San Virtualization Assessment v2.0

8/6/2019 San Virtualization Assessment v2.0

1/30

Server Consolidation

PlanningVirtualization Assessment

Prepared for [Client]

Project: Server Consolidation Phase I and II

Issue: 2.0

Classification: Confidential


2/30

Server Consolidation Assessment

Document Control

This is a controlled document produced by International Network Services (INS). The control

and release of this document is the responsibility of the INS document owner. This includesany amendment that may be required.

Issue Control

Document Reference Server Consolidation Project Number

Issue 2.0 Date September 26, 2005

Classification Confidential Author Seth Robbins

Document Title Server Consolidation Phase I and II

Approved by Tom Hazen

Released by Dan Radomski

Owner Details

Name Seth Robbins

Office/Region Newton MA

Contact Number 508-450-9755

E-mail Address [email protected]

Revision History

Issue Date Author Comments

Draft 0.1 August 22, 2005 Seth Robbins Initial Draft

Draft 1.7 September 23, 2005 Tom Hazen Revisions

Draft 1.8 September 23, 2005 Dan Radomski Added Financial Sections

Draft 1.9 September 23, 2005 Dan Radomski Updates per EMC review

2.0 September 26, 2005 Dan Radomski Final Edits

Distribution List

Name Title Company Contact Info.

Server Consolidation Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005Confidential Page ii

2011 International Network Services Inc.All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of the document owner or maintainer
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/30


Table of Contents

1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................1

1.1Server Baseline ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.2Application Assessment .......................................................................................................3

2INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY & UTILIZATION .................................................. 5

2.1Summary ...............................................................................................................................5

2.2Processors per Server .......................................................................................................... 5

2.3CPU Utilization .................................................................................................................... 5

2.4Memory Utilization ..............................................................................................................6

2.5Obsolete Servers ...................................................................................................................7

2.6Operating Systems Installed ............................................................................................... 7

3CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 8

3.1Summary ...............................................................................................................................8

3.2Virtualization Scenarios ...................................................................................................... 8

3.2.1DL360/DL380 ................................................................................................................. 83.2.2BL45p ..............................................................................................................................93.2.3DL585 ..............................................................................................................................93.2.4DL580 ..............................................................................................................................93.2.5DL585 Dual Core ............................................................................................................9

4FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 10

4.1TCO Assumptions: ............................................................................................................. 10

4.2Cost Savings / Total Cost of Ownership Summary ......................................................... 11

4.2.1Cumulative Monthly Total Cost of Ownership ............................................................. 124.2.2Initial Costs ....................................................................................................................164.2.3Summary of TCO Results ............................................................................................. 164.2.4Reduction of Power ....................................................................................................... 17

5CONSOLIDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 18

5.1Summary .............................................................................................................................18

5.2Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 18

5.3Next Steps ............................................................................................................................19

APPENDIX A.PERFORMANCE METRIC DEFINITIONS..........................................20

APPENDIX B.APPLICATION SERVER CANDIDATES............................................21

Server Consolidation Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005Confidential Page iii


4/30


Table of Figures

FIGURE 1: NUMBER OF CPU(S) PER SERVER........................................................5

FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF SERVERS AT N% CPU UTILIZATION..............................6

FIGURE 3: MEMORY USAGE......................................................................................6

FIGURE 4: OPERATING SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY................................7

FIGURE 5: SERVER POWER REQUIREMENTS......................................................13

FIGURE 6: CUMULATIVE MONTHLY TCO - DL585................................................14

FIGURE 7: COMPONENTS OF 3 YEAR TCO...........................................................15

FIGURE 8: INITIAL COSTS........................................................................................16

FIGURE 9: REDUCTION IN POWER REQUIREMENTS...........................................17

Table of Tables

TABLE 1: TCO COMPARISON....................................................................................2

TABLE 2: APPLICATION SUPPORT RESULTS........................................................4

TABLE 3: VIRTUALIZATION SCENARIOS.................................................................8

TABLE 4: COMPONENTS OF TCO - CUMULATIVE................................................15

TABLE 5: TCO COMPARISON..................................................................................16

TABLE 6: PERFORMANCE METRIC DEFINITIONS................................................20

Server Consolidation Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005Confidential Page iv


5/30

1 Executive Summary

[Client], which provides [Region A] Region with a comprehensive, integrated

continuum of care, needs to address three immediate pain points:

Reduce management overhead - no headcount growth for managing increasedcomplexity

