Comments on: Cost of cloud computing, expensive! http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/ Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:57:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Johnny http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-152 Johnny Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:43:35 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-152 Your information has really proven to be helpful. Thanks allot. Oh and in regards to the post by Bruce. I totally agree with you on that. The cost of implementing and licensing can be astronomical. Your information has really proven to be helpful. Thanks allot. Oh and in regards to the post by Bruce. I totally agree with you on that. The cost of implementing and licensing can be astronomical.

]]> By: 2010 – The Year of Cloud Experimentation – Part 1 of 2 « The up.time IT Systems Management Blog http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-116 2010 – The Year of Cloud Experimentation – Part 1 of 2 « The up.time IT Systems Management Blog Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:42:06 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-116 [...] but feel it still has some distance to cover before it lives up to the hype. In fact, I wrote a blog in January looking at a hypothetical company and the costs involved in moving an entire [...] [...] but feel it still has some distance to cover before it lives up to the hype. In fact, I wrote a blog in January looking at a hypothetical company and the costs involved in moving an entire [...]

]]> By: Bruce http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-105 Bruce Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:39:34 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-105 Can someone explain to me something that seems obvious? Why would anyone pay such a high price for Amazon's SQL instance instead of taking a regular Windows instance and installing your own licensed version of SQL on it? Can someone explain to me something that seems obvious? Why would anyone pay such a high price for Amazon’s SQL instance instead of taking a regular Windows instance and installing your own licensed version of SQL on it?

]]> By: Altax http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Altax Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:33:03 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-97 Thanks for the useful and informative post. I really like the way of your presentation. Thanks for the useful and informative post. I really like the way of your presentation.

]]> By: Mark Hodapp http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Mark Hodapp Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:26:50 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-75 Thank you for publishing your analysis. I've posted a response at my blog http://cloudsavvy.blogspot.com/ Regards, Mark Thank you for publishing your analysis. I’ve posted a response at my blog http://cloudsavvy.blogspot.com/

Regards,

Mark

]]> By: J Singh http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-71 J Singh Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:12:45 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-71 Sorry, that is $500/(3 yrs). Sorry, that is $500/(3 yrs).

]]> By: J Singh http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-70 J Singh Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:11:52 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-70 Apples and Oranges, IMHO. The proper comparison would be Amazon Reserved Instances vs. purchased hardware. Reserved Instances for the type of machine you assumed go for $500/yr plus 3c/hr, as opposed to the 12.5c/hr you assumed. There is the question of capital expenses vs. operating expenses, which could make the difference between being able to fund a program or not. There is the factor Ron mentions above: that data centers just suck money with backup generators and cooling, physical security, internet security, etc. Apples and Oranges, IMHO.

The proper comparison would be Amazon Reserved Instances vs. purchased hardware. Reserved Instances for the type of machine you assumed go for $500/yr plus 3c/hr, as opposed to the 12.5c/hr you assumed.

There is the question of capital expenses vs. operating expenses, which could make the difference between being able to fund a program or not.

There is the factor Ron mentions above: that data centers just suck money with backup generators and cooling, physical security, internet security, etc.

]]> By: Chance http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Chance Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:21:16 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-69 Love the posting. There is definitely a "Microsoft Tax" at work when you us SQL Server. Paying over $300,000/year for a database server is just crazy! I think the best approach is for all designs/deployments of systems should look at a cost analysis like this to see if the design makes sense. Obviously the choice of SQL Server comes with some heavy costs! Love the posting. There is definitely a “Microsoft Tax” at work when you us SQL Server. Paying over $300,000/year for a database server is just crazy! I think the best approach is for all designs/deployments of systems should look at a cost analysis like this to see if the design makes sense. Obviously the choice of SQL Server comes with some heavy costs!

]]> By: Ron McClintic http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Ron McClintic Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:36:36 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-68 Your analysis is very incomplete. Yes, the hardware will cost more, as you are essentially buying from a reseller instead of direct. You have omitted several overhead costs that will almost always cost more in-house than in a data center. Some obvious ones are things like shared utilites, security (physical as well as IT), emergency backup power etc. etc. How about a redundant internet connection? Do you want to pay for two yourself, or share that expense with others? Do you want your own diesel generator or pay a small part of that cost? For that matter do you want to maintain and test that generator, including replacing the tank of fuel every year so it says fresh? When you compare sharing those costs with other data center customers verus building it just for your situation, the savings can be greater than the hardware costs. And typically you benefit by more frequent upgrades to datacenter infrastructure, as teh data center owner has to stay more current than an in house facility. The reason being he has to stay competitive in the market to keep and attract customers. You are correct in pointing out a major savings comes from dealing with cyclical spikes in load. Even if it costs more when you use the increased resources, it is more than made up by not paying for the resources to sit idle in your facility. As long as you demand the same level of reliability and robustness, I would argue that the starting assumption is, renting space and resources is more economical than doing it inhouse. This not always true, but it is true much more often than CIO/CTOs want to admit. If you are willing to compromise on reliability, in house can always be cheaper. Your analysis is very incomplete. Yes, the hardware will cost more, as you are essentially buying from a reseller instead of direct. You have omitted several overhead costs that will almost always cost more in-house than in a data center. Some obvious ones are things like shared utilites, security (physical as well as IT), emergency backup power etc. etc. How about a redundant internet connection? Do you want to pay for two yourself, or share that expense with others? Do you want your own diesel generator or pay a small part of that cost? For that matter do you want to maintain and test that generator, including replacing the tank of fuel every year so it says fresh?

When you compare sharing those costs with other data center customers verus building it just for your situation, the savings can be greater than the hardware costs. And typically you benefit by more frequent upgrades to datacenter infrastructure, as teh data center owner has to stay more current than an in house facility. The reason being he has to stay competitive in the market to keep and attract customers.

You are correct in pointing out a major savings comes from dealing with cyclical spikes in load. Even if it costs more when you use the increased resources, it is more than made up by not paying for the resources to sit idle in your facility.

As long as you demand the same level of reliability and robustness, I would argue that the starting assumption is, renting space and resources is more economical than doing it inhouse. This not always true, but it is true much more often than CIO/CTOs want to admit. If you are willing to compromise on reliability, in house can always be cheaper.

]]> By: Peter LeBlond http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/cloud-virtualization/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Peter LeBlond Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:09:25 +0000 http://www.uptimesoftware.com/uptimeblog/2009/01/cost-of-cloud-computing-expensive/#comment-14 I guess I don't know why you have 32 physical machines under your in-house tally and 302 instances under AWS. Can you really accomplish as much with 30 Dell boxes (28 of which are 1950s) as you can with 300 AWS instances? I suppose if you are already highly virtualized in-house and you run a lot of VM's that aren't all that busy that your costs wouldn't translate to AWS instances which are built to be full power machines. Or did you find that the AMIs were not able to do the same workload as your in-house machines? Peter I guess I don’t know why you have 32 physical machines under your in-house tally and 302 instances under AWS. Can you really accomplish as much with 30 Dell boxes (28 of which are 1950s) as you can with 300 AWS instances?

I suppose if you are already highly virtualized in-house and you run a lot of VM’s that aren’t all that busy that your costs wouldn’t translate to AWS instances which are built to be full power machines. Or did you find that the AMIs were not able to do the same workload as your in-house machines?

Peter

]]>