Cloud is a waste of money for some startups

There is a common myth that the Cloud is the low cost solution vs. having your own IT environment.  The Cloud is only lower cost at a certain point.  To prove the point, consider does Google, Microsoft, or Amazon use the Public Cloud to host its services?  No.  Their lowest cost way is to host IT services is in their own IT environment.  The cloud has limits of where it makes sense.  The cloud is great when you are at the initial startup phase and you don't want to be distracted with buying servers, getting them hosted, configuration, management, etc.

Wired discusses a company smaller that made the switch from AWS to their own servers.

In Silicon Valley, tech startups typically build their businesses with help from cloud computing services — services that provide instant access to computing power via the internet — and Frenkiel’s startup, a San Francisco outfit called MemSQL, was no exception. It rented computing power from the granddaddy of cloud computing, Amazon.com.

But in May, about two years after MemSQL was founded, Frenkiel and company came down from the Amazon cloud, moving most of their operation onto a fleet of good old fashioned computers they could actually put their hands on. They had reached the point where physical machines were cheaper — much, much cheaper — than the virtual machines available from Amazon. “I’m not a big believer in the public cloud,” Frenkiel says. “It’s just not effective in the long run.”

There are details on the hardware costs, but beware there are hidden costs and do you have the people in your company who can run your own hardware.

This past April, MemSQL spent more than $27,000 on Amazon virtual servers. That’s $324,000 a year. But for just $120,000, the company could buy all the physical servers it needed for the job — and those servers would last for a good three years. The company will add more machines over that time, as testing needs continue to grow, but its server costs won’t come anywhere close to the fees it was paying Amazon.

Frenkiel estimates that, had the company stuck with Amazon, it would have spent about $900,000 over the next three years. But with physical servers, the cost will be closer to $200,000. “The hardware will pay for itself in about four months,” he says.

There are limits where the cloud makes sense.  Can you see where the line is drawn?  Where it starts to make sense to move out of the Public Cloud?

 

One place there is a low chance of a green data center, North Dakota

Here is an article about the only Sierra Club staffer in North Dakota.

Green in a red state: North Dakota's only Sierra Club staffer

22 hours ago

In this Aug. 6, 2013, photo is Wayde Schafer in Bismarck, N.D.  Schafer, the organizer for the North Dakota chapter of the environmental group Sierra ...
James MacPherson / AP
Wayde Schafer, the organizer for the North Dakota chapter of the environmental group Sierra Club since 1999, says it hasn't been easy being green in a red state where even most Democrats encourage industrial development.

North Dakota's only Sierra Club staffer, Wayde Schafer, and his children stood atop a towering butte two decades ago and watched in the distance as a nodding donkey pump sucked oil from underground in an otherwise untouched area of western North Dakota's Badlands.

For Schafer, the lone oil well near Theodore Roosevelt National Park marked the decline of North Dakota's wide-open spaces and its clean water, air and land. And it was then that Schafer — a piano tuner by trade — pursued a path in professional environmentalism.

North Dakota is carbon friendly state and I don't think I have ever heard of ideas to support a green data center in the state.  If there was one, it could be the only one just like the lone Sierra Club staffer.

What is the PUE of your cloud data center? Google's is 1.10, Microsoft's is 1.13 - 1.2, Amazon is ?

It is a pretty safe assumption that a Cloud Data Center has a low PUE.  The Cloud business is so competitive that the cost to run the power and cooling systems takes a direct hit out of profit margins so almost everyone should be driving more efficient systems.

How efficient are the cloud companies?  

Google is easy to figure out as they quote PUE quarterly here.

NewImage

GigaOm's Stacey Higginbotham had a post on efficient data centers quoting PUE.

Microsoft gave Stacey a bunch of data, but not an exact number.

Microsoft sent me a bunch of information on its PUE figures for its newest data centers which range from 1.13 to 1.2. It doesn’t disclose the PUE for all of its data centers, however.

For Amazon, there is no clear answer.  Note: James Hamilton does not claim the PUE is representative of Amazon.  Given Amazon will let temperatures rise in warehouses for workers, it is hard to believe they wouldn't do the same for voiceless servers.

