[THIN] Re: Scaling.....1 big server, or a few smaller ones?
- From: "Braebaum, Neil" <neil.braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 09:26:49 -0000
Well put, Bernd.
It is very true that some IT areas are clearly focussed on server
consolidation, and using numerous different tacks to try and achieve this.
The traditional comfort zone of thin client farms will not go unchallenged
forever.
Stability, scalability, garbage collection and co-existence that
historically been the factors that have influenced the evolution of the norm
to where it is now. If those factors are truly addressed - and in fairness,
over recent times there has been significant improvement in a lot of this,
don't expect the current comfort zone of preference to continue unchecked.
For it to be anything more than dogma, you have to understand how it got to
be where it is today - it has always been a compromise of convenience.
Neil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernd Harzog [mailto:Bernd.Harzog@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 11 December 2002 12:38
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Scaling.....1 big server, or a few smaller ones?
>
> As a vendor who allows people to get more users per server
> with our TScale product, we obviously have this conversations
> with a lot of customers. We basically see two schools of
> thought, each of which is driven primarily be the economics
> which apply to the respective situations.=20
>
> School of thought #1, which is the prevailing wisdom and best
> practice is to scale out (lots of servers). The philosophy is
> that two duals cost less than one quad, and that the total
> concurrent users supported by two duals is more than the
> number of concurrent users supported by one quad. The
> economics of this school of thought focus on the up front
> cost of acquiring the servers and the associated server
> software and the number of concurrent users that can be
> supported (with the required redundancy).
>
> School of thought #2 is to have the fewest servers possible
> (scale up). Some companies have economics that drive this
> approach. For many of them, the cost of acquiring the servers
> is dwarfed by the monthly cost of maintaining them. Some
> customers pay between $1000 a month and $3000 per server in
> either chargeback fees or in hard dollar outsourcing fees.
> Companies in this situation are aggressively pursuing server
> consolidation strategies since every physical box that they
> wipe out saves them between $12,000 and $36,000 per year. For
> example, we are working with a company that pays $2000 a
> month in chargeback fees per server to its IS group. They
> have 80 servers. They are deploying TScale on sixty of them
> and are eliminating 20 servers, saving themselves $24,000 a
> month. The license costs of TScale for the sixty servers is
> $48,000 so after two months they have paid for the TScale
> license and are pocketing the $24,000 a month in savings.
>
> One thing that I do not know yet is how blades are going to
> fit into this. Many companies actually pay the fee for each
> ping/power/pipe connection, so to the extent to which you
> network connect each blade you would pay a fee for each blade
> which would make the problem worse and not better for
> companies in this situation.
***********************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named
recipient(s) only and are confidential and may be privileged.
If they have come to you in error you must take no action based
on them, nor must you copy or disclose them or any part of
their contents to any person or organisation; please notify the
sender immediately and delete this e-mail and its attachments from
your computer system.
Please note that Internet communications are not necessarily secure
and may be changed, intercepted or corrupted. We advise that
you understand and observe this lack of security when e-mailing us
and we will not accept any liability for any such changes,
interceptions or corruptions.
Although we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and its
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping
with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they
are actually virus free.
Copyright in this e-mail and attachments created by us belongs
to Littlewoods.
Littlewoods takes steps to prohibit the transmission of offensive,
obscene or discriminatory material. If this message contains
inappropriate material please forward the e-mail intact to
postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and it will be investigated.
Statements and opinions contained in this e-mail may not
necessarily represent those of Littlewoods.
Please note that e-mail communication may be monitored.
Registered office:
Littlewoods Retail Limited,
Sir John Moores Building,
100 Old Hall Street,
Liverpool,
L70 1AB
Registered no: 421258
http://www.littlewoods.com
***********************************************************************
***********************************************
This Weeks Sponsor: triCerat Inc.
triCerat introduces RegSet. Registry
Administration Simplified.
http://www.triCerat.com
************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link.
http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts: