Cost-benefit calculation?

[iroc409]

OK, so this is probably a lame question because it's not [H] at all, but...

What's the best way to calculate cost benefits to virtualization? I've been thinking about building a new server again, an all-in-one, but I keep thinking maybe it's not worth the cost. I don't have a good way to measure actual power consumption of my hardware, so I'm not sure I'll get much better than some wild guesses.

I'd like to virtualize, to give me a few more options on the network, but it also adds complications that I'm not sure are necessary (and my current setup is very reliable--a significant requirement). I wouldn't mind having a Windows server of some sort, reduce heat output, noise, etc.

Right now I have an Untangle box with a G31 chipset and E1200 CPU (never uses over 2% CPU), and a Supermicro server board running a Regor 250 CPU for my file server (native FreeBSD/ZFS).

We recently moved states, and power went from about $.05-.06 per KWH to $.11317/KWH. It seems like even with a doubling of electricity rate, barring hardware failure it would take a long time to pay off the difference in power savings.

The only other thing could be increasing reliability, but I'm not sure how to do that without redundant hardware or something.

 

[Thuleman]

For businesses it's certainly possible, albeit not that easy, to calculate actual cost savings from virtualization. For a home setup I doubt that there will be any cost savings because you don't have to deal with the cost of rack space, support & maintenance agreements on hardware, payroll for all the people you need to admin physical machines, yadda yadda yadda.

So unless you burn a lot of power (which you can measure, just buy a Kill A Watt, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882715001) consolidation will likely only provide you marginal or intangible benefits (less space used, potentially lower noise, learning new tech).

 

[iroc409]

I should get a Kill-A-Watt, that would at least measure it (and it's entertaining to know).

I have hardware to learn stuff on, like VMware Workstation on my desktop and a laptop that I use but it's pretty much spare hardware, so despite the "fun" factor there probably isn't much benefit.

Even with used servers, it's still going to cost a few hundred $$ to upgrade, which I'd probably be better off spending on a new monitor or storage drives. I was just curious if there was a good way to estimate it.

 

[bmh.01]

You don't do it at home for benefit, you do it because you want to.

 

[iroc409]

You don't do it at home for benefit, you do it because you want to.

I really want to, just having trouble justifying the cost.

 

[Thuleman]

I really want to, just having trouble justifying the cost.

And that's not a bad place to be really. I was using a lab environment at work for the longest time but then I repurposed those servers to be an actual lab for students so I had to come up with something else. I looked into running a dedicated server for ESXi with a "proper" raid card etc. etc. and decided that the cost just wasn't worth it to me.

Instead I bought a bit more RAM, some SATA III controllers, and a few SSDs and am running my entire home lab on VMware Workstation. I have everything I need to test things and I don't have the noise, power usage, and cost of a dedicated server.

I always wondered whether one could take a tax write-off for a home lab though, may be worth looking into it.

 

[Eickst]

The biggest cost saving that we've seen with virtualization is with microsoft licensing. Power savings are secondary for us.

Add in all the other benefits and its a no brainer...

 

[iroc409]

And that's not a bad place to be really. I was using a lab environment at work for the longest time but then I repurposed those servers to be an actual lab for students so I had to come up with something else. I looked into running a dedicated server for ESXi with a "proper" raid card etc. etc. and decided that the cost just wasn't worth it to me.

Instead I bought a bit more RAM, some SATA III controllers, and a few SSDs and am running my entire home lab on VMware Workstation. I have everything I need to test things and I don't have the noise, power usage, and cost of a dedicated server.

I always wondered whether one could take a tax write-off for a home lab though, may be worth looking into it.

I use Workstation on my main desktop for testing and using other OSes, and it does probably 90% of my "learning". I'd like to have some other stuff on the network, but it's not a need... just a want.

The biggest cost saving that we've seen with virtualization is with microsoft licensing. Power savings are secondary for us.

Add in all the other benefits and its a no brainer...

Definitely can see that, in a business environment with a lot of servers. It would be a no-brainer there, but for home use it's harder to justify expensive equipment. My original server had the Regor processor with a Biostar desktop board, and I upgraded it cheap with eBay parts... and it has served its purpose very well since.

 

[-Dragon-]

Your justification for home use would be "I'd like to do things that my current hardware won't or can't support"

 

[Wrench00]

The biggest cost saving that we've seen with virtualization is with microsoft licensing. Power savings are secondary for us.

Add in all the other benefits and its a no brainer...

Actually this very specific to the company. Not everyone uses HyperV nor just MS or Linux guests.


On a Side note I found that the biggest cost benefit is around the fact physcial computers.
Less Electricity
Less Points of Failure
Less Complexity
Smaller foot print
Less sound pollution
Less Heat.
Less Warranties and contracts.
Less Upkeep

 

[mewa]

The biggest cost saving that we've seen with virtualization is with microsoft licensing. Power savings are secondary for us.

Add in all the other benefits and its a no brainer...

If I may ask this detailed question, how does VeeM generate saving from MS Licensing? Buying the Datacenter version of Windows Server version so you can do unlimited install?

 

[mewa]

Here is 3 cases I could accept as justifications from myself:
1. Earn incremental revenues: Does this provide new capabiilty i.e. get a job, get new businesses, do things more efficiently thus generate savings?
2. Cut costs: Electricity might be a few hundreds compared to running two boxes. There are also admin cost, your own time has value. The money you didn't have to spend to buy the secondbox, with interest?
3. Reduce/prevent risks (damages from disasters): I mean risks that has no up side, just plain bad. Are there any infrequent but severe outcomes that VM could save you? Speaking for myself the biggest saving for me was simply the time cost, the no obligation fast recovery from cock-ups, just wipe and install from image. Since I have cock-up almost daily, one of the VM is dedicated to just me multi-tasking, opening suspicious files etc. because this is so frequent you could call this labor saving or cost cutting. Also, you can justify from the point VM can make really bad things happen much less likely, then assign the reduction to the probability, say 4%, from 95% to 99% up time, and $ amount loss prevented, say $100, then the saving is $40 per unit (i.e. time).

 

[Eickst]

If I may ask this detailed question, how does VeeM generate saving from MS Licensing? Buying the Datacenter version of Windows Server version so you can do unlimited install?

Yes. Datacenter version allows unlimited VM's. Datacenter is more expensive though so unless you are doing enough VM's it's not worth it.