A Peer-to-Peer Look at Trends and Challenges

Transcription

1 Network World Data Center Report A Peer-to-Peer Look at Trends and Challenges Prepared by: Research Concepts, LLC Prepared for: Network World Date: December 2006 Compliments of

2 Key Insights... 3 Purpose and Methodology... 5 Managing Data Centers... 7 Data Center Challenges... 7 Center... 8 Data Center... 9 Virtualization... 9 Virtualization Benefits of Virtualization Virtualization Status of Blade Servers Blade Penetration Purchasing Servers Servers Purchase Influence Decision Buyers Speak Out

3 Key Insights This research investigates key issues associated with managing data centers, the technologies being deployed in data center servers and how organizations are making decisions to purchase servers. An online survey was sent to members of Network World s research panel and results are based on 234 respondents involved with the purchase of servers for their organization s data center. Top Data Center Issues Based on the results of this research, when managing data centers organizations main pain point is dealing with the soft-side. Respondents cited troubleshooting software problems, maintaining disparate applications and issuing software patches as their top data center challenges. Hardware is under control as troubleshooting hardware problems and keeping track of equipment is not causing problems for most respondents. Since all top challenges related to managing software, there is evidence that organizations need better data center management tools. Data Center Investments Improving disaster recovery is the No. 1 priority for organizations that participated in this research. Many respondents also indicated it is important to simplify server infrastructure management and improve data center efficiencies. Server Virtualization Server virtualization is gaining a lot of attention as the technology allows organizations to decrease the number of physical servers they run while increasing the number of applications supported. IDC expects that virtual servers, which represent 2.7% of the physical servers sold today, will increase to 11.2% of servers sold in The technology is starting to gain traction; one-third of the organizations surveyed for this study indicated they already run virtualized servers, and another 35% will do so within 2 years. Most organizations that have deployed server virtualization plan to rely on the technology more in the next 12 months. Based on this research, the top benefits, challenges and reasons for not deploying server virtualization are summarized below: Top benefits challenges deterrents to deploying Reduced costs (hardware and Lack of management tools Do not see a need or benefit power/cooling) Faster response to business changes Simplified server management 3

4 Blade Servers Introduced in 2001, blade servers were supposed to catch on quickly promising significant benefits for organizations dealing with rapidly growing data centers. However, there were concerns about heat output and whether servers could support the number-crunching workloads some enterprises required. Blades accounted for a small fraction of the overall server market a few years ago, but IDC estimates they will comprise 11% of the market this year and about one-quarter of the market by Based on the results of this research, organizations are almost equally divided on the technology. Fifty-three percent will deploy within 24 months, and 44% have no plans to roll out blades. Yet, those using blades must be satisfied with the technology as just over 7 out of 10 organizations plan to deploy more blade servers. Insights into the Server Purchase Process IDC expects the worldwide server market to reach $60.8 billion by 2009 and nearly 8 out of 10 respondents will either increase or maintain server spending. On average, it takes respondents just over three months to make a volume server purchase (less than $25,000) and just under 6 months to make a midrange/high-end server purchase ($25,000 to more than $500,000). The purchase process is very similar to other technology areas we have investigated (e.g., security, storage and wireless), in which the Networking/IT Department has the most influence on all steps, with the exception of approving the server budget. When it comes to approving the server budget, Executive Management has the most influence. The process is almost identical for volume servers and midrange/high-end server purchases. 4

5 Purpose and Methodology Purpose The objective of this research was to investigate key issues surrounding the challenges organizations face managing data centers and how they make server buying decisions. Specifically, the following insights are provided: Data Center Management: - Challenges - Planned improvements to data center Data Center Technologies: - Implementation of server virtualization - Benefits and challenges related to server virtualization - Implementation of blade servers Server Purchases: - Involvement of different functions in the server purchase process - Length of time to make a server purchase decision - Feedback for vendors on how the purchase process can be improved Methodology An blast was sent to members of Network World s research panel in October 2006 asking for their participation in a survey related to managing data centers and servers. There were 234 qualified respondents who are involved in the purchase of servers and work in organizations with at least 100 employees. All results of this survey are based on 234 respondents unless otherwise indicated. Some percentages may not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding. The specific ways in which respondents are involved with the purchase of servers for their organization s data center are outlined below: Respondents role in purchase of servers % responding for their organization s data center Determine the technology solution 89% Research vendors and technology solutions 80% Determine the business need 79% Create short list of vendors 65% Select final vendor 59% Oversee purchase process 52% Manage/responsible for budget 42% Approve budget 21% (multiple responses permitted) 5