Data Center Environmental Constraints - current data center is getting full

Data Center Migration - want to simplify migration and reduce environmentalrequirements at new site

To help eliminate these constraints, INS and [Client] have successfully completed theplanning stage to move their production environment to a consolidated set of servers based upon VMware technology. Specifically, INS and [Client] completed the

following during Phase I and Phase II of this project: Validated Business requirements and drivers toward server consolidation

Evaluated current major application deployments as candidates for movementto the virtualized environment

Analyzed server statistics to determine consolidation scenarios

Created technology and financial recommendations as a preliminary designfor the desire future state

The following results should be achieved by the successful implementation:

Improvement in hardware utilization levels; increase overall CPU utilizationfrom approximately 6% to 60% allowing the optimization of [Client]sresources.

A greater than 70% reduction in datacenter space required for operation ofthe Windows environment, in turn providing less management overhead.

Redeployment of existing physical hardware in support of other initiative,such as Disaster Recovery.

Table 1 Summarizes the results of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis. The4-way scenarios (BL45P & DL58*) offer lower 3 year TCO than the 2-way servers.

The HP DL585, using 2.6 GHz processors and 24GB of memory will offer the bestcombination of cost, flexibility/expandability, and proven track record in VMwareESX deployments.

Server Consolidation Issue: 2.0 Date: 26 Sept 2005Confidential Page 1


6/30

The requirement for server rack space is also greatly reduced. In all cases (except theDL380), the rack space requirements is reduced by more than a factor of 5 whencompared with the requirements of the current model (152U).

Table 1: TCO Comparison

Though one of the initial assumptions was that [Client] would retain its HP Hardwareplatform, pricing for the Dell PowerEdge 6850 was also obtained. The cost of the DellPowerEdge 6850 was significantly less than the HP 4-way servers, yielding a 3 yearTCO of approximately $500,000.

This report presents the work completed by INS and [Client Short] and provides therecommended next steps to continue the consolidation effort.

1.1 Server Baseline

The first task completed for this assessment was the installation of an AOG Collectorin the [Client] datacenter. The Collector was initially used to identify all of thedomains in the [Client Short] environment. Once the domains were discovered, the[Client] and Internet Service domains were scanned (using the LANMAN protocol)for Windows systems.

The initial survey found 121 systems, of which 102 systems were identified as thefocus of the virtualization assessment. After the relevant systems were discoveredand inventoried, the Collector polled them periodically for performance metrics.Approximately 4 weeks of data was gathered in August & September of 2005. Thedata gathering occurred many times daily and also ran on evenings and weekends.


Server


7/30

INS used this data to address various goals through the server virtualization andconsolidation assessment including:

Understanding server performance and utilization rates of a group of Wintel

servers in the [Client] and Internet Service domains. Understand the potential for server virtualization of the Wintel server

infrastructure in the [Client] and Internet Service domains.

Identifying workloads that are good candidates to be migrated into virtualmachines

Development of possible consolidation scenarios for sampled servers

1.2 Application Assessment

[Client] and INS established a set of criteria that included business needs, serverhardware, application vendor support, and server utilization. These criteria wereapplied to all monitored systems to determine which servers and applications werecandidates for virtualization. Examples of exclusion criteria were:

Servers and/or applications that will be retired in the near future

Servers that had hardware requirements that are not currently supported byVMware. For example, any server:

o Containing greater than 4 network interface cards

o Using specialized PCI devices

o Functioning as a backup server

As a result of this process the total number of server candidates was reduced from120 to 102.

Major applications support was then reviewed with the specific software vendors andincluded as Virtual Candidates for further review by [Client] and VMware. Figure 1below shows of the 37 major applications defined; currently 27 are supported onVMware. The remaining 10 were identified and the information provided toVMware. VMware will work with the application vendor for future considerationand validation.

Appendix B at the bottom of the assessment provides the list major applicationselected by [Client] for review and a detailed description of the compatibility withVMware ESX Server.



8/30

Table 2: Application Support Results

Summary of Application support Results Number of Servers

Tested and supported on VMware 14

Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported 13

Not tested and not supported on VMware 10

Total: 37

The last criteria of server utilization with greater than 40% CPU or 3.6 GB of memory

utilization was applied based upon the sampled prime time utilization.After processing the virtualization criteria to [Client]s environment, 102 Serversremained as virtual candidates.



9/30

2 Infrastructure Inventory & Utilization

2.1 Summary

This section of the report provides a summary of the inventory and utilization of thex86 server infrastructure at [Client] as compiled by the AOG collector and how thecollected values may effect consolidation.

