial survey found 121 systems, of which 102 systems were identified as the focus of the virtualization assessment. After the relevant systems were discovered and inventoried, the Collector polled them periodically for performance metrics. Approximately 4 weeks of data was gathered in August & September of 2005. The data gathering occurred many times daily and also ran on evenings and weekends.

BL45P

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 2

INS used this data to address various goals through the server virtualization and consolidation assessment including: Understanding server performance and utilization rates of a group of Wintel servers in the [Client] and Internet Service domains. Understand the potential for server virtualization of the Wintel server infrastructure in the [Client] and Internet Service domains. Identifying workloads that are good candidates to be migrated into virtual machines Development of possible consolidation scenarios for sampled servers

1.2

Application Assessment
[Client] and INS established a set of criteria that included business needs, server hardware, application vendor support, and server utilization. These criteria were applied to all monitored systems to determine which servers and applications were candidates for virtualization. Examples of exclusion criteria were: Servers and/or applications that will be retired in the near future Servers that had hardware requirements that are not currently supported by VMware. For example, any server: o Containing greater than 4 network interface cards o Using specialized PCI devices o Functioning as a backup server As a result of this process the total number of server candidates was reduced from 120 to 102. Major applications support was then reviewed with the specific software vendors and included as Virtual Candidates for further review by [Client] and VMware. Figure 1 below shows of the 37 major applications defined; currently 27 are supported on VMware. The remaining 10 were identified and the information provided to VMware. VMware will work with the application vendor for future consideration and validation. Appendix B at the bottom of the assessment provides the list major application selected by [Client] for review and a detailed description of the compatibility with VMware ESX Server.

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 3

Table 2: Application Support Results

Summary of Application support Results Tested and supported on VMware Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Not tested and not supported on VMware Total:

Number of Servers 14 13 10 37

The last criteria of server utilization with greater than 40% CPU or 3.6 GB of memory utilization was applied based upon the sampled prime time utilization. After processing the virtualization criteria to [Client]s environment, 102 Servers remained as virtual candidates.

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 4

2
2.1

Infrastructure Inventory & Utilization

Summary
This section of the report provides a summary of the inventory and utilization of the x86 server infrastructure at [Client] as compiled by the AOG collector and how the collected values may effect consolidation.

2.2

Processors per Server

An analysis of the number of processors currently in each server shows that an overwhelming majority of the systems only have a single processor. Single processor servers are excellent candidates for consolidation.
Number of CPU(s) per Server
4 CPU(s) 1 Server(s) 1%

2 CPU(s) 9 Server(s) 10%

1 CPU(s) 78 Server(s) 89%

1 CPU(s) 78 Server(s)

2 CPU(s) 9 Server(s)

4 CPU(s) 1 Server(s)

Figure 1: Number of CPU(s) per Server

2.3

CPU Utilization
The chart below shows the average and peak CPU utilization at prime time. Of the 88 systems monitored by the AOG collector, 85 of the systems average less then 20% utilization, with none of the systems averaging more then 50% utilization. The low system utilization highlighted by the chart indicates that all of the monitored systems may be excellent candidates for consolidation.

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 5

Number of Servers at n%CPU Utilization

80 70 60 Server Count 50 40 30 21 20 10 0 >0% <10% 10 % 20% 20 % 30% 30 % 40% 40 % 50% 50 % 60% 60 % 70% 70 % 80% 80 % 90% 90 % 100% 7 9 2 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 76

43

CPUUtilPeak CPUUtilAvg

Proces sor Utilization, %

Figure 2: Number of Servers at n% CPU Utilization

2.4

Memory Utilization
The chart below shows the memory utilization of the server. Of the 88 systems monitored by the AOG collector, over 90% use less then 2 GBs of memory. % of used RAM

6%

2% 43% >0 1 Gb >1 2 Gb >2 3 Gb

49%

>3 4 Gb

Figure 3: Memory Usage

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 6

2.5

Obsolete Servers
An obsolete server is defined as a system that should be replaced or retired due to insufficient capabilities or maintenance costs as compared to a new system. Some examples of insufficient capabilities are the speed of the installed processors, memory capacity, and storage expansion options. Examples of maintenance costs are maintenance/support contracts, chassis size/footprint, power requirements, and heat generation. For this report, any systems using a processor running at less then 933 MHz are considered as obsolete servers. Based upon this criterion, a total of 22 systems (20% of the sampled systems) are classified as obsolete servers. These 22 systems are prime candidates for virtualization.

