Data Center

As server virtualization gains traction in the data center, a new form of virtualization is starting to make headway on the desktop: client virtualization. At Dell, we use the term Dell Flexible Computing to refer to our family of desktop virtualization solutions. The big idea behind all of them is that they can simplify day-to-day client management tasks such as the deployment, patching, and migration of images, applications, and data. They can also simplify tasks related to security, regulatory compliance, and recovery, which are becoming more and more complicated, as workers employ more and more different client devices to remotely access the network.

Because Dell Flexible Computing simplifies desktop operations, it reduces costs. For example, the Dell Virtual Remote Desktop solution can cut those costs by an average of 40 percent, and pay for itself within six months.

We’ve also simplified the process of learning about this exciting new technology. For starters, visit our Inside IT blog to view a five-part education series for beginners. Or, for more detail, check out the recent article in ”Flexible Computing: Advancing End-User Productivity with Centralized Control” in the November issue of Dell Power Solutions.

In my last post about blade servers, we focused on price, and the TCO savings blades can provide. The E-Guide on Blade Server Trends also tackles the myth that blades require too much power and cooling. Here’s a snippet from that guide:

[It’s true that] early blade systems generally used more power and cooling, even with lower speed processors and less memory. Today's blades have more efficient power supplies and improved overall thermal design. Many also have sophisticated software to help in managing heat and automating certain actions to address problems, including powering down components as needed when the temperature gets too high.

There is, however, a power and cooling issue with blades in terms of density. Even though one blade uses less than one rack server, since blade systems are designed for high density, the number of blades per footprint can be substantially higher than rack servers. (This is fact is one of their biggest advantages in space savings.) So it's important to pay attention to power and cooling issues from an overall data center planning perspective, and to ensure that you plan appropriately.

So, the benefits of blades won’t go against your business’ green goals. When planning your data center, how do you factor power and cooling factor into the discussion?

One of the primary ways to simplify IT infrastructure – and save in the process – is through server consolidation. Blade technology is a good way to approach this, but many IT managers are reluctant to take the blade route. There are several myths about blades that create the impression that blades aren’t the best choice for consolidation. In a recent E-Guide on Blade Server Trends sponsored by Dell and Intel, virtualization expert Barb Goldworm attacked these myths.

Her comments are worth reading:

Because blade systems require an up-front purchase of a blade chassis, one misconception is that blades are a more expensive solution than rack servers. In fact, if you are only implementing one or two servers in a single location, this is true. However, if you are implementing four, five or more servers, the total cost per server can actually be lower, because of the shared components within the blade chassis. Just calculating the numbers on hardware alone (without counting other savings such as power, cabling, and management), the costs for a blade server can be lower than a comparable rack server.

One blade customer did a very basic comparison using Dell blades, calculating the cost per server based on the blade cost plus 1/10 of the chassis cost. He estimates the blades saved him 20% over comparable rack servers. While these numbers vary by vendor and configuration, the bottom line is that unless the chassis is mostly empty, blades cost less.

Stay tuned to the blog next week for myth #2.

Enterprise Evangelist Bruce Eric Anderson talks with Albert Esser about how data centers can help businesses simplify and save. Check out the interview below.

I just read an interesting paper recently released by the team at Microsoft on the topic of centralized Mega-data centers vs. geo-distributed micro centers.   The authors argue the benefits of the distributed approach and it's a glimpse into what the future likely holds for "Embarrassingly Distributed" cloud services.  I think one of the more interesting concepts is the notion of using smaller facilities to sidestep some of the costs of power transformation and network routing.    By dropping many small data centers onto the open-market's mesh of existing infrastructure some of the costs of the mega center are potentially avoided (primarily initial infrastructure cost).   I'm not sure all the costs of operating in a distributed mode are well explored in the paper or can really overcome the operating economies of the mega center, but they describe other clear benefits to geo-distribution.   The case they make around Hotmail, as relates to eliminating spam at the incoming edge, is very interesting.  

Worth a read if you're following what the big cloud service providers are thinking about these days as they deal with the phenomenal growth of their platforms.