The tricky math of server virtualization ROI

Virtualization is a good thing, but it's not a slam dunk when it comes to saving money

Server virtualization is supposed to save buckets of cash, largely from server reduction. After all, consolidating some 20 physical servers to three host servers means less hardware, power and cooling, and management overhead.

But wait! The math is much trickier than that -- and unless you're a large business, there's a good chance it'll cost you more than you save, at least from the outset. "Probably 50 percent of the small- and medium- business virtualization implementations I see are not cheaper than simply replacing the physical servers already there," says Matt Prigge, a virtualization consultant and InfoWorld Test Center contributor.

[ Check out virtualization's gotchas and dirty secrets | Get a hands-on look at the technology and project implementations in the InfoWorld Test Center's special report on server virtualization. ]

Let's do the math. If you buy 20 spanking-new servers at $5,000 to grow your datacenter or replace your current boxes the traditional way, that's a $100,000 outlay. Server virtualization's cost equivalent: three powerful host servers with hardware memory chips from the likes of AMD or Intel at $16,000 each; a SAN at $40,000; and assorted costs in staff training, management software, virtualization licenses, and consultants. That'll all run about $100,000 as well. (Operating systems and apps aren’t included, but their costs are the same for either approach.)

Shared storage investments and new Intel or AMD servers, along with redundant network connectivity upgrades, constitute the lion's share of the cost of virtualization. Software licenses from vendors such as EMC VMware, Microsoft, and Citrix -- though several thousand dollars per host server -- pale in comparison with these infrastructure costs, though you do have to factor in ongoing maintenance costs.

What all this means is that if you're building a 20-server datacenter from scratch, or adding to or replacing one, then the cost of going with physical servers or virtual ones is largely a wash. But given the many benefits of server virtualization -- notably business continuity gains -- the virtualization route is a wise choice.

If you're setting up more than 20 servers, the case for virtualization gets easier. "Server virtualization is an absolute no-brainer for organizations with 50 or more servers," says Chris Wolf, an analyst at the Burton Group. "In such environments, an 8- to 18-month ROI is easily achievable."

Conversely, virtualizing most environments with fewer than 20 servers will cost you more than it's worth. A SAN is overkill for most small shops, in terms of sticker price and capability, says Prigge, who wrote a "virtual" virtualization case study detailing everything from pricing and products to technical and skills requirements. You'll need another reason than strict cost to justify going the virtual route if you have fewer than 20 servers.

Server virtualization costs in the real world Of course, these figures assume that you are starting from scratch. But hardly anyone is starting from scratch nowadays. So what's the cost and ROI to virtualize an existing datacenter?

If you have a 20-server datacenter with a 2- to 3-year server refresh cycle and upgrade the existing physical servers with new physical servers, you're buying 8 physical servers every year at a total cost of $40,000. Virtualizing all your servers instead costs $100,000, taking 2.5 years to recoup the initial virtualization investment -- the same as your refresh cycle. "Of course, organizations don't want to see an ROI that equals their hardware refresh cycle," Wolf says.

If you don't have to invest in a new SAN, then the recoup time is just more than a year. Indeed, the single largest outlay for virtualization is shared storage -- a virtualization requirement. If you don't have shared storage, you have to build an iSCSI SAN, a Fibre Channel SAN, or a network file system. You'll need to refresh your host servers every two or three years, but you can keep the other SAN hardware longer, so over time, your refresh costs per year will be lower in a virtualized environment than in a physical one; how much depends on a bunch of factors specific to your environment, but it's a safe bet that you won't refresh your SAN any sooner than every 5 years, and likely less often.

Virtualization's costs aren't so predictable Even if the basic numbers tell you that virtualization's ROI is neutral or positive, note that the actual cost of virtualization varies greatly on the path you choose.

Costs that get short shrift in the financial forecasting process include software and hardware management. Because virtualization changes the management scenario, you might need different lifecycle management tools. Many companies also upgrade to Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server 2008 Data Center edition when they virtualize, says Burton's Wolf. "That has to creep into the equation."

Also, you'll likely need to bring in a consultant to review the virtualization architecture, no matter what size the deployment. And then there's the cost of actually migrating physical servers. Consulting and migration fees vary widely.

The good news is that a 20-server virtual environment probably won't need a special virtualization staffer who commands at least $80,000 or even an additional sys admin, after everything is up and running. Virtualization vendors understand that small and midsize businesses often employ a single admin who wears many hats, so they've made their tools as easy as possible to learn. "One admin could get up to speed on virtualization," Wolf says. "Often, small organizations will develop their own talent there."

But the larger your virtualized environment, the more you will need such experts. You might recoup their costs by needing fewer server admins, but you might not. After all, you also have a SAN to manage.

Another cost that can be hard to estimate is virtualization training, warns Prigge. The admin, for instance, will need to know how to reboot a virtual machine without restarting the whole host. "In some situations, the customer's inability to dedicate time to learn how to use a system suggests that sticking with physical servers with all of their limitations is actually a better course of action," he says.

Many but not all these costs can be inputted into good ROI calculators for server virtualization from VMware and Microsoft. These calculators can bring some clarity to a potential investment. Moreover, their predictions are often on the money with the actual ROI, says Wolf.

Virtualization's elusive ROI If your reason to invest in virtualization is just about the numbers, you may be disappointed -- especially if you're a smaller business. Consultant Prigge figures that many smaller businesses that adopt virtualization pay 10 to 15 percent more when all is said and done.

But this extra cost, he says, "is justified by the increased capability to recover from a hardware failure. If you're not paying attention to business continuity gains, of which server redundancy is just one, you're sort of missing the boat," says Prigge. After all, virtualization's greatest benefit is flexibility and simplicity of business continuity for the entire datacenter -- not merely reduction in server boxes.

Join the PC World newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags roiserversvirtualisation

Struggling for Christmas presents this year? Check out our Christmas Gift Guide for some top tech suggestions and more.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Tom Kaneshige

InfoWorld

Most Popular Reviews

Follow Us

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Shopping.com

Latest News Articles

Resources

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Latest Jobs

Shopping.com

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?