Value Proposition for IBM PureFlex System · PDF fileApril2012 MANAGEMENT&BRIEF& Value...

April 2012

MANAGEMENT BRIEF

Value Proposition for IBM PureFlex System

Case for IBM PureFlex System for Cloud-Enabled SAP Enterprise Environments

International Technology Group 609 Pacific Avenue, Suite 102 Santa Cruz, California 95060-4406 Telephone: + 831-427-9260 Email: [email protected] Website: ITGforInfo.com

Copyright © 2012 by the International Technology Group. All rights reserved. Material, in whole or part, contained in this document may not be reproduced or distributed by any means or in any form, including original, without the prior written permission of the International Technology Group (ITG). Information has been obtained from sources assumed to be reliable and reflects conclusions at the time. This document was developed with International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) funding. Although the document may utilize publicly available material from various sources, including IBM, it does not necessarily reflect the positions of such sources on the issues addressed in this document. Material contained and conclusions presented in this document are subject to change without notice. All warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such material are disclaimed. There shall be no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the material contained in this document or for interpretations thereof. Trademarks included in this document are the property of their respective owners.

International Technology Group i

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Overview 1 PureFlex System Value 1 Use Cases 2 Mechanisms 3 Differentiators 4

SAP VIEW 6 Challenges 6

Overview 6 Clouds and Virtualization 6

Solutions 7 SAP NetWeaver Landscape Virtualization Management 7 PureFlex Systems Interfaces 9

TECHNOLOGY VIEW 10 PureFlex Systems 10 Power Compute Nodes 10

Overview 10 Distinctive Technologies 11 Availability 12 Security 13

Intel Processor-based Compute Nodes 14 Storwize V7000 14

Overview 14 Automated Tiering 15

DETAILED DATA 16 Installations and Configurations 16 Personnel Costs 19 Facilities and Energy Costs 19

List of Figures 1. Conventional and PureFlex Systems-enabled Cycle Times – Examples 2 2. Cost Reductions Through Use of PureFlex Systems 3 3. Key Capability Areas for SAP NetWeaver Landscape Virtualiztion Management 1.0 8 4. Initial PureFlex Systems Interfaces to SAP Landscape Virtualiztion Management 9 5. Power Systems Technology Integration 12 6. Reported Medium and High Severity Vulnerabilities During 2011 13 7. Intel Processor-based Compute Server

– Key Reliability, Availability and Serviceability Features 14 8. Installations Summary 16

International Technology Group 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview SAP users face many challenges. They must respond more rapidly and flexibly to changes in volatile, globalized business environments. They must boost competitiveness and exploit emerging opportunities. At the same time, economic conditions reinforce pressures to cut or at least contain growth in costs.

The concepts and technologies of “cloud computing” may play an important role in meeting these challenges. Clouds offer the potential to reduce IT cycle times, more effectively exploit virtualization technologies and increase operational efficiencies. But adoption rates among SAP users have been conservative.

There are good reasons for this. Organizations must deal with complex, interlocking systems and landscapes that support business-critical systems. Compatibility with SAP architecture and standards must be maintained, and diverse application and technology environments must be supported.

Two new solutions address these requirements. SAP NetWeaver Landscape Virtualization Management (SAP LVM) addresses higher-level SAP components and processes, while IBM PureFlex System offers industry-leading capabilities at the infrastructure management level. Although PureFlex Systems are not restricted to use with LVM, they complement and can be tightly integrated with the LVM stack.

PureFlex Systems compete primarily with Vblock solutions offered by the Virtual Computing Environment (VCE) consortium of EMC and its VMware subsidiary, and Cisco Systems. However, PureFlex Systems are better integrated, support a broader range of processors, operating systems and hypervisors and offer more effective system management capabilities.

To a greater extent than any competitive offering, PureFlex Systems offer the potential to transform the server, storage and network infrastructures that support SAP enterprise environments. They also allow organizations to extend common management services to non-SAP applications.

PureFlex System Value The value proposition for PureFlex Systems consists of two main components:

1. Operational efficiencies. In six deployment examples presented in this report, use of PureFlex Systems to consolidate older servers, storage systems and networks significantly reduces administrative staffing. Three-year personnel costs average 44 percent less for PureFlex Systems than for existing environments.

In the same examples, facilities and energy costs are reduced by even wider margins. Three-year costs for use of PureFlex Systems average 89 and 85 percent less respectively.

Combined costs for all installations average 54 percent less. In two cases of UNIX server consolidation, combined costs average 57 and 43 percent less. In x86 server consolidation examples costs average 38 and 40 percent less, and for mixed UNIX and x86 environments costs average 58 and 60 percent less.

Calculations assume that organizations fully exploit PureFlex Systems strengths, including the advanced management capabilities of the new IBM Flex System Manager, and that systems are implemented and operated in a best practice manner. Results in other organizations may vary.


Significant reductions could be expected in software costs for databases and other products priced on a per core basis. For organizations acquiring licenses independently of SAP, numbers of database server cores are reduced by an average of 63 percent, and application server cores by an average of 70 percent. The extent of savings would depend upon vendor licensing policies.

Savings could also be expected in maintenance, network infrastructure and other areas. Hardware as well as software maintenance savings would tend to be highest among organizations migrating from older high-end UNIX servers and disk arrays.

2. Cycle time reductions. Compared to conventional server, storage and network environments, PureFlex Systems enable organizations to significantly reduce the amount of time required for provisioning, installation, configuration and other processes to change or expand infrastructures. Figure 1 shows examples.

Task Conventional

Systems PureFlex Systems

Provision new server 2-‐6 hours 5-‐10 minutes

Provision storage for new server 3-‐5 hours 20-‐25 minutes

Provision network capacity 30-‐60 minutes N/A

Add capacity to virtual server 60-‐90 minutes 1 minute

Install new UNIX OS 6-‐8 hours 30 minutes

System set-‐up 10-‐20 hours 2-‐3 hours

Figure 1: Conventional and PureFlex Systems-enabled Cycle Times – Examples

Reduced infrastructure cycle times translate into administrator timesavings and greater responsiveness to internal customer needs. They may provide value not only in improving the efficiency of existing environments, but also in replicated and new system deployments. Shorter implementation times and project durations typically yield savings in external services as well as internal costs.