6 The majority of respondents (77%) have some type of Network/IT job function. Eight percent are Corporate Management, and 8% are Independent Consultants (the remaining 7% are classified as Other ). Respondents represent a range of industries and those mentioned by more than 2% included: ASP/SSP (14%); Manufacturing (10%); Insurance/Real Estate/Legal (9%); Travel/Hospitality/Entertainment/Recreation (8%); Carriers (7%); Utilities (7%); Transportation (6%); Health Care Services (5%), Business Services (5%) Web Hosting (4%); Aerospace (4%); Education (4%); Retail/ Wholesale Trade (3%); Financial Services (3%); and Resellers/VAR/VAD (3%). Nineteen percent work in large enterprises with at least 10,000 employees. Specific company sizes represented in this research are: Respondents company size % Responding 10,000 or more employees 19% 1,000 to 9,999 employees 46% 100 to 999 employees 35% 6

7 Managing Data Centers What are the key challenges? Data Center Challenges Respondents were asked to rate how challenging they find 12 issues associated with managing data centers (1 = Not at all challenging to 5 = Very challenging). The percentage of respondents who find the issues either Very challenging or Challenging is shown in Figure 1 below. Four issues were mentioned by approximately half of the respondents: 1) troubleshooting software problems, 2) maintaining disparate applications, 3) issuing software patches, and 4) ensuring adequate performance and availability. Figure 1 Data Center Challenge (% indicating Very Challenging or Challenging ) Troubleshooting software problems Maintaining disparate applications Issuing software patches Ensuring adequate performance and availability Safeguarding the data center from physical disaster Scaling the environment up and down for demand peaks and valleys 41% 40% 50% 48% 48% 53% Having enough physical space in the data center 39% Adequately cooling equipment Understanding the interdependence of data center equipment 30% 34% Dealing with power outages 28% Troubleshooting hardware problems Keeping track of the equipment in the data center 23% 23% 7

8 Center With so many challenges, how will organizations decide which areas to focus on when investing in their data centers? In order to provide insight into this question, respondents indicated the importance of addressing seven issues (1 = Not at all important to 5 = Very important). The percentage of respondents who found the issues either Very important or Important is shown in Figure 2 below. The top priority is improving disaster recovery, which was mentioned by just over 8 out of 10 respondents. More than three-fourths indicated they want to simplify their server infrastructure and improve efficiencies. Figure 2 Data Center Priorities (% indicating Very Important or Important ) Improve disaster recovery Simplify management of server infrastructure Improve efficiencies Improve utilization of server resources 72% 77% 76% 83% Improve response time to changes in business needs 71% Consolidate number of servers 57% Consolidate number of applications 48% 8

9 Data Center What are the key challenges and benefits of server virtualization? How have blade servers penetrated organizations? Virtualization Has virtualization moved into the mainstream yet? This research found that virtualization has already been implemented at 33% of respondents organizations, which indicates the majority has not adopted the technology yet. Another 35% are planning to implement within the next 2 years, which would bring deployment to 68%. Only 27% indicated no plans for the technology at this point, and 6% are unsure of plans. Figure 3 Server Virtualization 33% Already implemented 20% Planning to implement in less than 12 months 15% Planning to implement within 12 to 24 months 27% No plans to implement 6% Not sure 9

10 Those with no plans for server virtualization or those who were unsure of their plans (77 respondents) were asked to indicate the factors affecting their decision (see Figure 4). The majority are not implementing the technology because they do not see a need or benefit. A percentage feel the technology is immature (29%). Figure 4 Reasons for Not Virtualizing Servers Don t see a need/benefit Cost/Initial purchase price is too expensive Immature technology/ Not proven/too new Internal management issues Afraid of investing too much in one vendor s approach Too difficult to manage/maintain 16% 16% 29% 29% 38% 55% Too difficult to implement 12% (Multiple Responses Permitted) 10