2.2 Processors per Server

An analysis of the number of processors currently in each server shows that anoverwhelming majority of the systems only have a single processor. Single processorservers are excellent candidates for consolidation.

Number of CPU(s) per Server

1 CPU(s) 78 Server(s)

89%


10%


1%

1 CPU(s) 78 Server(s) 2 CPU(s) 9 Server(s) 4 CPU(s) 1 Server(s)

Figure 1: Number of CPU(s) per Server

2.3 CPU Utilization

The chart below shows the average and peak CPU utilization at prime time. Of the

88 systems monitored by the AOG collector, 85 of the systems average less then 20%utilization, with none of the systems averaging more then 50% utilization. The lowsystem utilization highlighted by the chart indicates that all of the monitored systemsmay be excellent candidates for consolidation.



10/30

Number of Servers at n%CPU Utilization

43

21

9

14 3 2 2 1 2

76

7

2 1 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

>0% 0 1 Gb

>1 2 Gb

>2 3 Gb

>3 4 Gb

Figure 3: Memory Usage



11/30

2.5 Obsolete Servers

An obsolete server is defined as a system that should be replaced or retired due toinsufficient capabilities or maintenance costs as compared to a new system. Someexamples of insufficient capabilities are the speed of the installed processors,memory capacity, and storage expansion options. Examples of maintenance costs aremaintenance/support contracts, chassis size/footprint, power requirements, and heatgeneration.

For this report, any systems using a processor running at less then 933 MHz areconsidered as obsolete servers. Based upon this criterion, a total of 22 systems (20%of the sampled systems) are classified as obsolete servers. These 22 systems areprime candidates for virtualization.

2.6 Operating Systems Installed

An analysis of the operating system running on each servers shows that allinstallations are either in the Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 families of operatingsystems, with a two-thirds majority being in the Windows 2000 family. Serversrunning any of the Windows operating systems are excellent candidates forconsolidation.

Operating System Distribution Summary

Microsoft Windows 2000

63%

Microsoft Windows Server

2003

34%


Advanced Server

3%


Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server

Microsoft Windows Server 2003

Figure 4: Operating System Distribution Summary



12/30

3 Consolidation Analysis

3.1 Summary

This section describes the analysis of the inventory and utilization of the x86 serverinfrastructure at [Client] and the consolidation scenarios.

Based upon the information gathered by the AOG Capacity Planner application suite,it was determined that the best course of action for consolidation is to utilizevirtualization of x86 servers by means of VMware ESX Server.

3.2 Virtualization Scenarios

The success of a server consolidation initiative is tied to various technical, financial,and political factors. It is critical to create a consolidation plan that will provide

immediate benefits while minimizing risk. Internal marketing of early benefits canthen be used to help move the consolidation initiative into additional areas.

The scenarios presented here are an example of what consolidation opportunities areavailable to [Client]. These consolidation scenarios are based on the performance andinventory data gathered by the AOG collector and do not consider other functional(e.g. application), policy (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley compliance), process (e.g. BusinessContinuity plans), departmental (e.g. HR, Finance, Accounting), or technical (e.g.VLAN topologies, firewalls, SAN architecture) constraints.

Platform # of ESX

Servers

Consolidation

Ratio

DL360/DL380 (2x3.0GHz, 12GB) 13 8:1

BL45p (4x2.6GHz, 24GB) 5 21:1

DL585 (4x2.6GHz, 24GB) 5 21:1

DL580 (4x3.6GHz, 24GB) 5 21:1

DL585 (4x2.2GHz Dual Core, 32GB) 4 26:1

Table 3: Virtualization Scenarios

3.2.1 DL360/DL380

HP DL360 and DL380 servers with two 3.0 GHz processors and 12 GB of memory:

Since [Client] currently uses these server models, newer servers could be re-provisioned (e.g., second processor, additional memory for a total of 12GB perserver, network cards, and fibre channel HBAs) to meet the requirements. This



13/30

scenario is dependent upon the availability of the systems to be upgraded, as well ascomponents to upgrade them.

The HP DL360 and DL380 servers offer very limited expansion capabilities, with theDL360 requiring the usage of dual port HBAs. The dual processor servers also offer

the least flexible resource pools for virtual machines.

3.2.2 BL45p

HP DL45p blades servers with four 2.6 GHz and 24 GB of memory:

This option offers the introduction of blade technology to the [Client] datacenter, andthe smallest rack footprint of any scenario, but also has limited flexibility.