Faster cycle times realized by PureFlex Systems facilitate similar gains through use of SAP LVM for system copying, cloning and refreshing for database and application layers; and for workload and capacity management, monitoring and other operational processes.

The eventual SAP objectives are to enable a single view of processes and resources across all layers of SAP environments, and to automate management of these from a single point of control. For organizations planning to implement LVM, PureFlex Systems ensure that underlying infrastructures are fully consistent with these objectives.

PureFlex Systems offer the broader potential of enabling organizations to expand IT infrastructures in a less disruptive manner. New compute, storage and network resources may be added, and existing resources upgraded, without replacing entire servers, storage frames or switches. Self-service extensions will eventually enable SAP Line of Business (LOB) users to handle authorized provisioning directly.

Use Cases PureFlex Systems can be deployed in any SAP environment, to support any SAP system and landscape. The platform incorporates key features of IBM Power Systems, System x and BladeCenter, and Storwize V7000 systems which have been widely employed by SAP users.


The cost calculations presented in this report are based on six user installations employing the full range of SAP applications. Results are based on a set of before and after calculations for each installation. Before calculations are for actual user installations. Server and storage bases, and full time equivalent (FTE) administrator staffing levels are based on user-supplied data.

After calculations are based on estimates of configurations that would be required if applications and workloads were transferred to PureFlex Systems.

Installations include a large IT services company whose before environment includes more than 300 UNIX and x86 servers from a variety of vendors. The environment includes six different operating systems, eight hypervisors and more than 20 management consoles. PureFlex Systems are employed to consolidate and standardize these.

In three installations in manufacturing, distribution and retailing companies, PureFlex Systems are employed to replace older HP Integrity Superdome and midrange systems with EMC high-end arrays; IBM System p servers and DS8100 arrays; and IBM System i servers and DS4800 arrays respectively.

Finally, a second manufacturer and a diversified manufacturing, distribution and IT services company employ PureFlex Systems to consolidate SAP landscapes deployed on Windows servers with HP and EMC arrays. The extent of operational efficiency improvements, and of savings resulting from them, varies between these installations as shown in figure 2.

PureFlex Systems Percent Less Installation Consolidation Type Facilities Energy Personnel

IT Services Company Mixed platforms 92% 87% 51%

Manufacturing Company 1 UNIX servers 94% 94% 36%

Distribution Company UNIX servers 80% 78% 34%

Retail Company Mixed platforms 66% 59% 60%

Manufacturing Company 2 x86 servers 80% 71% 30%

Diversified Company x86 servers 65% 68% 35%

AVERAGE FOR ALL INSTALLATIONS 89% 85% 44%

Figure 2: Cost Reductions Through Use of PureFlex Systems

Facilities, in this presentation, include data center occupancy as well as maintenance and other operating costs for cooling, power distribution and other support equipment.

Generally, the highest gains are realized when organizations move from complex, diverse environments characterized by comparatively low levels of capacity utilization, and limited use of virtualization and automation. Even in installations employing more efficient practices, however, significant cost reductions are achieved.

Detailed installation profiles, along with further information on methodology and assumptions employed, may be found in the Detailed Data section of this report.

Mechanisms Multiple mechanisms contribute to cycle time and cost savings. These include the effects of consolidation and standardization, which typically reduce costs as well as improving manageability, availability and other operational variables.


PureFlex System-specific mechanisms include the following:

• New technology. PureFlex Systems employ latest-generation IBM POWER7 and Intel Xeon processor E5s, along with 600 gigabyte (GB) Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) and solid state drives (SSDs) versus the 146 GB or, in one case, 73 GB Fibre Channel (FC) drives in before calculations. Systems also incorporate state-of-the-art space, cooling and energy efficiency features.

• Higher virtual machine densities. Many organizations do not exploit the full potential of hypervisors. To realize this, virtualization must be coupled with highly effective management mechanisms to ensure that resources are efficiently used without risks that workloads will exceed available capacity. The capabilities of IBM Flex System Manager contribute materially to operational efficiencies.

• Storwize V7000 capabilities. Virtualization and thin provisioning, along with use of storage tiering (IBM Easy Tier) and space-efficient snapshot copying (IBM FlashCopy SE) contribute to higher capacity utilization and lower costs for PureFlex Systems storage. Software enabling all of these is included in the base StorwizeV7000 solution.

• Higher administrator productivity. Flex System Manager offers a single management console for physical and virtual Power and Intel processor-based compute nodes, storage and network resources. Streamlined task structures, high levels of automation and a user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) offering interactive hardware maps further boost administrator productivity.

In practice, few organizations would reduce overall numbers of personnel. Savings result from the ability to minimize the amount of time spent on repetitive, low value-added tasks. Personnel are typically reassigned to more substantive roles.

A further point should be noted. Although individual capabilities provide value, “the whole is more than the sum of the parts.” Organizations that deploy more efficient technology and implement best practices often do not address all the variables that affect operational performance and cost structures. PureFlex Systems represent an opportunity to so.

Differentiators PureFlex Systems are the latest of what may be characterized as “converged infrastructure solutions,” which package server, storage and network components with combined management suites. Hewlett-Packard initially popularized the concept. The company’s CloudSystem Matrix offerings, however, have not achieved much traction to date in the SAP world.

The VCE consortium has more aggressively targeted the SAP marketplace. The consortium’s Vblock offerings include EMC VMAX and VNX disk arrays, Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) blade servers and switches, and VMware software. EMC Ionix Universal Interface Manager (UIM) provides a common management solution.

There are, however, significant differences between Vblock and PureFlex Systems. These include:

• Breadth of support. While Vblock supports only x86 servers and VMware, PureFlex Systems also allow use of Power Systems with the IBM AIX and IBM i operating systems, SUSE and Red Hat versions of Linux on Power (LoP), and PowerVM virtualization. Intel processor-based hypervisors supported include VMware, Microsoft Hyper-V and Kernel Virtual Machine (KVM).