2.6

Operating Systems Installed

An analysis of the operating system running on each servers shows that all installations are either in the Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 families of operating systems, with a two-thirds majority being in the Windows 2000 family. Servers running any of the Windows operating systems are excellent candidates for consolidation.

Operating System Distribution Summary

Microsoft Window s Server 2003 34% Microsoft Window s 2000 63%

Microsoft Window s 2000 Advanced Server 3%

Microsoft Windows 2000 Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server Microsoft Windows Server 2003

Figure 4: Operating System Distribution Summary

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 7

3
3.1

Consolidation Analysis
Summary
This section describes the analysis of the inventory and utilization of the x86 server infrastructure at [Client] and the consolidation scenarios. Based upon the information gathered by the AOG Capacity Planner application suite, it was determined that the best course of action for consolidation is to utilize virtualization of x86 servers by means of VMware ESX Server.

3.2

Virtualization Scenarios
The success of a server consolidation initiative is tied to various technical, financial, and political factors. It is critical to create a consolidation plan that will provide immediate benefits while minimizing risk. Internal marketing of early benefits can then be used to help move the consolidation initiative into additional areas. The scenarios presented here are an example of what consolidation opportunities are available to [Client]. These consolidation scenarios are based on the performance and inventory data gathered by the AOG collector and do not consider other functional (e.g. application), policy (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley compliance), process (e.g. Business Continuity plans), departmental (e.g. HR, Finance, Accounting), or technical (e.g. VLAN topologies, firewalls, SAN architecture) constraints.

Platform DL360/DL380 (2x3.0GHz, 12GB) BL45p (4x2.6GHz, 24GB) DL585 (4x2.6GHz, 24GB) DL580 (4x3.6GHz, 24GB) DL585 (4x2.2GHz Dual Core, 32GB)

# of ESX Servers 13 5 5 5 4

Consolidation Ratio 8:1 21:1 21:1 21:1 26:1

Table 3: Virtualization Scenarios

3.2.1

DL360/DL380
HP DL360 and DL380 servers with two 3.0 GHz processors and 12 GB of memory: Since [Client] currently uses these server models, newer servers could be reprovisioned (e.g., second processor, additional memory for a total of 12GB per server, network cards, and fibre channel HBAs) to meet the requirements. This

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 8

scenario is dependent upon the availability of the systems to be upgraded, as well as components to upgrade them. The HP DL360 and DL380 servers offer very limited expansion capabilities, with the DL360 requiring the usage of dual port HBAs. The dual processor servers also offer the least flexible resource pools for virtual machines.

3.2.2

BL45p
HP DL45p blades servers with four 2.6 GHz and 24 GB of memory: This option offers the introduction of blade technology to the [Client] datacenter, and the smallest rack footprint of any scenario, but also has limited flexibility.

3.2.3

DL585
HP DL585 with four 2.6 GHz processors and 24GB of memory: This option offers the greatest flexibility of architecture while maximizing cost to performance.

3.2.4

DL580
HP DL580 with four 3.6 GHz processors and 24GB of memory: While the consolidation ratios show to be the same between the DL580 and DL585 platforms, experience from previous implementations have shown performance on the DL585 servers to be better then the DL580 for VMware ESX implementations.

3.2.5

DL585 Dual Core

HP DL585 with four 2.2 GHz dual core processors and 32GB of memory: While this option offers the highest consolidation ratio, the cost premium of the dual core technology factored to a consolidation of this size must be considered.

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 9

Financial Assessment

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) was modeled for [Client]s current environment (Business as Usual) along with several consolidation scenarios using VMwares ESX software. The results are detailed as follows.