3.2.3 DL585

HP DL585 with four 2.6 GHz processors and 24GB of memory:

This option offers the greatest flexibility of architecture while maximizing cost toperformance.

3.2.4 DL580

HP DL580 with four 3.6 GHz processors and 24GB of memory:

While the consolidation ratios show to be the same between the DL580 and DL585platforms, experience from previous implementations have shown performance onthe DL585 servers to be better then the DL580 for VMware ESX implementations.

3.2.5 DL585 Dual Core

HP DL585 with four 2.2 GHz dual core processors and 32GB of memory:

While this option offers the highest consolidation ratio, the cost premium of the dualcore technology factored to a consolidation of this size must be considered.



14/30

4 Financial Assessment

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) was modeled for [Client]s current environment

(Business as Usual) along with several consolidation scenarios using VMwares ESXsoftware. The results are detailed as follows.

4.1 TCO Assumptions:

The TCO model was constructed to best represent [Client]s accounting practices. Thefollowing assumptions were made when constructing the TCO model.

General Assumptions

Depreciation: Server Hardware was modeled using a straight line depreciationover 5 years.

Taxes: Since [Client] is tax exempt, no tax implications were modeled.

Server Life: The useful life of a server is consistent with the depreciation term,i.e., a server is refreshed after it has been in service for 5 years. Growth Rate: The server growth rate is 10% per year. This number is lower than

[Client]s experience, and is considered a conservative estimate. Power Consumption Required to Run Server: The power consumption per

server was calculated based upon results from HPs power calculator worksheetfound at: http://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/calc/Power CalculatorCatalog.xls.

Power Consumption Required to Cool Datacenter: Any heat generated by theservers needs to be removed from the datacenter via the cooling system. Theefficiency of that cooling system was assumed to be 80%.

Power Rate: The cost of power was estimated to be $0.08 / kWh. [Client] Environment (Business As Usual)

New Server Purchases: [Client] generally uses HP DL360s and HP DL 380swhen a new server is required. It was assumed that for every 9 DL360s, 1 DL380is purchased. Based on that ratio, along with pricing obtained by [Client], ablended server cost was calculated.

Existing Server Hardware: The current depreciation of existing servers assumedthe initial cost of the server was consistent with the purchase price of a new server.

Provisioning of a New Physical Server: The cost to provision a new server,whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $320.This is based on 4 hours of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr.

Hardware Maintenance Cost: Hardware maintenance was included in thehardware cost for the 1st three years of a servers life. After that point (for years 4& 5), the maintenance cost was assumed to be a blended rate of $710 / year. Sincethe TCO was modeled over 3 years, this is applicable for existing servers only.

Consolidated (Virtual Server) Environment

Early Retirement of Server: If a server is retired early (before 5 years of life) andnot re-used, the entire remaining value of its depreciation was accounted for in themonth that the server was retired.

http://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/calc/Power%20Calculator%20Catalog.xlshttp://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/calc/Power%20Calculator%20Catalog.xlshttp://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/calc/Power%20Calculator%20Catalog.xlshttp://h30099.www3.hp.com/configurator/calc/Power%20Calculator%20Catalog.xls


15/30

Re-Use of Retired Servers: Any server that was consolidated into the new VirtualServer environment that was between 0 and 2 years old was assumed to be re-used.In this case, the remaining depreciation of the server was modeled as a costavoidance, i.e., a cost that would have occurred in the Business as Usual

environment. Salvaged Servers: Any server that was consolidated into the new Virtual Server

environment and was not re-used, was considered as a salvage candidate. Asalvage value of 5% of the servers initial purchase price was modeled.

New Hardware Purchases: Several Server Models (as described earlier in thisdeliverable) were modeled in the TCO calculation using pricing obtained by[Client].

Software Purchases: Software licensing costs were modeled as an expense, i.e.,the entire cost was modeled in the month of purchase. The software maintenancewas modeled as a yearly recurring cost.

Provisioning of a New Physical Server: The cost to provision a new server,

whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $320.This is based on 4 hours of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr. Provisioning of a New Virtual Server: The cost to provision a new server,

whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $80. Thisis based on 1 hour of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr.