The ability to incorporate Power Systems should be highlighted. The declining competitiveness of HP’s Integrity platform and of Oracle Sun SPARC-based servers have left IBM Power Systems and AIX as the only real enterprise-class UNIX server option. Many organizations are reluctant to entrust large-scale, availability-sensitive systems to x86 platforms.


Power Systems also offer strengths in availability, security and other areas that exceed Windows and x86 Linux equivalents by wide margins. They deliver higher per core SAPS capacity, and PowerVM technologies are significantly more advanced.

POWER7 processor-based compute nodes with up to 32 cores may be employed, enabling PureFlex Systems to function as “scale-up” as well as “scale-out” platforms for UNIX server consolidation. As several of the examples presented in this report illustrate, even relatively large conventional UNIX servers may be replaced in this manner.

The storage and networking capabilities of PowerFlex Systems are also more inclusive. Storwize V7000 systems can virtualize IBM as well as non-IBM external storage (Vblock supports only EMC), while IBM and third-party network switches may be employed (Vblock supports only Cisco Nexus and MDS). PureFlex Systems will fit more easily into many existing customer environments than Vblock.

• System integration. Although marketed as a package, Vblock solutions are still essentially a combination of Cisco UCS blades and VMware with EMC disk arrays.

Many of the claims made for Vblock solutions are in practice due to such factors as replacement of old technology with new Cisco and EMC platforms offering better price/performance, more aggressive use of VMware, and gains realized by more effective operational practices.

In contrast, PureFlex Systems employ a new hardware design that includes internal storage systems and incorporates latest-generation system packaging, power, cooling, and reliability, availability and serviceability (RAS) technologies. It builds upon IBM’s considerable engineering strengths in these areas.

The level of integration offered by Flex System Manager is also greater. While EMC’s UIM acts as an overlay to existing EMC, Cisco and VMware management enablers, Flex System Manager employs a single toolset to manage physical as well as virtual resources.

Plug-in modules include VMControl for deployment and management of virtual operating system images, and Storage Control and Network Control for management of storage and network administration tasks.

Early experiences with PureFlex Systems also suggest that Flex System Manager offers higher levels of functional integration (fewer steps are required to perform tasks) than UIM. Integration of server and storage administration functions is also more advanced. Automation technologies are clearly more sophisticated than Vblock equivalents, and IBM automated storage tiering software is – by wide margins – simpler to use than that of EMC.

Vblock limitations in these areas may account for the fact that operational cost savings do not seem to be much in evidence among its users. One of the consortium’s most-publicized case studies for SAP deployment (Levi Strauss), for example, cites operational cost savings of only “three to four percent.”

Broader differences should also be noted. EMC’s leading role in the VCE consortium means that Vblock functionality tends to be storage-centric. The IBM approach is more evenly balanced between servers, storage and networks.

In addition, while EMC, VMware and Cisco Systems have coordinated support for Vblock systems, customers are still dealing with three different support organizations. In IBM’s case, they are dealing with one. The company’s Foundation Advantage program offers single-level support for all PureFlex Systems components, and a wide range of additional services are available.


SAP VIEW

Challenges

Overview

By any standard, SAP is a complex system. According to the company, the core modules of Business Suite 7 contain more than 285 million lines of code. Additional components and customizations mean that, even in small installations, it may be necessary to support 500 million to a billion lines of code for production environments alone.

Users now deploy solutions that address heterogeneous transactional processes as well as in planning, analysis, reporting and decision-making; interaction with customers, partners and employees through the Internet and intranets; governance, risk management and compliance (GRC); data and process management; and a wide range of industry-specific activities.

Challenges are multiplied by the fact that multiple SAP systems (e.g., ERP, CRM, BI) may be deployed, and that for every production instance, there are typically three to five instances for test, development, quality assurance, training, sandbox and other non-production functions. Organizations with exceptionally large and/or complex SAP environments may have more.

In such environments, processes such as system cloning and copying for projects and QA testing, along with everyday operational tasks, have become progressively more exacting. Numbers of IT staff may increase, or fewer skilled personnel may be available to meet new business demands.

For many users, there is the risk that major migrations and upgrades, as well as deployment of new SAP applications, may become lengthier, more time-consuming exercises. The ability to conduct application innovation projects, which often require ad hoc creation of numerous short-lived development systems, may be impaired.

Business performance may be affected by delays in delivering critical functionality, and by protracted downtime during transitions. Longer project cycles also translate into higher costs.

Stresses extend to underlying system infrastructures. Organizations must deal with larger, more complex and more volatile workloads. The demands of greater business agility mean that infrastructure changes must occur more rapidly, in a more flexible manner than in the past.

At the same time, data volumes routinely expand by 30 to 60 percent per year, causing growth in storage capacity, and generating ripple effects across large segments of IT infrastructures. More data must be copied, distributed, backed up and – in the event of a serious outage – recovered.

SAP’s response to these challenges has been the NetWeaver LVM solution. PureFlex Systems compute and integrated storage nodes allow them to be addressed at the infrastructure level.

Clouds and Virtualization

Among SAP users, interest has grown in two potential, closely related ways of meeting these challenges – cloud computing and virtualization.

The appeal of cloud computing has been driven by the same potentials that are recognized across the IT world as whole: greater speed and flexibility of solution delivery; and reduced costs through improved staff productivity, increased infrastructure efficiency and adoption of “payment for service” models.


Potential reductions in cycle times and operational complexity have had particular resonance. Cloud initiatives in SAP environments tend initially to focus on these areas.

Virtualization has been widely seen as addressing multiple challenges. Despite more than a decade of consolidation initiatives, numbers of servers have continued to expand in many organizations. Low levels of capacity utilization, high administration overhead, excessive downtime and other effects remain common for x86 server farms.

VMware has, unsurprisingly, been widely adopted as a means of consolidating servers, increasing speed and flexibility of provisioning, reducing planned downtime through use of VMotion, and achieving other benefits. There has also been a trend toward Linux server virtualization using VMware, Xen and, more recently, KVM hypervisors.

The bottom-line results of virtualization initiatives, however, have often been disappointing. Virtualization of x86 servers has often been a bottom-up process. Integration into broader landscapes and process structures as well as the creation of management backbones have typically been addressed after the fact.

The challenges of creating, distributing and managing virtual images have often increased rather than decreased complexities. Use of automation tools has been less widespread than should have been the case. New approaches are needed that more effectively integrate and manage virtualized resources in SAP environments.

The general industry conclusion has been that the challenges of cloud computing and virtualization management should be met with common solution sets. These are now beginning to reach the marketplace, not least from SAP itself.

Solutions

SAP NetWeaver Landscape Virtualization Management

The centerpiece of SAP’s response to the challenges and opportunities of cloud computing has been LVM. Beta testing of this solution began in June 2011, and limited deployment began in November as part of a ramp up period scheduled to last until May 2012.

Although LVM was formally announced by SAP only in 2011, it builds upon earlier SAP solutions developed for customers through the SAP Value Prototyping organization. LVM also incorporates SAP Virtual Appliance Factory solutions and, according to the company, draws upon SAP experience in more than 1,700 cloud projects for over 1,000 customers.

The objective of LVM is to provide simple, automated management of SAP services by full or partial SAP instances. The scope of LVM extends across all layers of SAP environments, including SAP applications as well as the physical and virtual IT resources that support these.

LVM employs the same general structure as SAP Adaptive Computing Controller (ACC) and defines overall frameworks for visualization and monitoring, operational and capacity management automation, and instance provisioning and relocation. LVM Enterprise extends to post-system copy/refresh processes, which typically run from dozens to hundreds of additional tasks.

Key areas of capability as implemented in LVM 1.0 are as shown in figure 3.


Figure 3: Key Capability Areas for SAP NetWeaver Landscape Virtualiztion Management 1.0

LVM complements SAP Solution Manager, enabling end-to-end monitoring of and reporting on key performance indicators (KPIs) for business as well as IT processes.

Early tests with LVM have shown promising improvements in landscape administration flexibility, as well as in cost savings. For example, IBM has reported that beta test customers with whom the company has worked have reduced entire system cloning and copying processes to less than five minutes and approximately 30 minutes (compared to several hours). Organizations have also been able to install and remove application servers in less than three minutes.

According to SAP, future LVM capabilities will include higher levels of automation, more sophisticated capacity planning and management tools, and integration of virtual appliances (preconfigured and tested SAP application templates with optimized virtual hardware settings). User self-service, metering and billing interfaces to financial systems, and single logical views of SAP landscapes mapped to underlying infrastructures will be delivered in future releases.

More detailed discussion of LVM capabilities would not be appropriate here. Many SAP users are already evaluating this solution and most, if not all, can be expected to do so in the future.

Attention, however, should be drawn to a key principle – the extent to which LVM objectives of multi-layer transparency are realized will depend to no small degree on the effectiveness with which third-party infrastructure resources are integrated. The speed at which this will occur will also be heavily dependent on investments by infrastructure vendors.

In the case of PureFlex Systems, substantial investments have already been made by IBM. The capabilities of Flex System Manager are closely synergistic with the application-level functionality provided by LVM. These synergies are reinforced by the interfaces described below.

SAP SYSTEMS

OPERATIONAL AUTOMATION Start/stop/relocate systems Mass operations & scheduling

END-‐TO-‐END SYSTEM CLONING/COPYING/REFRESHING

Automated creation of task & training systems Automated provisioning of new development

& QA systems Automation of post-‐copy/refresh tasks

VISUALIZATION & MONITORING (All system & infrastructure layers) Dashboards, graphical landscape map,

detailed monitoring, reporting

AUTOMATED CAPACITY MANAGEMENT Automated load balancing in response to

workload changes

THIRD-‐PARTY INFRASTRUCTURE Servers, storage, networks

Operating systems, virtualization software tools


PureFlex Systems Interfaces

Standardized interfaces have been put in place by SAP and IBM for PureFlex Systems in general, and Flex System Manager in particular, and interoperability has been verified and tested by both companies.

Key interfaces for “out of the box” integration with SAP LVM are illustrated in figure 4. These focus initially on Power Systems and selected IBM disk arrays.

Figure 4: Initial PureFlex Systems Interfaces to SAP Landscape Virtualiztion Management

IBM implementation has occurred at multiple levels. Extensive custom code has been developed by the company in cooperation with SAP to implement SAPHostControl for Flex System Manager. SAPHostControl is the principal LVM interface to infrastructure resources. SAP Host Agent support for AIX and Linux on Power has also been put in place.

For system copying and cloning, LVM interfaces to IBM Tivoli FlashCopy Manager, an industry-leading, space-efficient snapshot copying tool that is described later in this report.

LVM-compliant cloning and copying is supported to Storwize V7000 as well as IBM XIV disk arrays. The IBM SAN Volume Controller (SVC) cross-platform storage virtualization solution also enables cloning and copying to other IBM and non-IBM storage systems.

The contents of Power Systems LPARs – including operating systems, SAP software and other components – may be copied directly to supported platforms using VMControl. Intel processor-based compute nodes, and the operating systems and hypervisors on these may also be integrated with LVM through Flex System Manager.

It should be emphasized that these are initial capabilities. Further expansion of interoperability between PureFlex Systems and LVM can be expected.

OS copy

SAP SOLUTION MANAGER

SAP LANDSCAPE VIRTUALIZATION MANAGER (LVM)

XIV, Storwize V7000 SAN Volume Controller

SAP Host Agent AIX, Linux on Power

SAPHostControl

DB library OS library

Storage library Space-‐efficient copying & cloning

Tivoli Storage FlashCopy Manager

Flex System Manager

VMControl

IBM custom code


TECHNOLOGY VIEW

PureFlex Systems Although PureFlex Systems contain many new features, they draw upon the technology strengths of platforms that are established industry leaders in their own right. These include IBM Power Systems and Storwize V7000 disk arrays, which are incorporated in current offerings.

It can also be expected that new Intel processor-based compute nodes implementing the latest eX5 generation of IBM X-Architecture will be introduced during 2012.

X-Architecture is a customized Xeon-based design, currently in its fifth generation, which is optimized for high levels of system-wide performance and scalability. The design, based in part upon IBM mainframe architecture, enables scaling in a manner that maximizes the performance of memory and I/O components as well as processors.

eX5-based systems are leaders in the high-end x86 server market. The ability to support large memory sizes – up to 6 terabytes (TB) on current eX5 models – has proved popular for densely virtualized and database-intensive environments.

Power Compute Nodes

Overview

IBM Power Systems and their antecedents have been widely deployed to support SAP systems since the early 1990s.

For several years, Power Systems have been the only UNIX server platform to expand its market position. As of yearend 2011, Power Systems had experienced 15 consecutive quarters of growth in UNIX server market share, and accounted for more than 50 percent of this market.

IBM has maintained a pace of rapid technological advance. Since the mid-2000s, Power Systems have delivered higher per core performance than any competitive platform in SAP SD and other recent industry benchmarks.

Power Systems demand has been reinforced by capabilities in virtualization, performance optimization and other areas that are described below. The market momentum of this platform has been aided by weakening UNIX server competition.

For example, the HP Integrity platform has been undercut by declining performance competitiveness, as well as by decisions by Microsoft, Red Hat and – more seriously – Oracle to cease new development for Itanium architecture. Older Sun SPARC-based servers have also failed to maintain competitiveness. Among SAP users, few high-end Sun servers remain in place, and replacement of smaller Sun servers has become pervasive.

Oracle has promoted its Exadata Database Machine for SAP deployments. Although this platform is certified by SAP, it has rarely been adopted. The Exadata Database Machine is not well optimized for most SAP workloads, and has not matched Power Systems performance for comparably sized configurations. It is unlikely that Oracle SPARC SuperCluster T4-4 systems will fare better, for the same reasons.

Power Systems support IBM AIX and IBM i operating systems, along with Power versions of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). Organizations often employ AIX for SAP databases, and Linux for application serving.


Distinctive Technologies

Distinctive Power Systems technologies include the following:

• Logical partitions (LPARs) and micro-partitions. These are commonly employed for both production and non-production applications, and support some of the largest, most business-critical SAP systems in existence. LPARs and micro-partitions are firmware- and software-based respectively.

LPARs may be configured in increments as small as 1/10th of a core, and may be Static (i.e., system resources are dedicated to partitions) or Dynamic (i.e., resources may be shared by partitions according to predefined application priorities). Micro-partitions may be configured in initial increments of 1/10th of a core and subsequent increments as small as 1/100th of a core.

In contrast, x86 virtualization tools employ a single software-based partitioning technology. LPARs and micro-partitioning capacities are closely integrated with Power Systems resource sharing and workload management mechanisms, which are among the most sophisticated of any platform available today.

• Workload partitions (WPARs). These allow users to create multiple software-based partitions within a single AIX instance. WPARs are typically employed for development, test, quality assurance and other non-production instances; for light-duty production applications; and to upgrade or migrate applications without interrupting service. There are no size limits.

• Intelligent multithreading. POWER7 processor-based systems support up to four simultaneous threads, which can boost performance for certain SAP workloads. For example, IBM has reported test results showing that use of four threads can boost performance for Advanced Business Application Programming (ABAP) software stacks by 19 percent compared to the use of two.

Workloads can be executed using one, two or four threads per core. The system can automatically determine which to use for optimum performance, or system administrators may select the number of threads employed. In automatic mode, continuous optimization of performance for system-wide as well as partition workloads is provided.

• Intelligent cache. The POWER7 cache structure is supported by performance optimization functions. The system may be set to automatically determine appropriate levels of cache for specific workloads, and to modify these as workload mixes change.

• Active Memory Expansion. This enables system-managed compression and decompression of data in memory. IBM tests for SAP workloads indicate that de facto memory size may be increased by 75 percent with less than one percent processor overhead, and by 111 percent with around 15 percent processor overhead.

Compressed data consumes fewer processor cycles, and may be moved more rapidly. Performance improvements of up to 65 percent may be realized for SAP ERP workloads with the same physical memory size. Hardware costs may be materially reduced

• Virtual I/O Server (VIOS). VIOS allows operating system instances running in multiple LPARs to share a common pool of LAN adapters as well as FC, SCSI and RAID devices; i.e., it is not necessary to dedicate adapters to individual partitions.

These features are closely integrated, enabling Power Systems to vary a wide range of configuration parameters. These include numbers of threads; use of dedicated or shared processors; cache size, main memory and I/O; multiple forms of partitioning; and shared memory and processor pools.


Figure 5 illustrates this picture.

Figure 5: Power Systems Technology Integration

In this presentation, Virtual I/O Servers are duplexed to provide redundancy in the event of a component failure. This is common practice among Power users supporting business-critical systems.

Availability

There is no serious dispute that Power Systems deliver significantly higher availability than any competitive platform. Industry surveys have consistently reported that Power Systems experience fewer, shorter outages than Windows, x86 Linux, HP-UX or Solaris servers. This is the case for planned and unplanned outages, as well as for clustered and standalone configurations.

AIX 7 Intelligent Threads v Intelligent Cache

Shared Memory & Processor Pools v Partition Capacity Sharing Active Memory Expansion

HYPERVISOR

LPAR Micro-‐partitions

Logical processors (thread-‐based)

Shared Virtual Processor Pool

Dedicated LPAR

Dedicated LPAR

LPAR WPARs

LPAR Micro-‐partitions

Logical processors (thread-‐based)

Shared Virtual Processor Pool

Virtual LAN

VIRTUAL I/O SERVER

VIRTUAL I/O SERVER


Power Systems are equipped with more than 200 major reliability, availability and serviceability (RAS) features, which are implemented across all hardware components and subsystems. AIX and PowerVM also incorporate industry-leading technologies that minimize risks of unplanned outages, facilitate recovery from hardware or software failure and reduce the frequency and duration of planned outages.

POWER7 processor-based systems and AIX benefit from a number of technology transfers from IBM mainframe systems, which enjoy the highest levels of availability of any major platform. According to IBM, the availability features of POWER7-based systems were developed jointly by the company’s Power and System z (mainframe) design teams.

Security

Power Systems may deliver significant benefits in this area. Users have found that AIX and PowerVM are a less vulnerable to hacking and malware penetration than x86 operating systems and hypervisors.