4.1

TCO Assumptions:

The TCO model was constructed to best represent [Client]s accounting practices. The following assumptions were made when constructing the TCO model. General Assumptions Depreciation: Server Hardware was modeled using a straight line depreciation over 5 years. Taxes: Since [Client] is tax exempt, no tax implications were modeled. Server Life: The useful life of a server is consistent with the depreciation term, i.e., a server is refreshed after it has been in service for 5 years. Growth Rate: The server growth rate is 10% per year. This number is lower than [Client]s experience, and is considered a conservative estimate. Power Consumption Required to Run Server: The power consumption per server was calculated based upon results from HPs power calculator worksheet found at: http://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/calc/Power Calculator Catalog.xls. Power Consumption Required to Cool Datacenter: Any heat generated by the servers needs to be removed from the datacenter via the cooling system. The efficiency of that cooling system was assumed to be 80%. Power Rate: The cost of power was estimated to be $0.08 / kWh. [Client] Environment (Business As Usual) New Server Purchases: [Client] generally uses HP DL360s and HP DL 380s when a new server is required. It was assumed that for every 9 DL360s, 1 DL380 is purchased. Based on that ratio, along with pricing obtained by [Client], a blended server cost was calculated. Existing Server Hardware: The current depreciation of existing servers assumed the initial cost of the server was consistent with the purchase price of a new server. Provisioning of a New Physical Server: The cost to provision a new server, whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $320. This is based on 4 hours of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr. Hardware Maintenance Cost: Hardware maintenance was included in the hardware cost for the 1st three years of a servers life. After that point (for years 4 & 5), the maintenance cost was assumed to be a blended rate of $710 / year. Since the TCO was modeled over 3 years, this is applicable for existing servers only. Consolidated (Virtual Server) Environment Early Retirement of Server: If a server is retired early (before 5 years of life) and not re-used, the entire remaining value of its depreciation was accounted for in the month that the server was retired.
Server Consolidation Confidential Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 10

 Re-Use of Retired Servers: Any server that was consolidated into the new Virtual

Server environment that was between 0 and 2 years old was assumed to be re-used. In this case, the remaining depreciation of the server was modeled as a cost avoidance, i.e., a cost that would have occurred in the Business as Usual environment. Salvaged Servers: Any server that was consolidated into the new Virtual Server environment and was not re-used, was considered as a salvage candidate. A salvage value of 5% of the servers initial purchase price was modeled. New Hardware Purchases: Several Server Models (as described earlier in this deliverable) were modeled in the TCO calculation using pricing obtained by [Client]. Software Purchases: Software licensing costs were modeled as an expense, i.e., the entire cost was modeled in the month of purchase. The software maintenance was modeled as a yearly recurring cost. Provisioning of a New Physical Server: The cost to provision a new server, whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $320. This is based on 4 hours of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr. Provisioning of a New Virtual Server: The cost to provision a new server, whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $80. This is based on 1 hour of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr.

4.2

Cost Savings / Total Cost of Ownership Summary

The Total Cost of Ownership analysis modeled the following costs: Hardware Depreciation & Maintenance Business as Usual Environment ESX Server VirtualCenter Server Server Provisioning Physical Server Virtual Server Power/Cooling Software License & (Platinum) Maintenance ESX Virtual Infrastructure Node (VIN) VirtualCenter P2V Assistant Storage Area Network Costs SAN Ports SAN Disk Implementation Costs Detailed Design and Pilot Implementation and Migration

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 11

The Total Cost of Ownership analysis does not model the following, which are considered additional benefits of the server consolidation initiative: Reduction in Operations / Administration Staff (Other the new server provisioning) Reduced Downtime Reduced Deployment time of servers Business benefits Eliminates procurement cycle / cost for Virtual Machines Software Costs for Backup / Security Facilities Savings (other the power/cooling) Rack Space Power Connections Datacenter Power/UPS Capacity Network Ports More Flexible Environment High Availability Disaster Recovery The Total Cost of Ownership was calculated for the following hardware options 1. HP DL360 2. HP DL380 3. HP BL45P 4. HP DL580 5. HP DL585 6. HP DL585 Dual Core The detailed charts and graphs below depict the analysis completed on the HP DL585.