11 Virtualization In order to provide insight into the extent to which server virtualization has infiltrated organizations, those with the technology already implemented (76 respondents) were asked what percentage of their organizations physical servers are now capable of supporting a virtual environment (see Figure 5). They were also asked whether this percentage will increase, decrease or stay the same in 12 months (see Figure 6). As seen in Figure 5, approximately one-third (34%) indicated that half or more servers can support a virtual environment. The average percentage of servers that can support a virtual environment is 40%. Figure 5 Percentage of Servers Capable of Supporting Virtual Environments 25% Less than 10% 20% 20% 11% 12% 11% 10% - 24% 25% - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 99% 100% Not sure (Among respondents who have virtualized servers) 3% 11

12 Server virtualization will further penetrate organizations since at least 7 out of 10 respondents indicated their organization in the next 12 months will increase the percentage of servers capable of supporting virtual environments (see Figure 6). Figure 6 Change in Percentage of Servers Capable of Supporting Virtual Environments in 12 Months 71% 0% 29% Increase Decrease Stay the same Not sure 0% 12

13 Benefits of Virtualization Respondents were asked what benefits they have realized or expect to realize as a result of server virtualization (see Figure 7). Much of the hype surrounding server virtualization has focused on its ability to decrease the number of physical servers, which can result in significant hardware savings. An indirect benefit of having fewer servers is that it costs less to power and cool them. The good news is that these cost savings are being realized as more than half of respondents mentioned server hardware savings and lower power/cooling costs as benefits of virtualization. Other top benefits were faster response to business changes and simplified server management. Figure 7 Benefits of Virtualization Server hardware savings Faster response to business changes Lower power/cooling costs Simplified server management Improved reliability/availability 48% 55% 55% 55% 59% Improved back-up response (takes less time) 40% Fewer staff needed to manage servers 29% Have not realized any benefits 3% (Multiple Responses Permitted) 13

14 Virtualization Respondents were asked what challenges their organization has faced or expects to face as a result of server virtualization (see Figure 8). Respondents No. 1 challenge is lack of management tools. Transitioning from physical to virtual servers can be tricky for organizations, and new management tools are necessary to help organizations troubleshoot problems. For instance, when investigating system alerts, organizations need to learn how to determine if the problem is in one virtual machine or if it affects the entire physical box. Figure 8 Challenges Virtualizing Servers Lack of management tools/ Poor management tools Lack of support from software vendors for a virtual environment Knowing how to charge for virtualized resources Difficult to manage The explosion in the number of virtual servers detracts from the gains made by moving to the virtual environments 22% 31% 29% 45% 63% Difficult to install 17% (Multiple Responses Permitted) 14

15 Status of Blade Servers Blade servers are servers contained on a card. The server cards, the so-called blades, can be installed in a chassis that has multiple slots, rather than installing servers one chassis at a time into a rack cabinet. Blade servers were designed to create less heat (resulting in energy cost savings) and use less space. As seen in Figure 9 below, 39% of the respondents have blades deployed, and another 14% will deploy them within the next 2 years. These results indicate blade servers will have penetrated 53% of organizations surveyed within the next 2 years. Figure 9 Status of Blade Servers 39% Already deployed 7% 7% Will deploy in less than 12 months Will deploy within 12 to 24 months 44% No plans to deploy 4% Not sure 15

16 Blade Penetration Those whose organizations have already deployed blades (90 respondents) were asked what percentage of the server infrastructure is based on blades today (see Figure 10) and whether this percentage will increase, decrease or stay the same in 12 months (Figure 11). Approximately half indicated that less than one-quarter of their server infrastructure is based on blades. Across all respondents, the average percentage of blades in the server infrastructure is 33%. Figure 10 Percentage of Server Infrastructure Based on Blades 25% Less than 10% 26% 21% 16% 10% - 24% 25% - 49% 50% - 74% 75% - 99% 100% Not sure 7% (Among respondents who have deployed blade servers) 2% 3% 16