Industry statistics confirm this picture. During 2011, for example, the National Vulnerability Database maintained by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported the numbers of medium and high severity vulnerabilities shown in figure 6 for major operating systems and hypervisors.

Figure 6: Reported Medium and High Severity Vulnerabilities During 2011

Lower AIX and PowerVM vulnerability histories reflect, to some extent, the fact that these are less targeted. However, AIX and PowerVM security mechanisms are also significantly more advanced than for the latter.

These strengths may reduce not only business risk exposure, but also the costs of maintaining effective security. Additional tools may be required, and more time is typically spent on security administration tasks in x86 environments.

In security as in other areas, IT organizations facing budget pressures are increasingly required to “do more with less.” Use of Power Systems may significantly improve the odds that they will succeed.

PowerVM

Xen & KVM

VMware

AIX

Windows Server

Linux

0

13

39

10

128

197

Source: Nadonal Insdtute of Standards & Technology Nadonal Vulnerability Database


Intel Processor-based Compute Nodes Intel processor-based compute nodes are built around latest-generation Intel E5 eight-core technology, offering up to 80 percent higher performance than Intel Xeon processor 5600 series equivalents, second-generation Turbo Boost Technology and other advanced features. Up to 384 GB or 768 GB RAM may be configured using 16 GB or 32 GB dual in-line memory module (DIMMs) respectively.

Dual- and four-socket nodes also implement dual embedded VMware ESXi hypervisors with a redundant boot option for high availability. Microsoft Hyper-V, KVM and Xen are also supported.

Resiliency features include standard capabilities such as hot-swappable memory cards, disk drives, I/O adapters, power supplies and fans. There are also a number of distinctive IBM-developed features, summarized in figure 7, that are generally regarded as industry leading.

FEATURE DESCRIPTION

Chipkill Memory Creates duplicate checksum copies of data within memory subsystem, disables inoperative memory chips in the event of a failure (server remains online) & reinstates data copy. Aids in correcting single-‐ & multiple-‐bit errors.

Memory mirroring Provides RAID 1-‐equivalent function that writes data to multiple memory cards & enables it to be rebuilt in the event of a failure. Allows data to be rebuilt on hot-‐swapped cards.

Memory sparing Enables contents of a memory chip to be copied to an alternate in the event of a failure. The failed chip is taken offline, & the alternate is activated.

Predictive Failure Analysis

Provides up to 48 hours advance warning of failures. Enabled components include processors, memory cards, disk drives, I/O slots, power supplies, fans & voltage regulator modules.

Light-‐Path Diagnostics Identifies component failures & illuminates LEDs on server panel indicating those require service. Components are the same as for Predictive Failure Analysis.

Integrated Management Module (IMM)

Provides remote monitoring, troubleshooting & power control. Enables Predictive Failure Analysis & Light-‐Path Diagnostics; sends alerts & status & optionally redirects console functions to a remote PC.

Figure 7: Intel Processor-based Compute Servers – Key Reliability, Availability and Serviceability Features

Intel processor-based as well as Power Systems compute nodes offer distinctive advanced energy management features. Both support IBM Active Energy Manager software. Intel processor-based compute nodes also offer options for use of low energy consumption Intel processors, and both platforms implement IBM technologies such as Calibrated Vectored Cooling (which significantly reduces power consumption by fans) and energy-efficient power supplies.

Storwize V7000

Overview

Storwize V7000 is IBM’s principal midrange disk array. Since its introduction in October 2010, it has enjoyed strong market momentum. As of March 2012,Base software includes IBM Easy Tier, the IBM FlashCopy SE snapshot tool, system management tools and Remote Mirroring for synchronous as well as asynchronous replication.

A no-charge offering, IBM Active Cloud Engine allows Easy Tier to be employed to implement Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) strategies; i.e., data is moved to lower-cost media as it ages and is less frequently accessed. Active Cloud Engine also enables policy-driven organization, searching, retrieval and distribution of files across systems.


Storwize V7000 systems compete with EMC VNX midrange and VMAX high-end disk arrays supported as part of Vblock packages. Storwize V7000 and VNX systems support block as well as file storage. VMAX systems are block-only.

A key technical difference is that Storwize V7000 systems can extend virtualization to a wide range of IBM as well as non-IBM storage systems. This is a capability of SVC, which commonly supports heterogeneous multivendor storage environments.

VNX systems require use of separately charged software tools to provide capabilities included in the base Storwize V7000 solution. These include EMC RecoverPoint for remote disaster recovery replication; PowerPath multipathing software, which is required for server access; and EMC Fully Automated Software Tiering, which is discussed below. These may significantly increase overall costs compared to equivalent Storwize V7000 configurations.

If VMAX systems are employed, costs will escalate further. VMAX is EMC’s flagship high-end disk array. Hardware, software and maintenance costs are – by wide margins – higher than for either VNX or PureFlex Systems. There may be some Vblock applications where use of these would be appropriate. But the general industry experience has been that latest-generation midrange arrays meet most requirements.

Automated Tiering Tiering – meaning the ability to shift data between multiple tiers of high-performance and slower, higher-capacity drives to optimize performance and reduce media costs – has increasingly become the norm among users of high-end as well as midrange disk arrays.

Storwize V7000 systems implement IBM Easy Tier technology, while EMC systems employ the company’s Fully Automated Software Tiering (FAST). Both enable use of three-tier configurations of conventional and solid state drives for overall performance optimization, and provide workload balancing across tiers in response to changes in “hot spot” patterns or configurations.

There are, however, major differences between the IBM and EMC approaches. In principle, FAST enables operating parameters to be set more frequently, and with higher granularity than Easy Tier. It is also designed to run continuously, with collection of performance statistics, analysis and data movement processes occurring on a 24/7 basis.

In practice, however, users have found it difficult to exploit FAST capabilities. Continuous operations tend to generate system overhead that may affect production performance and impair service levels. Equally, few organizations seem prepared to invest the administrator time and effort that would be necessary to migrate data across tiers multiple times per day, on an application-by-application basis.

In comparison, Easy Tier is designed to conduct these processes periodically, as scheduled by administrators. Data is migrated in small increments every five minutes, reducing production impacts.