4.2 Cost Savings / Total Cost of Ownership Summary

The Total Cost of Ownership analysis modeled the following costs:

Hardware Depreciation & Maintenance

Business as Usual Environment

ESX Server

VirtualCenter Server

Server Provisioning

Physical Server

Virtual Server

Power/Cooling

Software License & (Platinum) Maintenance

ESX Virtual Infrastructure Node (VIN)

VirtualCenter

P2V Assistant

Storage Area Network Costs SAN Ports

SAN Disk

Implementation Costs

Detailed Design and Pilot

Implementation and Migration



16/30

The Total Cost of Ownership analysis does not modelthe following, which are consideredadditional benefits of the server consolidation initiative:

Reduction in Operations / Administration Staff (Other the new serverprovisioning)

Reduced Downtime Reduced Deployment time of servers

Business benefits

Eliminates procurement cycle / cost for Virtual Machines

Software Costs for Backup / Security

Facilities Savings (other the power/cooling)

Rack Space

Power Connections

Datacenter Power/UPS Capacity

Network Ports

More Flexible Environment High Availability

Disaster Recovery

The Total Cost of Ownership was calculated for the following hardware options1. HP DL3602. HP DL3803. HP BL45P4. HP DL5805. HP DL5856. HP DL585 Dual Core

The detailed charts and graphs below depict the analysis completed on the HP DL585.

4.2.1 Cumulative Monthly Total Cost of Ownership

Figure 6 shows the cumulative monthly TCO when the HP DL585 is used as theconsolidation platform.

The BAU (Business As Usual) curve is composed of 4 components:

1. Hardware Depreciation: The cost in a given month was calculated based ona 5 year straight line depreciation. The server purchase price was based on

the assumption that the [Client] environment is made up of HP DL360s andHP DL 380s. It was assumed that for every 9 DL360s, 1 DL 380 was purchased. Based on that ratio, along with pricing obtained by [Client], a blended server cost was calculated. This was used for new serverrequirements as well as existing servers.

2. Hardware Maintenance: Hardware maintenance was assumed to be in thepurchase price of the hardware for the 1st three years. Maintenance costs weremodelled for hardware that was between 3 & 5 years old. The cost for



17/30

maintenance was based on [Client] actuals and a blended rate was used basedon the same ratios described in the hardware depreciation section above.

3. Power: The power requirements were calculated from the HP powercalculator tool found on HPs website (provided above). The new server

configurations were based upon input from [Client] (DL360/380) and the INSproject team (DL585). The existing servers were assumed to require 80% ofthe power required by new servers. Figure 5 shows the power requirementsfor each configuration. The cooling requirements assumed an 80% efficiency,i.e., (cooling power requirement) = (server power requirement) / (80%). Thecost of power was estimated at $0.08 per kWh.

Figure 5: Server Power Requirements

4. Server Provisioning: The cost to provision a server, whether it be a serverrefresh or a new requirement, was estimated at $320 / server. This is based on4 hours of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr.

The Consolidated curve is composed of 10 components:

1. Hardware Depreciation: The cost in a given month was calculated based ona 5 year straight line depreciation. For the consolidated environment, theserver purchase price was based on HP DL585 quote obtained by [Client].The DL585 configuration was defined by the INS project team. TheVirtualCenter server was modeled as a HP DL380. The hardwaredepreciation of the remaining servers in the current environment was alsomodeled. As each existing server was decommissioned, the entire remainingdepreciation for that server was modeled in that month.

2. Hardware Maintenance: The maintenance of any remaining legacy serverswas modeled per the BAU curve above. Since the TCO analysis models 3years, and the ESX server purchases include 3 years worth of maintenance, no

additional ESX server maintenance costs were modeled.3. Salvage Value: Any server that was consolidated into the new Virtual Server

environment and was not re-used, was considered as a salvage candidate. Asalvage value of 5% of the servers initial purchase price was modeled.

4. Software License: The license cost for VMware ESX Virtual InfrastructureNode (VIN), VirtualCenter, and P2V Assistant were modeled as expenseitems, i.e., the full cost of the license was modeled in the month that it waspurchased. VMware list pricing was used for all software costs.


Input Line

Voltage (V)

Processor

Speed (GHz)

Processor

countRAM (GB) PCI Cards HDD

Power Req't

(W)

DL360 115 3.4 2 2 2 2 x 36 GB 494

DL380 115 3.6 2 2 3 2 x 72 GB 530

DL585 115 2.6 4 24 6 2 x 72 GB 925


18/30

5. Software Maintenance: Platinum Level Support was modeled as an ongoingcost for all VMware Software.

6. Power: The power requirements were calculated as described in the BAUcurve above and Figure 5.

7. Provisioning of a New Physical Server: The cost to provision a new server,whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $320.This is based on 4 hours of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr.