Amazon’s data center guru James Hamilton published a presentation on Amazon last year that assumed a PUE of 1.45 for the online retailer’s data centers.

Are VCs part of what is wrong with DCIM? Features that miss the concept of START

I don't know about you, but whenever I see a DCIM dashboard.  I am confused on where to start.  One of my data center friends has gone through the exercise of looking at about 15 different DCIM solutions.  We agree that one stands out as it is easier to use than the rest.  Why?  You know where to start and the first steps to use the product.  Windows 95 focused on usability and highlighted "START".

Windows 95 introduced a redesigned shell based around a desktop metaphor; unlike Windows 3.1 (where it was used to display running applications), the desktop was re-purposed to hold shortcuts to applications, files, and folders. Running applications were now displayed as buttons on a taskbar across the bottom of the screen, which also contains a notification area used to display icons for background applications, a volume control, and the current time. The Start menu, invoked by clicking the "Start" button also contained on the taskbar, was introduced as an additional means of launching applications or opening documents—while maintaining the program groups used by its predecessor, Program Manager, it now displayed applications within cascading sub-menus. The previous File Managerprogram was also replaced by Windows Explorer.

So, what is wrong with DCIM and why is the "START" not the focus of the user experience.  One of the tips shared to my data center friend from one of the vendors is the VC community is pushing for more features to compete against the other DCIM products.  But, no users are asking for these features.  Yeh, who is screaming for more features.

Focusing on "START" was key to Microsoft's success.  If Microsoft had tried to demonstrate and market all Windows 95 features, then users would probably be confused and not know where to start.

NewImage

When you buy your DCIM solution do you know where to start?

 

 

Who drives your data center? Finance or Operations

Most of you are hard core data center folks.  Operating a data center can be a pain or put you in the "zone" so you can focus on bigger issues to run the data center.  A good analogy is like driving a car.  How many of you would like to drive a data center that is designed by a bunch of finance guys?  This issue is illustrated by Bob Lutz in "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters."  BusinessWeek reviews the book.

In Car Guys, Lutz argues that Detroit’s steady decline can be blamed on the fact that there aren’t enough Bob Lutzes anymore. After legendary designer and car-guy’s-car-guy Bill Mitchell retired as GM’s design chief in 1977, Lutz writes, the balance of power—at the company, in particular, and in Detroit, in general—began shifting from the car guys to the number crunchers. As a consequence, product planners determined which customers to target with a new sedan or wagon; engineers fretted over inexpensive assembly; and managers fretted about cheap mass production. Only at the end were designers summoned to wrap a steel body around a nearly completed vehicle.

The results, Lutz laments, were the not-so-fondly remembered Cadillac Cimarron, GMC Envoy XUV, Pontiac Aztek, and others.

How many of you have walked into a data center and you can tell the data center was driven primarily by number crunchers who didn't have a clue what the electrical, mechanical, or operational issues are.  They have a budget.  Hit it.

What the finance guys miss is you can't reduce outages by saying you X nine's of availability.  One of the top things that is going to affect your outage is operations.  And Operations is going to be #1 when it comes to mean time to repair to reduce the outage time.

Now there are some technical staff who are like a Tim Allen character who like the "sweetest" tools that give them a jolt of adrenaline, ups their testosterone level, and a new thing they can brag about driving envy in their friends.  

NewImage

There is a balance of designing, and being fiscally responsible.  The days of the over designed data centers are in the past and are being phased out as too expensive.

Part of the problem though for an Operations guy vs. a Finance guy is almost always the Finance guy is better at the company politics.

Lutz: This is the downside of being a creative person who does not play the political game too well. If I had,for instance, been a little bit more circumspect in my dealings with Lee Iacocca and perhaps had held my mouth, I might well have been his successor at Chrysler Corporation.

Ryssdal: Seems kind of an easy answer: You shot your mouth too much.

Lutz: I tend to be a person, when I don't know something I say, "I don't know, I'll have to look it up." I think boards like a CEO who is totally buttoned up, has all the figures. People with my personality generally don't make CEO.

How many Data Center Operations Guys are good at politics?