In contrast to FAST, Easy Tier was designed to minimize complexity – this was, according to IBM, overwhelmingly requested by customers. Administrative processes are simpler, and automation is more advanced. Overall administrator workloads thus tend to be less than for FAST environments; i.e., fewer FTEs are required.


DETAILED DATA

Installations and Configurations Cost comparisons are based on before and after comparisons of servers, disk arrays and FTE administrators in the six installations summarized in figure 8.

IT SERVICES COMPANY

SAP Applications: Wide range

BEFORE AFTER (PureFlex Systems) UNIX Servers 2 x IBM 560Q 8/16 x POWER5+ 1.8 GHz 2 x HP rx8620 12/24 x It2 1.6 GHz 1 x HP rx6600 4/8 x It2 1.6 GHz 5 x HP rx4640 4/8 x It2 1.6 GHz 22 x Sun T, V & X series AIX/LPARs, HP-‐UX/nPars, Solaris Oracle, DB2 UNIX cores: 128 database + 140 application serving

x86 Servers 24 x 4-‐socket 249 x 2-‐socket Windows, Linux, VMware, Hyper-‐V, Xen Oracle, SQL Server Intel cores: 388 database + 1,454 application serving

Storage 2 x EMC Clariion CX3-‐80 53 TB each 1 x EMC Clariion CX3-‐60 26 TB 2 x Sun 6540 20 TB each 2 x HP EVA 6100 16 TB each 6 x HP MSA 1000 2.5 TB each 9 x HP MSA 1000 5 TB each Total: 354 TB

FTEs UNIX sysadmin: 1.45 x86 sysadmin 6.15 Network admin: 0.6 VMware admin: 1.6 Storage admin: 0.9 SAN admin: 0.25 Total: 10.95

Chassis 1 4/32 x Power 11 x 2/16 x E5 2600 12 nodes

Chassis 2 4/32 x Power 13 x 2/16 x E5 2600 14 nodes

Power cores: 40 database + 24 application serving Intel cores: 112 database + 272 application serving

AIX, Linux on Power, PowerVM Windows, Linux, VMware, Hyper-‐V, Xen Oracle, DB2, SQL Server

External Storwize V7000s 2 x 72 TB + 1 x 63 TB = 207 TB

FTEs PureFlex Systems admin: 4.65

Figure 8: Installations Summary


MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1

SAP Applications: ERP, BW, HCM, SCM, SM, SRM

BEFORE AFTER (PureFlex Systems) UNIX Servers 2 x HP Superdome 64/64 x It2 1.6 GHz each 1 x HP Superdome 32/32 x It2 1.6 GHz 8 x HP rx8620 16/16 x It2 1.6 GHz each 1 x HP rx7620 8/8 x It2 1.6 GHz 6 x HP rx4640 4/4 x It2 1.6 GHz each HP-‐UX, nPars, Oracle UNIX cores: 140 database + 180 application serving

Storage 2 x EMC DMX-‐4 65 TB & 63 TB = 128 TB

FTEs UNIX sysadmin 2.25 Storage admin 0.65 Total: 2.9

Chassis 1 2/16 x Power, 3 x 2/16 E5 2600 4 nodes

Chassis 2 2/16 x Power, 4 x 2/16 E5 2600 5 nodes

AIX + PowerVM + Oracle, Linux + KVM Power cores: 32 database serving Intel cores: 112 application serving

External Storwize V7000s 2 x 43 TB = 86 TB


DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

SAP Applications: ERP, BW, PI, PLM, Portal, SM, SRM

BEFORE AFTER (PureFlex Systems) UNIX Servers 2 x 570 2/8 x POWER5+ 1.9 GHz 1 x 550Q 4/8 x POWER5+ 1.65 GHz 9 x 550 2/4 x POWER5+ 1.65 GHz AIX, LPARs, DB2 UNIX cores: 20 database + 40 application serving

Storage 2 x IBM DS8100 x 33 TB = 66 TB

FTEs UNIX sysadmin: 1.25 Storage admin: 0.4 Total: 1.65

Chassis 1 2/16 x Power, 2/12 x Power 2 x internal V7000 = 36 TB 4 nodes

Chassis 2 2/16 x Power, 2/12 x Power 2 x internal Storwize V7000 = 36 TB 4 nodes

Power cores: 8 database + 48 application serving AIX, Linux on Power, PowerVM, DB2


RETAIL COMPANY

SAP Applications: ERP, BW, CRM, POS-‐DM, Portal, PI, SCM

BEFORE AFTER (PureFlex Systems) Power/i Servers I570 2/16 x POWER6 4.2 GHz I550 2/8 x POWER6 3.5 GHz IBM i, LPARs

x86 Servers 1 x 4-‐socket, 16 x 2-‐socket

Intel cores: 36 database + 60 application serving Windows, VMware, SQL Server

Storage 2 x IBM DS4800 x 21 TB = 42 TB

FTEs IBM i sysadmin 0.25 x86 sysadmin 0.6 Storage admin 0.35 Total: 1.2

Chassis 1 2/16 x Power, 3 x 2/16 E5 2600 1 x internal Storwize V7000 = 21 TB 5 nodes

Chassis 2 2/16 x Power, 3 x 2/16 E5 2600 1 x internal V7000 = 21 TB 5 nodes

Power cores: 32 IBM i Intel cores: 16 database + 64 application serving IBM i + PowerVM; Windows, VMware, SQL Server FTEs PureFlex Systems admin: .85

Figure 8 (continued): Installations Summary


MANUFACTURING COMPANY 2

SAP Applications: ERP, BI, CRM, ECM, PLM, Portal, SCM, SM, SRM, xApp

BEFORE AFTER (PureFlex Systems) x86 Servers 4 x 4-‐socket, 36 x 2-‐socket 72 database + 86 application serving cores Windows, VMware, SQL Server

Storage 2 x HP EVA 8100 x 14 TB = 28 TB

FTEs x86 sysadmin 1.25 Storage admin 0.35 Total 1.6

Chassis 1 4 x 2/16 x E5 2600 5 nodes

Chassis 2 4 x 2/16 x E5 2600 1 x internal Storwize V7000 = 15 TB 5 nodes

54 database + 74 application serving cores Windows, VMware, SQL Server


DIVERSIFIED COMPANY

SAP Applications: ERP, BI, PI, Portal, SCM, SM

BEFORE AFTER (PureFlex Systems) x86 Servers 2 x 4-‐socket, 17 x 2-‐socket 36 database + 80 application serving cores Windows, VMware, SQL Server

Storage 2 x Clariion CX4-‐120 x 9 TB = 18 TB

FTEs x86 sysadmin 0.75 Storage admin 0.25 Total 1.0



16 database + 32 application serving cores Windows, VMware, SQL Server


Figure 8 (continued): Installations Summary

In all calculations, UNIX as well as x86 servers are employed for SAP database and application serving, and include production and non-production systems. Servers employed for file/print serving and other peripheral functions are not included.