8. Provisioning of a New Virtual Server: The cost to provision a new server,whether it be a server refresh or a new requirement, was estimated to be $80.This is based on 1 hour of effort at a burdened rate of $80/hr.

9. SAN Disk and Ports: The Cost of Storage Area Network (SAN) Disk and therequired SAN ports were modeled as part of each virtualization scenario.

10. Implementation Costs: The consulting costs associated with the detaileddesign, build of the environment, pilot, and migration of the entire 102 serversto the VMware environment was modeled as a one-time cost during the first

month of the project.

Figure 6: Cumulative Monthly TCO - DL585


$600,000

$700,000

$800,000


19/30

The relative magnitude of the components that make up the total 3 year TCO is representedin tabular form as Table 4 and also in .

Table 4: Components of TCO - Cumulative

Figure 7: Components of 3 year TCO


Power

Provisionin$700,000

$800,000

Har

Ma

Pro

Tot

Har

Har


20/30

4.2.2 Initial Costs

Figure 8 represents the initial costs for the server consolidation project using theDL585 server model. The initial costs are defined as:

Hardware Costs Software Licensing

Implementation Costs

Figure 8: Initial Costs

4.2.3 Summary of TCO Results

As previously stated, the Total Cost of Ownership analysis was modelled for severalconsolidation hardware platforms.

Table 5 summarizes these results. The cost of Host Bus Adapters (HBAs) and thecorresponding SAN ports was modelled as part of the server hardware cost. The 4-way scenarios offer lower 3 year TCO than the 2-way servers due to the betterconsolidation ratios per CPU. Though the server hardware alone would make the 2-way servers look attractive, the addition of VMware ESX Software (which is licensedper CPU) and other drivers make the 4-way server a better overall value.

Table 5: TCO Comparison


Server


21/30

The requirement for server rack space is also greatly reduced. In all cases (exceptthe DL380), the rack space requirements is reduced by more than a factor of 5 whencompared with the requirements of the current model (152U).

4.2.4 Reduction of PowerAlong with the savings realized by reducing the server/cooling power consumption,there could also be a benefit if current datacenter power facilities are approachingthere limitations.

Figure 9: Reduction in Power Requirements


160.00


22/30

5 Consolidation Recommendations

5.1 Summary

This section highlights the findings of the consolidation assessment at [Client], andprovides a recommended course of action for implementing a consolidation of thex86 server infrastructure.

5.2 Recommendations

Based upon the analysis of the data gathered and reviewed, INS recommends that[Client] consolidate their x86 server infrastructure using HP DL585 servers withVMware ESX.

The HP DL585, using 2.6 GHz processors and 24GB of memory will offer the best

combination of cost, flexibility/expandability, and proven track record in VMwareESX deployments.

Though one of the initial assumptions was that [Client] would retain its HP Hardwareplatform, pricing for the Dell PowerEdge 6850 was also obtained. The cost of theDell PowerEdge 6850 was significantly less than the HP 4-way servers, yielding a 3year TCO of approximately $500,000.

INS also recommends that [Client] implement a server containment policy. Such apolicy would require new applications to first be validated for their suitability to runwithin virtual machines rather than automatically deploying them on physicalhardware. This would result in significant cost avoidance for [Client], as new serverrequests could be met via deployment of virtual machines. Based on the lowutilization rates (e.g. 10% peak CPU utilization) observed during the assessment andexperience with customers of similar size, INS believes that a virtual machine wouldadequately service the vast majority of new server requests at [Client].



23/30

5.3 Next Steps

INS recommends the following actions be completed to ensure a successful migrationto a virtualized environment:

Perform detailed assessment of all systems

Ensure full understanding of major application dependencies

Review backup and restore procedures

Review SAN architecture per major application

Develop virtual infrastructure blueprints and implementation plans

Create exact hardware configurations

Develop redundancy mapping and backup configuration

Define application to server maps

Identify pilot systems Procure necessary hardware and build virtual infrastructure

Build VMware and management infrastructure

Train operations staff on new technology

Complete as built documentation for support

Virtualized identified target systems

Complete pilot physical to virtual migrations

Complete remaining consolidate using P2V

Implement server containment policy

Build business centric process that supports SPH applicationdeployment methodology.



24/30

Appendix A. Performance Metric Definitions

This chart defined the performance metrics used to measure system utilization.