17 Respondents with blade servers deployed were asked if they expect the percentage of their infrastructure based on blades to increase, decrease or stay the same 12 months from now. As seen in Figure 11 below, more than 7 out of the 10 organizations surveyed expect the penetration of blade servers within their organization to increase. Figure 11 Change in Percentage of Server Infrastructure based on Blades 72% 5% 23% Increase Decrease Stay the same 17

18 Purchasing Servers Who is making purchase decisions? Servers Respondents were asked if the amount of financial resources dedicated to their organization s servers will be more, less or the same as last year. Forty percent said their organization will increase spending on servers, and 38% will maintain spending levels. Only 19% will decrease server spending. Figure 12 Change in Amount of Financial Servers 40% 19% 38% More Less Same Not sure 3% 18

19 Purchase Influence Respondents were asked which type of servers their organization has purchased and/or plans to purchase in the next 12 months. At least 8 out of 10 respondents (82%) indicated they purchased volume servers (those that cost less than $25,000). Fortynine percent purchased midrange enterprise servers (those that cost up to $500,000), and 12% purchased high-end servers ($500,000 or more). Based on the type of server their organization has purchased, respondents were asked questions about the purchase process of either volume servers (142 respondents) or midrange/high-end enterprise servers (88 respondents). Organizations go through several steps when making a decision to purchase a server. Respondents indicated the individual or group that has the most influence on the purchase activities outlined in Table 1 below (only one group selected for each step). For volume server purchases, 76% of respondents said the IT/Networking Department has the most influence on Initiate server purchase ; 10% said Executive Management has the most influence; and 14% believe Business Function Management has the most influence. The IT/Networking Department has more influence than any other group in four of the five purchase steps investigated. The one exception is Approve server budget, in which Executive Management has the most influence. The findings are similar for the midrange/high-end server purchase process (see Table 2). These results are consistent with a purchase process study 1 conducted in 2001, which showed that the IT Department has the most influence on all steps in the technology purchase process, with the exception of approving the technology budget. In approving the technology budget, Executive Management has the most influence. Thus, the involvement of different groups in the various aspects of purchasing technology products has remained stable over time. Table 1 Most Influence on the Volume Server Purchase Process executive management (ceo, cfo, etc.) business function management it/networking purchase steps department Initiate server 76% 10% 14% purchase Research vendors 89% 7% 4% 1% Create short list of server vendors Select final server vendor Approve server budget outside consultants 90% 6% 4% 80% 16% 4% 13% 82% 6% 1 Today s Technology Buyer, January 2001 conducted by Research Concepts for Network World. 19

20 Table 2 Most Influence on the Midrange/High-end Enterprise Server Purchase Process executive management (ceo, cfo, etc.) business function management it/networking purchase steps department Initiate server 78% 8% 14% purchase Research vendors 93% 7% 1% Create short list of server vendors Select final server vendor Approve server budget outside consultants 85% 5% 9% 1% 66% 28% 6% 14% 80% 7% 20

21 Decision Respondents were asked to estimate the length of time it takes to make a serverrelated purchase decision from the time their organization identifies the need to finalizing a purchase (see Figure 13). The average length of time for volume server purchase decisions is 3.4 months; this increases to 5.5 months for midrange/high-end servers. Figure 13 Length of Server Purchase Decision 63% 24% Less than 3 months 25% 43% 15% 14% Volume servers Midrange/High-end servers 4% 5% 4% 3-6 months 7-9 months months More than 1 year 5% 21

