Cloud Modeling vs Internal vs Global Market using Burstorm Platform

1 | ©2015 Burstorm Inc.
Automated Infrastructure and
Cloud Modeling
Case Study – Example
September 2015
Scott Goessling
VP Cloud – Burstorm, Inc.
scott.goessling@burstorm.com

Current VS. Market
Client has asked Burstorm to provide data comparing the costs of Client’s
existing infrastructure to the publically available market cloud services and set up
a frame work to examine financial impact of future redesigns and potential
optimizations for existing Client environments.

Building the Blueprint for Visualizing
Current State
For the duration of the engagement you will have access to a Burstorm Cloud
Services Specialist who will work with the Client team to gather data and visualize
costs for existing targets

Blueprint (Step 1) – Gather Existing State Data
Inventory and In-house Cost Data
Actual Utilization Data
Network Contract Data
Colocation Contract Data
AWS Bill and Utilization Data Universal

Blueprint (Step 2) – Analyze Existing State Data
Utilization Patterns and Heat Maps
Data and Cost Normalization
Memory Utilization
CPU Utilization
Data Validation

Blueprint (Step 3) – Enter Contract/Svc Data

Blueprint (Step 4) – Import AWS Billing Data

Current State Blueprint

Blueprint Dashboard
Note: “Savings” box indicates annual savings of current market rate vs
current contract rate for only the two U.S. colo contracts listed below.
Universal
Universal Technologies

Blueprint Interactive Contract Data
23 Active

Models and Scenarios
Determine Scenarios of Interest and organize data into associated models
& scenarios based on client priority. Create hierarchy and alternate
views via copy, import, export etc.
1. In-House services
2. OpenStack
3. AWS
4. Organize by location, by app, by region

As-Is Environments
(Legacy, OpenStack and Colo)

Legacy vs Market (As-Is Model)
A match is available for Legacy in current sizing if purchased
as virtual servers as a service. The matching solution is 26%
less than current OpenStack compute costs with TCC factor
Amazon infrastructure is currently deployed in smaller sizes
and will match more often showing more options
Utilization based design and workload redistribution can
have significant cost benefit (Ex. 93% or more in some
models)
Current sizing is 100% custom in
current market. No matches
exist for current deployed sizing
for any of the Client in-house
environments in scope.
Universal
Universal

Two solutions were identified for OpenStack in current
sizing, if purchased as virtual servers, as a service. The
two solutions were 11% and 33% less respectively when
compared to current OpenStack compute costs with TCC
factor included.
Amazon infrastructure is currently deployed in smaller
sizes and will match more often showing more options
Utilization based design and workload redistribution can
have significant cost benefit (Ex. 93% or more in some
models)
OpenStack vs Market (As-Is Model)
Current sizing is 100% custom in current market. No
matches exist for current deployed sizing for any of
the Client in-house environments in scope.
Universal
Universal

Legacy vs OpenStack (As-Is Model)
• Core costs for OpenStack are
40% higher than core costs
for Legacy
• RAM costs for OpenStack are
13% higher than RAM costs
for Legacy
• OpenStack is consistently the
most expensive internal
service by 27-32% (rises with
additional core count)
+27%
OpenStack +27% vs Legacy
Universal
Universal

Colocation vs Market (SV5, As-Is Model)
• Current colocation costs appear
to be much higher than current
market
• Current environments are an
average of 39% higher than
market estimates with
OpenStack currently 51% over
market
• Per kW prices include space and
power but do not factor in any
NRC or installation requirements
like PDUs.
100kW EQX - Legacy EQX - Openstack Layer42 Digital Realty Market Est.
Per kW 376.87 448.65 285.02 190 220.00
Diff Mkt +42% +51% +23% -15% -
Universal
Universal
Universal

Colocation vs Market (AM2, As-Is Model)
• Quoted 24 cabinets @ 3.5kW power in secure cage (suite)
• Current colocation costs appear a bit higher than market by 14%
• Europe is still custom quote in nearly all scenarios
• There is some opportunity to improve via colo, minimal when compared
against moving to service based compute and storage solutions.
84kW EQX – AM2 Digital Realty SingleHop Market
Per kW 323.49 240 330.00 285.00
Diff Mkt +14% -16% +16% -

Example Highlights for As-Is Environments
• Network Cost negligible. Current costs not out of market range.
Any anticipated change in the mount of network spend vs total
solution spend is not likely to skew any numbers, especially if
geographies remain the same.
• Continuing with current server sizing and application
layout/distribution will eliminate nearly all options for cost control
in utilization based models and optimized infrastructure designs
• AM2 space and power seems to a bit higher than current market.
• In both the U.S. as well as abroad, services like AWS have proven to
be more cost effective against models based on Legacy and
OpenStack product sets.
• AWS current state models, while more cost effective against current
internal costs on Legacy and OpenStack, show that significant cost
benefit is available in the market when utilizing as a service type
solutions with other solution providers

Optimization Models (Assumptions)
Burstorm models can only be as accurate as the data provided by Client. A few
assumptions were required as Burstorm validated and normalized data. Models
were built for as needed and ongoing comparison against the latest market data.
1. Client internal product sets were created for ongoing use which include
searchable attributes for virtual, shared, dedicated, physical and metrics
2. Workloads can be redistributed and utilization patterns can be considered
3. Normalized CPU/RAM costs across all environments
4. Storage data was removed for consistency in costs and modeling
5. Legacy to OpenStack migration not complete at the start of project

• Benchmark size is 2x32, a potential
optimized size based on actual
utilization data from Client. This same
size could be deployed in Legacy as
well as OpenStack.
• OpenStack is 93% greater than market
cost leader at benchmarked size
• OpenStack cost is 23% greater than
AWS market cost at benchmarked size
• Legacy is less expensive than AWS with
other good options at lower costs than
Legacy in appropriate geographies
OpenStack vs Legacy vs AWS vs Market
2x32 Linux OpenStack Legacy AWS Low Cost
Market Cost (USD) 473.59 361.19 362.88 31.99
% Diff - -24% -23% -93%
AWS 23%
Lower Cost
vs OpenStack
Low Cost Option
93% Lower
vs OpenStack

• Windows to Linux alternative brings in very good price/performance providers in
appropriate geographies for Client
• Additional services accounts for ~50% of AWS bill
• OpenStack is 378% higher cost for same solution at current sizing on AWS
• Legacy is 248% higher cost for same solution at current sizing on AWS
AWS Current Bill vs Market
27% Lower Cost

Price/Performance Metrics
• Other providers have better price/performance metrics vs AWS
• US and Europe, (specifically Amsterdam) locations available
• Performance, price, sizing and location directly affect optimal solution design
• Resizing design and reviewing app layout may yield additional optimization

Example: Legacy and OpenStack (Utilization
Base)
Current Utilization Differ %
Total $ 2,798,217.90 $ 543,867.58 -81%
Cores 4156 208 -95%
RAM (GB) 32088 11893 -63%
Current Utilization Differ %
Total $ 543,190.50 $ 276,782.63 -49%
Cores 536 147 -72%
RAM (GB) 5088 4054 -21%
Legacy
OpenStack

Cloud Modeling vs Internal vs Global Market using Burstorm Platform

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Cloud Modeling vs Internal vs Global Market using Burstorm Platform (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Cloud Modeling vs Internal vs Global Market using Burstorm Platform

Editor's Notes