Table 6: Performance Metric Definitions

Metric Description

CPU (%Usage ) Average percentage of CPU busy time

CPU (Avg. Queue) Average number of threads in CPU queue

Available RAM (MB) Amount of available physical memory in megabytes. This is the lastobserved value in the time period (not an average).

Physical Disk (% Busy) Percentage of elapsed time that the disk is busy servicing read orwrite requests

Physical Disk (Avg. Queue) Average number of read and write requests queued for the disk

Page File (% Usage) On average, the percent of the Page File being used

Physical Disk (Pages/Sec) Pages read from or written to disk to resolve hard page faults, persecond

Network (Bytes/Sec) Average number of bytes sent and received via the network, persecond



25/30

Appendix B. Application Server Candidates

Server Name: SRVCBORDMS01

PD/Model #: NBD DL380 G2 P1400-512 SN: D243JZG2G200

Application/Contact info: Nutrition Software - CBORD Group / xxx-xxx-3775

Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported

Technician: Charley Pauch

Notes: This application is used on Citrix and tech support does not see anyoutstanding issues with it running on VMware.

Server Name: SRVCAREMEDIC01

PD/Model #: DL360G2 1400-512 256 US SN: 6J24JNT1T0SL

Application/Contact info: CAREMEDIC / xxx-xxx-9830


Technician: Bill Dumler

Notes: Support has not tested this application on VMware but doesn't forsee anyissues with it running on VMware

Server Name: XXXXPMMCNTMS02

PD/Model #:NBD DL380 G2 P1400-512 SN: D225JZG2D771

Application/Contact info: PMMC / xxx-xxx-8103


Technician: Rob Brochelle

Notes: This Company does not foresee any issues for it not to work and to use itvirtually

Server Name: SphcPcarems01

PD/Model #: DL360R01 P1000 256 US SN: 6J18FXK1E00T

Application/Contact info: Perfect Care / xxx-xxx-8682

Result: Not tested and not supported on VMware

Technician: Paul

Notes: [Client Short] currently has no hardware maintenance contract therefore theyare unsupported and will not support it running on VMware with a hardware contract



26/30

Account #: 205400

Server Name: XXXXGEACWINPOL

PD/Model #: PL 850RPentium200 HOTPLUG SN: D746BRN10109

Application/Contact info: GEAC Finance ???-???-????

Result:Not tested and not supported on VMware

Technician: Determined by [Name] at [Client Short]

Notes: [Client Short] does not have support with this product and will test themselves

Server Name: PD/Model #: SN:

SRVChartLinc DL360R01 P1266 512 US 6J22JZS1E02N

SrvChartlinc02 PROLIANT 1850R 6/550 D938CSC1A746

Application/Contact info: SoftMed / xxx-xxx-0422

Result: Tested and supported on VMware

Technician: Vickie Mazie, Ticket #: 244574

Notes: This software application is supported under VMware and provides ahardware/software spec guide and VMware Sizing and Configurationrecommendations.

Server Name: xxxximpacntms01PD/Model #: PL 1600R 6/450 SN: D851CFX10476

Application/Contact info: impac - Radiation Oncology / xxx-xxx-4672


Technician: Nick, PSE Barry Hyde

Notes: This application is not currently supported running on VMware because ofknown issues and they are planning on supporting it by the end of the year

Server Name: PD/Model #: SN:Srvcopath01 NBD DL380 G2 P1266-512 D222JZG1D214

Srvcopath02 NBD DL380 G2 P1266-512 D222JZG1D236

Application/Contact info: MISYS Copath Plus / xxx-xxx-5678


Technician: Therence DeCorse / xxx-xxx-2554



27/30

Notes: Has no issues and has a client running the software on VMware

Site Code: STP

Server Name: SRVFLEXCOST01

PD/Model #:NBD WRNT DL380R03 2.8Ghz SN: D306LDN1J500

Application/Contact info: PMMC-FLEXCOST / xxx-xxx-8103


Technician: Rob Brochelle

Server Name: SRVHOMEWKSMS01

PD/Model #:NBD WRNT DL380R03 2.8Ghz SN: D313LDN1K743

Application/Contact info: 866-221-8877 BeyondNow Homeworks (Cerner)