22 Buyers Speak Out Advice to Improve the Purchase Process Respondents were asked what feedback they would give vendors that would improve the purchase of servers at their organization. Respondents gave advice specific to volume servers (those that cost less than $25,000), midrange/high-end servers (those that cost $25,000 to $499,999 for midrange servers and $500,000+ for high-end servers). The verbatim responses were organized into different areas and are shown below. Advice for Volume Server Vendors Several respondents had very specific technological improvements they would like to see. Improving the configurator process was a popular recommendation: Make sure you know your features and that they have been tested and certified for popular software. More hard drives for 1U rackmount servers. Most only offer 2 drives, which limits our RAID to 0 or 1, and we like to have a RAID 5. Make them as small as possible. Offer scalable solutions. More options, memory, disk. Provide secure and patched environments pre-configured. The new servers coming to the market should be backward-compatible to the older operating systems. I noticed that the new servers do not run with the older operating systems. Hence, we are forced to buy new OS licenses even when there is no benefit to us. Continued upgrade options for existing equipment,. i.e. recently acquired first-generation Opterons to be upgraded to dual-core processors to benefit from technology advances. Management tools and asset-tracking tools become critical. Headless server operations become important. We are a SAN-oriented data center and do not store data locally at the server. I would like to see server options for compute-intensive servers, e.g. 4CPU+ servers in a small 1U or 2U footprint. Most 4CPU Servers require 4U or more of rack space due to internal storage space availability that we do not need or want. Make it easier to identify those that would be better served by upscaling and the best (ROI-supported) choices. Made by non-sales agents (could be online as a preferred means). More management tools. A few noted specific types of server information they would like vendors to provide: Availability of detailed configurations and detailed statistics prior to new models being released. Come with some templated ROIs. 22

23 More selection and improved documentation. Provide accurate configurator tools on your Web site, so leading prices are more in line with actual real-world purchases. Rather than starting at the bare metal with minimum config, present the typical configuration and work from there. That will save time and frustration in comparison shopping. Provide solid technical comparison materials that CLEARLY show costs, capacities and benefits for Linux vs. Windows, virtualization vs. dedicated-server, etc. Some would like to see improved customer service/support: Have people with at least some technical knowledge in sales/support (and not just those reading from the book they were given). The same goes for their ability to speak English. Improved support and reduction in maintenance price. Quick response to requests for bids. Please give us support installing and initiating until we are sure we know what we are doing. Keep it simple and have enough stock. Understand the project that the server is being assembled for so you can make the proper recommendations. Have a stronger working knowledge of the additional accessories that a server comes with and what purpose they serve. It s difficult to select the type of server needed. Better pricing was mentioned as well: Better configurators and pricing tools. Cost/benefit comparisons. Management tool availability Cost is an important factor. Always make pricing available. Nothing is worse than spending hours researching a server just to find that it is not in your price range. Give a set list of pricing without the end of quarter discounts. Educational institution broad-range discounts. Advice for Midrange/High-end Server Vendors A few technical improvements were suggested: The ability to have interoperability with a myriad of high-end enterprise servers. Streamline the configuration/validate process. For x86, need to have better clustering support both in hardware and software. For x86 vendors, better have as many as software partners as Sun so that the x86 server binaries would be available to make migration much easier for us. Configuration of required options to meet the needs of the RFQ. 23

24 I cannot think of any real improvements that they can make at this time other than offering better support for virtualization practices on their specific hardware. Provide better TCO numbers with better performance measurements vs. lower-priced solutions. Some would like to see information that is clearer, less complicated and easy to understand : Better documentation and support within a shorter turnaround time. Better, more clear explanations of why the given server costs what it does. Put it in terms business managers can understand. Clearer and better performance information. Stop telling us that 64-bit systems are new. It is annoying to have a vendor claim that they have never heard of a DEC Alpha system, Tru 64 Unix, or that there were never any applications. Show us how we can move forward, not how we can purchase a new, less-capable equivalent. We don t need new T-shirts or coffee mugs. Pricing model less complicated. More coherent data on Web sites. Make documentation as easy to understand as possible, so it s more understandable by less computer-literate management. Integrity and an ability to demonstrate far earlier returns on investment. Some suggested ways to improve customer service/support: Be more flexible in offerings for more customization. More on-site communications and demos. We would very much like to see one-stop shopping, as we had in the day, when things were simpler. There was a time when we could purchase everything from IBM and know it was either the best or near the best. Offer free training for admins - MAJOR PERK. Listen to my needs, stop trying to make your solution solve all my problems. Work with me to help me solve my problems. Listen to the client s specific needs and then make offers with options. Better pricing was mentioned, as well: Offer value by providing affordable managed services Provide parallel buildup of enterprise servers at no cost so companies can overcome start-up anxieties without worrying about paying for a product that won t do the job. Improve price performance. Price is always the top concern. 24