4.2.1

Cumulative Monthly Total Cost of Ownership

Figure 6 shows the cumulative monthly TCO when the HP DL585 is used as the consolidation platform. The BAU (Business As Usual) curve is composed of 4 components: 1. Hardware Depreciation: The cost in a given month was calculated based on a 5 year straight line depreciation. The server purchase price was based on the assumption that the [Client] environment is made up of HP DL360s and HP DL 380s. It was assumed that for every 9 DL360s, 1 DL 380 was purchased. Based on that ratio, along with pricing obtained by [Client], a blended server cost was calculated. This was used for new server requirements as well as existing servers. 2. Hardware Maintenance: Hardware maintenance was assumed to be in the purchase price of the hardware for the 1st three years. Maintenance costs were modelled for hardware that was between 3 & 5 years old. The cost for

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 12

maintenance was based on [Client] actuals and a blended rate was used based on the same ratios described in the hardware depreciation section above. 3. Power: The power requirements were calculated from the HP power calculator tool found on HPs website (provided above). The new server configurations were based upon input from [Client] (DL360/380) and the INS project team (DL585). The existing servers were assumed to require 80% of the power required by new servers. Figure 5 shows the power requirements for each configuration. The cooling requirements assumed an 80% efficiency, i.e., (cooling power requirement) = (server power requirement) / (80%). The cost of power was estimated at $0.08 per kWh.
Input Line Processor Voltage (V) Speed (GHz) DL360 DL380 DL585 115 115 115 3.4 3.6 2.6 Processor count 2 2 4 RAM (GB) 2 2 24 PCI Cards 2 3 6 HDD 2 x 36 GB 2 x 72 GB 2 x 72 GB Power Req't (W) 494 530 925

Figure 5: Server Power Requirements

4. Server Provisioning: The cost to provision a server, whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated at $320 / server. This is based on 4 hours of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr. The Consolidated curve is composed of 10 components:
1. Hardware Depreciation: The cost in a given month was calculated based on

a 5 year straight line depreciation. For the consolidated environment, the server purchase price was based on HP DL585 quote obtained by [Client]. The DL585 configuration was defined by the INS project team. The VirtualCenter server was modeled as a HP DL380. The hardware depreciation of the remaining servers in the current environment was also modeled. As each existing server was decommissioned, the entire remaining depreciation for that server was modeled in that month. 2. Hardware Maintenance: The maintenance of any remaining legacy servers was modeled per the BAU curve above. Since the TCO analysis models 3 years, and the ESX server purchases include 3 years worth of maintenance, no additional ESX server maintenance costs were modeled. 3. Salvage Value: Any server that was consolidated into the new Virtual Server environment and was not re-used, was considered as a salvage candidate. A salvage value of 5% of the servers initial purchase price was modeled. 4. Software License: The license cost for VMware ESX Virtual Infrastructure Node (VIN), VirtualCenter, and P2V Assistant were modeled as expense items, i.e., the full cost of the license was modeled in the month that it was purchased. VMware list pricing was used for all software costs.
Server Consolidation Confidential Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 13

5. Software Maintenance: Platinum Level Support was modeled as an ongoing

cost for all VMware Software.

6. Power: The power requirements were calculated as described in the BAU

curve above and Figure 5.

7. Provisioning of a New Physical Server: The cost to provision a new server,

whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $320. This is based on 4 hours of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr. 8. Provisioning of a New Virtual Server: The cost to provision a new server, whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $80. This is based on 1 hour of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr. 9. SAN Disk and Ports: The Cost of Storage Area Network (SAN) Disk and the required SAN ports were modeled as part of each virtualization scenario. 10. Implementation Costs: The consulting costs associated with the detailed design, build of the environment, pilot, and migration of the entire 102 servers to the VMware environment was modeled as a one-time cost during the first month of the project.

$800,000 $700,000 $600,000

Figure 6: Cumulative Monthly TCO - DL585

$500,000
Server Consolidation Confidential Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 14

The relative magnitude of the components that make up the total 3 year TCO is represented in tabular form as Table 4 and also in .
Table 4: Components of TCO - Cumulative

Hardw Maint Powe Business As Usual Provi

$800,000

Total
Provisioning
Figure 7: Components of 3 year TCO

$700,000

Server Consolidation Confidential

$600,000

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 15

Hardw Hardw

Power

4.2.2

Initial Costs
Figure 8 represents the initial costs for the server consolidation project using the DL585 server model. The initial costs are defined as: Hardware Costs Software Licensing Implementation Costs