In before calculations, x86 servers were installed between yearend 2005 and yearend 2010, and were equipped with then-current Intel 5000 series (dual-socket) and 7000 series (four-socket) processors. Operating systems and hypervisors employed were as shown in figure 8.

Most UNIX servers and disk arrays in before calculations date from the same period. In practice, some organizations upon which calculations are based also employed newer servers and disk systems. However, it is assumed that aging platforms would be targeted first for replacement.

With one exception, before disk arrays were configured as RAID 5 systems employing 146 GB FC or Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) drives. The exception was manufacturing company 1, where EMC DMX-4 arrays were configured with 73 GB FC drives in a RAID 0 (i.e., fully mirrored) configuration. RAID 0 was recommended by EMC for this platform at the time.

Externally attached as well as internal Storwize systems were equipped with 600 GB, 450 GB or 300 GB SAS drives, and 200 GB or 400 GB SSDs in tiered configurations using IBM Easy Tier. Terabyte capacities shown for Storwize V7000 systems allow for use of virtualization.


Both before and after calculations include servers and arrays duplexed for disaster recovery purposes. For this reason, two chassis are employed for after calculations. This is the case even in installations where a single chassis would have been sufficient to hold all components.

Cost calculations are for operating costs only, and do not include transition and migration costs that would be incurred in replacing existing servers and disk arrays with PureFlex Systems.

Personnel Costs Personnel costs are for numbers of FTEs shown in figure 8, and were calculated based on annual salaries of $87,851 for IBM i administrators; $85,294 for dedicated VMware administrators; $83,564 for UNIX system administrators; $80,014 for SAN administrators; $78,433 for storage administrators; $75,908 for Windows and x86 Linux administrators; and $67,410 for network administrators.

Salaries were increased by 56.4 percent to allow for benefits, bonuses and related items, and totaled for a three-year period. All values were based on prevailing U.S. levels at the time of writing.

An annual average salary of $90,000 was assumed for PureFlex System administrators, again multiplied by 56.4 percent and totaled for a three-year period.

Facilities and Energy Costs

Facilities costs are for servers, disk arrays and related networking equipment in before and PureFlex Systems in after calculations.

Facilities costs include data center occupancy and maintenance, depreciation and operational costs for support equipment including cooling systems, uninterruptible power supplies (UPS), power distribution systems (PDS), and facilities management and physical security systems.

Occupancy costs were calculated based on numbers of Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) units, assuming use of standard 42U racks, with allowance for rack space, service clearances, aisles and other inactive areas. A conservative value of cost per square foot per month for existing facilities was then applied to calculate three-year costs. Costs do not include new construction.

Energy costs are for the same equipment as in facilities calculations, including support equipment as defined above. Values for PureFlex Systems were estimated.

Energy costs were calculated based on specific utilization levels, including allowance for inactive periods, for each installation over a three-year period. A conservative assumption for average price per kilowatt/hour was employed to determine overall costs.

All values for facilities and energy cost calculations are for the United States.

WAL12354-USEN-01

ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY GROUP ITG sharpens your awareness of what’s happening and your competitive edge

. . . this could affect your future growth and profit prospects

International Technology Group (ITG), established in 1983, is an independent research and management consulting firm specializing in information technology (IT) investment strategy, cost/benefit metrics, infrastructure studies, deployment tactics, business alignment and financial analysis.

ITG was an early innovator and pioneer in developing total cost of ownership (TCO) and return on investment (ROI) processes and methodologies. In 2004, the firm received a Decade of Education Award from the Information Technology Financial Management Association (ITFMA), the leading professional association dedicated to education and advancement of financial management practices in end-user IT organizations.

The firm has undertaken more than 120 major consulting projects, released more than 250 management reports and white papers and more than 1,800 briefings and presentations to individual clients, user groups, industry conferences and seminars throughout the world.

Client services are designed to provide factual data and reliable documentation to assist in the decision-making process. Information provided establishes the basis for developing tactical and strategic plans. Important developments are analyzed and practical guidance is offered on the most effective ways to respond to changes that may impact complex IT deployment agendas.

A broad range of services is offered, furnishing clients with the information necessary to complement their internal capabilities and resources. Customized client programs involve various combinations of the following deliverables:

Status Reports In-depth studies of important issues

Management Briefs Detailed analysis of significant developments

Management Briefings Periodic interactive meetings with management

Executive Presentations Scheduled strategic presentations for decision-makers

Email Communications Timely replies to informational requests

Telephone Consultation Immediate response to informational needs

Clients include a cross section of IT end users in the private and public sectors representing multinational corporations, industrial companies, financial institutions, service organizations, educational institutions, federal and state government agencies as well as IT system suppliers, software vendors and service firms. Federal government clients have included agencies within the Department of Defense (e.g., DISA), Department of Transportation (e.g., FAA) and Department of Treasury (e.g., US Mint).

International Technology Group 609 Pacific Avenue, Suite 102 Santa Cruz, California 95060-4406 Telephone: + 831-427-9260 Email: [email protected] Website: ITGforInfo.com

Value Proposition for IBM PureFlex System · PDF fileApril2012 MANAGEMENT&BRIEF& Value...

Documents

Transcript of Value Proposition for IBM PureFlex System · PDF fileApril2012 MANAGEMENT&BRIEF& Value...