Result:Not tested and not supported on VMware

Technician: Mark Brown

Notes: Advises against it due heavy hardware requirements by the application

Case ID: 1-451599881

Ticket #: 27729


SRVMISYSHCMS01 NBD WRNT DL380R03 2.8Ghz D316LDN1H321

SRVMISYSHCMS02 DL360R03 X2.8/533 512 US 6J34KYD380BF

Application/Contact info: MISYS Homecare / xxx-xxx-9301


Technician: Jamar Jones

Notes: Support is being trained on supported their application on VMware

Ticket #: 7065258

Client #: 6020


SRVORSOS01 DL360R03 X3.2/533 1M 2G/RPS US M00CLGP81X

SRVORSOS02 ML370R03 X3.06/533-512 HiPerf US D401LH75H059

Application/Contact info: xxx-xxx-6767 Per Se Technologies - ORSOS



28/30


Technician:

Notes: This application has not been tested on VMware but is supported

Ticket #: 379476


SRVREMS01 DL360R04 x3.4/800 1M USM51301KD

SRVREMS02 DL360R04 x3.4/800 1M USM51202Y0

Application/Contact info: Blackbaud Raisers Edge xxx-xxx-8996


Technician: Josh Jones

Notes: Software is supported and other clients use it on VMware howeverperformance issues with VMWare are not supported

Ticket: 5226517

Server Name: SRVLABWORKS01

PD/Model #: ML370 SN: USE527A173

Application/Contact info: xxx-xxx-4060 LABWORKS


Technician: Deryl Stomestreet

Notes: This software application is supported on VMware from the virtual server up


SRVAPOLLO01 DL360R03 X3.2/533 1M 2G/RPS US M02LLGP81X

SRVAPOLLO02 DL380R03 X3.2/533-1M US EA2GLDN425

SRVCardiogate PROLIANT BL20P G3 M09JMKT44B

SRVCardModacq PROLIANT BL20P G3 M0DFMKT44B

Application/Contact info: Lumedx / xxx-xxx-0699 /xxx-xxx-9774, x300Result: Application has not been tested on VMware but is supported

Technician:

Notes: Technician doesnt foresee any issues with the application running onVMware and will support to the best of their ability without a guarantee that they cantroubleshoot successfully in a virtual environment



29/30

Ticket #: 26932


SrvTKTalk01 HP NetServer E800 PIII-1000 Mod 1 US15141234

SRVKRONOS01Proliant DL580 X700MHz-2MBw/256MB D139DYV1L017

SRVKRONOS02Proliant DL580 X700MHz-2MBw/256MB

D141DYV1K150

SRVKronosAdm01 DL360R01 P1000 256 US 6J19FXK1AOEB

SRVKronosAdm02 DL360R01 P1000 256 US 6J19FXK1J015

SRVKronosClk01 DL360R01 P1000 256 US 6J19FXK1J02E

SRVKronosWeb01 DL360R01 P1000 256 US 6J19FXK1AOEE

Application/Contact info: xxx-xxx-4357 Kronos


Technician:

Notes: They have other customers using their application on VMware

Case ID: 1449863 3.4.0

Customer ID: 126330-0000


SrvOpenlink01 NBD DL380R03 2400 512K D303KJN2D672SrvOpenlink02 NBD DL380R03 2400 512K D252KJN2D582

SRVSNA01 DL360G2 1400-512 256 US 6J2BJNT1Y01Z

SRVSNA02 DL360G2 1400-512 256 US 6J2BJNT1Y00T

Application/Contact info: Seimens-Openlink / xxx-xxx-9702 / xxx-xxx-8326


Technician:

Site ID: 693523

Notes: This software is currently being tested and support will be announced through

service pack releases, customer memos or can be communicated by an accountmanager

Issue # 4178231

Notification #: 400101366035

Site ID: 400155388



30/30


SRVNETACCESSPRD NBD DL380 G2 P1400-512 D233JZG2F977

SRVNETACCESSDEV NBD DL380 G2 P1400-512 D233JZG2G025

Application/Contact info: Seimens NetAccess / xxx-xxx-8326Result: Not tested and not supported on VMware

Technician:

Site ID: 693523

Issue # 4178231

Notes: This software is not supported and currently has no plans to be tested on

VMware

Server Name: SRVWEBORSOS01PD/Model #: DL360R03 X3.2/533 1M 2G/RPSUS SN: M002LGP81X

Application/Contact info: Per Si / xxx-xxx-3773 / xxx-xxx-6767


Technician:

Notes: If you have issues with WPAM running on a VMware server we'll look at theissue, but ultimately we'll need to reproduce the issue outside of a VMwareenvironment to consider fixing the issue in future releases.

Incident #: 384360

Documents

San Virtualization Assessment v2.0