Figure 8: Initial Costs

4.2.3

Summary of TCO Results

As previously stated, the Total Cost of Ownership analysis was modelled for several consolidation hardware platforms. Table 5 summarizes these results. The cost of Host Bus Adapters (HBAs) and the corresponding SAN ports was modelled as part of the server hardware cost. The 4way scenarios offer lower 3 year TCO than the 2-way servers due to the better consolidation ratios per CPU. Though the server hardware alone would make the 2way servers look attractive, the addition of VMware ESX Software (which is licensed per CPU) and other drivers make the 4-way server a better overall value.

VirtualCe VirtualC

Server
Table 5: TCO Comparison

DL360
Server Consolidation Confidential

Implementa
Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 16

The requirement for server rack space is also greatly reduced. In all cases (except the DL380), the rack space requirements is reduced by more than a factor of 5 when compared with the requirements of the current model (152U).

4.2.4

Reduction of Power
Along with the savings realized by reducing the server/cooling power consumption, there could also be a benefit if current datacenter power facilities are approaching there limitations.

160.00
Figure 9: Reduction in Power Requirements

140.00

Server Consolidation Confidential

120.00
Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 17

5
5.1

Consolidation Recommendations
Summary
This section highlights the findings of the consolidation assessment at [Client], and provides a recommended course of action for implementing a consolidation of the x86 server infrastructure.

5.2

Recommendations
Based upon the analysis of the data gathered and reviewed, INS recommends that [Client] consolidate their x86 server infrastructure using HP DL585 servers with VMware ESX. The HP DL585, using 2.6 GHz processors and 24GB of memory will offer the best combination of cost, flexibility/expandability, and proven track record in VMware ESX deployments. Though one of the initial assumptions was that [Client] would retain its HP Hardware platform, pricing for the Dell PowerEdge 6850 was also obtained. The cost of the Dell PowerEdge 6850 was significantly less than the HP 4-way servers, yielding a 3 year TCO of approximately $500,000. INS also recommends that [Client] implement a server containment policy. Such a policy would require new applications to first be validated for their suitability to run within virtual machines rather than automatically deploying them on physical hardware. This would result in significant cost avoidance for [Client], as new server requests could be met via deployment of virtual machines. Based on the low utilization rates (e.g. 10% peak CPU utilization) observed during the assessment and experience with customers of similar size, INS believes that a virtual machine would adequately service the vast majority of new server requests at [Client].

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 18

5.3

Next Steps
INS recommends the following actions be completed to ensure a successful migration to a virtualized environment: Perform detailed assessment of all systems Ensure full understanding of major application dependencies Review backup and restore procedures Review SAN architecture per major application Develop virtual infrastructure blueprints and implementation plans Create exact hardware configurations Develop redundancy mapping and backup configuration Define application to server maps Identify pilot systems Procure necessary hardware and build virtual infrastructure Build VMware and management infrastructure Train operations staff on new technology Complete as built documentation for support Virtualized identified target systems Complete pilot physical to virtual migrations Complete remaining consolidate using P2V Implement server containment policy Build business centric process that supports SPH application deployment methodology.

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 19

Appendix A. Performance Metric Definitions

This chart defined the performance metrics used to measure system utilization.
Table 6: Performance Metric Definitions
Metric CPU (%Usage ) CPU (Avg. Queue) Available RAM (MB) Physical Disk (% Busy) Physical Disk (Avg. Queue) Page File (% Usage) Physical Disk (Pages/Sec) Network (Bytes/Sec) Description Average percentage of CPU busy time Average number of threads in CPU queue Amount of available physical memory in megabytes. This is the last observed value in the time period (not an average). Percentage of elapsed time that the disk is busy servicing read or write requests Average number of read and write requests queued for the disk On average, the percent of the Page File being used Pages read from or written to disk to resolve hard page faults, per second Average number of bytes sent and received via the network, per second

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 20

Appendix B. Application Server Candidates

Server Name: SRVCBORDMS01 PD/Model #: NBD DL380 G2 P1400-512 SN: D243JZG2G200 Application/Contact info: Nutrition Software - CBORD Group / xxx-xxx-3775 Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Technician: Charley Pauch Notes: This application is used on Citrix and tech support does not see any outstanding issues with it running on VMware. Server Name: SRVCAREMEDIC01 PD/Model #: DL360G2 1400-512 256 US SN: 6J24JNT1T0SL Application/Contact info: CAREMEDIC / xxx-xxx-9830 Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Technician: Bill Dumler Notes: Support has not tested this application on VMware but doesn't forsee any issues with it running on VMware Server Name: XXXXPMMCNTMS02 PD/Model #: NBD DL380 G2 P1400-512 SN: D225JZG2D771 Application/Contact info: PMMC / xxx-xxx-8103 Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Technician: Rob Brochelle Notes: This Company does not foresee any issues for it not to work and to use it virtually Server Name: SphcPcarems01 PD/Model #: DL360R01 P1000 256 US Result: Not tested and not supported on VMware Technician: Paul Notes: [Client Short] currently has no hardware maintenance contract therefore they are unsupported and will not support it running on VMware with a hardware contract
Server Consolidation Confidential Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 21

SN: 6J18FXK1E00T

Application/Contact info: Perfect Care / xxx-xxx-8682

Account #: 205400 Server Name: XXXXGEACWINPOL PD/Model #: PL 850RPentium200 HOTPLUG Result: Not tested and not supported on VMware Technician: Determined by [Name] at [Client Short] Notes: [Client Short] does not have support with this product and will test themselves Server Name: SRVChartLinc SrvChartlinc02 PD/Model #: DL360R01 P1266 512 US PROLIANT 1850R 6/550 SN: 6J22JZS1E02N D938CSC1A746 SN: D746BRN10109 Application/Contact info: GEAC Finance ???-???-????

Application/Contact info: SoftMed / xxx-xxx-0422 Result: Tested and supported on VMware Technician: Vickie Mazie, Ticket #: 244574 Notes: This software application is supported under VMware and provides a hardware/software spec guide and VMware Sizing and Configuration recommendations. Server Name: xxxximpacntms01 PD/Model #: PL 1600R 6/450 Result: Not tested and not supported on VMware Technician: Nick, PSE Barry Hyde Notes: This application is not currently supported running on VMware because of known issues and they are planning on supporting it by the end of the year Server Name: Srvcopath01 Srvcopath02 PD/Model #: NBD DL380 G2 P1266-512 NBD DL380 G2 P1266-512 SN: D222JZG1D214 D222JZG1D236 SN: D851CFX10476 Application/Contact info: impac - Radiation Oncology / xxx-xxx-4672

Application/Contact info: MISYS Copath Plus / xxx-xxx-5678 Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Technician: Therence DeCorse / xxx-xxx-2554
Server Consolidation Confidential Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 22

Notes: Has no issues and has a client running the software on VMware Site Code: STP Server Name: SRVFLEXCOST01 PD/Model #: NBD WRNT DL380R03 2.8Ghz SN: D306LDN1J500 Application/Contact info: PMMC-FLEXCOST / xxx-xxx-8103 Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Technician: Rob Brochelle Server Name: SRVHOMEWKSMS01 PD/Model #: NBD WRNT DL380R03 2.8Ghz Result: Not tested and not supported on VMware Technician: Mark Brown Notes: Advises against it due heavy hardware requirements by the application Case ID: 1-451599881 Ticket #: 27729 Server Name: SRVMISYSHCMS01 SRVMISYSHCMS02 PD/Model #: NBD WRNT DL380R03 2.8Ghz DL360R03 X2.8/533 512 US SN: D316LDN1H321 6J34KYD380BF SN: D313LDN1K743 Application/Contact info: 866-221-8877 BeyondNow Homeworks (Cerner)

Application/Contact info: MISYS Homecare / xxx-xxx-9301 Result: Tested and supported on VMware Technician: Jamar Jones Notes: Support is being trained on supported their application on VMware Ticket #: 7065258 Client #: 6020 Server Name: SRVORSOS01 SRVORSOS02 PD/Model #: DL360R03 X3.2/533 1M 2G/RPS US ML370R03 X3.06/533-512 HiPerf US SN: M00CLGP81X D401LH75H059

Application/Contact info: xxx-xxx-6767 Per Se Technologies - ORSOS

Server Consolidation Confidential Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 23

Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Technician: Notes: This application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Ticket #: 379476 Server Name: SRVREMS01 SRVREMS02 PD/Model #: DL360R04 x3.4/800 1M DL360R04 x3.4/800 1M SN: USM51301KD USM51202Y0

Application/Contact info: Blackbaud Raisers Edge xxx-xxx-8996 Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Technician: Josh Jones Notes: Software is supported and other clients use it on VMware however performance issues with VMWare are not supported Ticket: 5226517 Server Name: SRVLABWORKS01 PD/Model #: ML370 SN: USE527A173 Application/Contact info: xxx-xxx-4060 LABWORKS Result: Tested and supported on VMware Technician: Deryl Stomestreet Notes: This software application is supported on VMware from the virtual server up Server Name: SRVAPOLLO01 SRVAPOLLO02 SRVCardiogate SRVCardModacq PD/Model #: DL360R03 X3.2/533 1M 2G/RPS US DL380R03 X3.2/533-1M US PROLIANT BL20P G3 PROLIANT BL20P G3 SN: M02LLGP81X EA2GLDN425 M09JMKT44B M0DFMKT44B

Application/Contact info: Lumedx / xxx-xxx-0699 / xxx-xxx-9774, x300 Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported Technician: Notes: Technician doesnt foresee any issues with the application running on VMware and will support to the best of their ability without a guarantee that they can troubleshoot successfully in a virtual environment

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 24

Ticket #: 26932 Server Name: SrvTKTalk01 SRVKRONOS01 SRVKRONOS02 SRVKronosAdm01 SRVKronosAdm02 SRVKronosClk01 SRVKronosWeb01 PD/Model #: HP NetServer E800 PIII-1000 Mod 1 Proliant DL580 X700MHz-2MB w/256MB Proliant DL580 X700MHz-2MB w/256MB DL360R01 P1000 256 US DL360R01 P1000 256 US DL360R01 P1000 256 US DL360R01 P1000 256 US SN: US15141234 D139DYV1L017 D141DYV1K15 0 6J19FXK1AOEB 6J19FXK1J015 6J19FXK1J02E 6J19FXK1AOEE

Application/Contact info: xxx-xxx-4357 Kronos Result: Tested and supported on VMware Technician: Notes: They have other customers using their application on VMware Case ID: 1449863 3.4.0 Customer ID: 126330-0000 Server Name: SrvOpenlink01 SrvOpenlink02 SRVSNA01 SRVSNA02 PD/Model #: NBD DL380R03 2400 512K NBD DL380R03 2400 512K DL360G2 1400-512 256 US DL360G2 1400-512 256 US SN: D303KJN2D672 D252KJN2D582 6J2BJNT1Y01Z 6J2BJNT1Y00T

Application/Contact info: Seimens-Openlink / xxx-xxx-9702 / xxx-xxx-8326 Result: Not tested and not supported on VMware Technician: Site ID: 693523 Notes: This software is currently being tested and support will be announced through service pack releases, customer memos or can be communicated by an account manager Issue # 4178231 Notification #: 400101366035 Site ID: 400155388

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 25

Server Name: SRVNETACCESSPRD SRVNETACCESSDEV

PD/Model #: NBD DL380 G2 P1400-512 NBD DL380 G2 P1400-512

SN: D233JZG2F977 D233JZG2G025

Application/Contact info: Seimens NetAccess / xxx-xxx-8326 Result: Not tested and not supported on VMware Technician: Site ID: 693523 Issue # 4178231 Notes: This software is not supported and currently has no plans to be tested on VMware Server Name: SRVWEBORSOS01 PD/Model #: DL360R03 X3.2/533 1M 2G/RPS US SN: M002LGP81X Application/Contact info: Per Si / xxx-xxx-3773 / xxx-xxx-6767 Result: Tested and supported on VMware Technician: Notes: If you have issues with WPAM running on a VMware server we'll look at the issue, but ultimately we'll need to reproduce the issue outside of a VMware environment to consider fixing the issue in future releases. Incident #: 384360

Server Consolidation Confidential

Issue: 2.0

Date: 26 Sept 2005 Page 26