3 ms·

We could have chosen to build out new data centers, build our own redundancy and failover, data synchronization systems, etc. Or, we could opt to write a check

We could have chosen to build out new data centers, build our own redundancy and failover, data synchronization systems, etc. Or, we could opt to write a check to someone else to do that instead. If you are building almost any type of company today, it makes no sense to build your own datacenter. We're going to look back in 10-20 years and laugh that every company felt the need to build datacenters. While doing some research relating to sustainability and cloud computing, I found some statistics showing that federal agencies saved between 25-50% by moving to "cloud" solutions. http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0407_cloud_computing_west.aspx http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0407_cloud_computing_we... Cloud computing is an excellent way for companies to dramatically lower their carbon footprint as well. Instead of using coal-fired electricity running your own inefficient datacenters, why not host your stuff at Google or Amazon where the PUE is low and they're using hydro/cleaner power?

chime 16y ago
> We're going to look back in 10-20 years and laugh that every company felt the need to build datacenters. Until recently, I don't think it was "felt the need to" as much as "had no choice but to." AWS-style data-center is a new development in technology. The ability to remotely fire up servers and have them running in minutes is wonderful but it also means you have to redo your entire IT architecture. For companies just starting up, it's no big deal. For ones already established for 30 years, it is nothing short of a Herculean effort. Setting up a datacenter might be a better choice.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  Very good point, and a poor choice of words on my part. OTOH, there are companies now that can handle mainframe SaaS ( outsourcing your mainframe apps). Huge gains for companies that want to take the leap and dismantle their mainframes.
RyanGWU82 16y ago
If you are building almost any type of company today, it makes no sense to build your own datacenter. Except for when it _does_ make sense. I'm starting a project at my company to add a single server in-house, and move some data storage away from Amazon S3. This will save us thousands of dollars a month -- the payback period for the project is 3 months. (!) That includes the engineering cost to set up the new server. This particular project is compelling because we don't need S3's other advantages, we just need raw storage. Moral: Don't be dogmatic about decisions in your business. Just weigh the pros and cons (including cost) carefully.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  Hence the reason I said "almost". There will always be exceptions. When looking at a cost/benefit don't forget the following costs: Power Cooling Space (lease costs) Administration Backup Redundancy Decommissioning (you don't just throw the server away do you?)
- foobarbazetc 16y ago
  Price/performance is absolutely terrible on AWS. What most people don't realize and/or talk about with AWS is how much more expensive it is than in-house/co-lo/dedicated elsewhere.
nradov 16y ago
HIPAA privacy and security rules are still a significant obstacle for hosting US healthcare applications on third-party clouds. Those obstacles will eventually fade away as the covered entities become more comfortable with cloud security, and the cloud providers offer standardized business associate agreements. But it may take 10 years or more until we see widespread adoption.
- cwinters 16y ago
  Have you tried to go through this process? Amazon seems to have done a good deal of work to ensure its servers and practices are HIPAA-compliant: http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2009/04/06/whitepaper-hipaa/ http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2009/04/06/whitepa... I think, as you allude, that the primary issue is not technical but behavioral. In the area of healthcare I work in (nursing homes), quite a few organizations have their data hosted elsewhere. Sometimes it's through the vendor, sometimes it's with a third-party service. I don't see that big a leap of faith to Amazon from this.
  - nradov 16y ago
    I haven't tried. Our prospective customers often want to physically inspect our data center as part of their due diligence process, and I can't see how Amazon could accommodate that.
akg_67 16y ago
After what Amazon and other US providers did to WikiLeaks, I will recommend everyone to have a backup plan to outsourcing data center to 'cloud'. And, backup doesn't mean another instance on Amazon cloud or another similar cloud provider.
ars 16y ago
I think you mean a higher PUE. Anyway, a better PUE will certainly help your carbon footprint, but saying "using hydro/cleaner power" is meaningless. You don't get to pick and choose "I'm using hydro, you're using coal" - the power grid is interconnected - everyone is using everything. Additionally all the possible hydro that can be used already is, so it's not like you can individually promote hydro usage - if you "use" hydro power, all the happens is that someone else doesn't get to use it, which means effectively you are burning coal, but remotely. There are some slight benefits to using the power near where it's generated to avoid transmission losses, but it's not large. Unless you can say "because of me there is a new, cleaner, power station that is built" you are not using cleaner power, you are just shifting less clean power to someone else.

chime 16y ago

> We're going to look back in 10-20 years and laugh that every company felt the need to build datacenters. Until recently, I don't think it was "felt the need to" as much as "had no choice but to." AWS-style data-center is a new development in technology. The ability to remotely fire up servers and have them running in minutes is wonderful but it also means you have to redo your entire IT architecture. For companies just starting up, it's no big deal. For ones already established for 30 years, it is nothing short of a Herculean effort. Setting up a datacenter might be a better choice.

maukdaddy 16y ago
Very good point, and a poor choice of words on my part. OTOH, there are companies now that can handle mainframe SaaS ( outsourcing your mainframe apps). Huge gains for companies that want to take the leap and dismantle their mainframes.

RyanGWU82 16y ago

If you are building almost any type of company today, it makes no sense to build your own datacenter. Except for when it _does_ make sense. I'm starting a project at my company to add a single server in-house, and move some data storage away from Amazon S3. This will save us thousands of dollars a month -- the payback period for the project is 3 months. (!) That includes the engineering cost to set up the new server. This particular project is compelling because we don't need S3's other advantages, we just need raw storage. Moral: Don't be dogmatic about decisions in your business. Just weigh the pros and cons (including cost) carefully.

maukdaddy 16y ago
Hence the reason I said "almost". There will always be exceptions. When looking at a cost/benefit don't forget the following costs: Power Cooling Space (lease costs) Administration Backup Redundancy Decommissioning (you don't just throw the server away do you?)
foobarbazetc 16y ago
Price/performance is absolutely terrible on AWS. What most people don't realize and/or talk about with AWS is how much more expensive it is than in-house/co-lo/dedicated elsewhere.

nradov 16y ago

HIPAA privacy and security rules are still a significant obstacle for hosting US healthcare applications on third-party clouds. Those obstacles will eventually fade away as the covered entities become more comfortable with cloud security, and the cloud providers offer standardized business associate agreements. But it may take 10 years or more until we see widespread adoption.

cwinters 16y ago
Have you tried to go through this process? Amazon seems to have done a good deal of work to ensure its servers and practices are HIPAA-compliant: http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2009/04/06/whitepaper-hipaa/ http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2009/04/06/whitepa... I think, as you allude, that the primary issue is not technical but behavioral. In the area of healthcare I work in (nursing homes), quite a few organizations have their data hosted elsewhere. Sometimes it's through the vendor, sometimes it's with a third-party service. I don't see that big a leap of faith to Amazon from this.
- nradov 16y ago
  I haven't tried. Our prospective customers often want to physically inspect our data center as part of their due diligence process, and I can't see how Amazon could accommodate that.

akg_67 16y ago

After what Amazon and other US providers did to WikiLeaks, I will recommend everyone to have a backup plan to outsourcing data center to 'cloud'. And, backup doesn't mean another instance on Amazon cloud or another similar cloud provider.

ars 16y ago

I think you mean a higher PUE. Anyway, a better PUE will certainly help your carbon footprint, but saying "using hydro/cleaner power" is meaningless. You don't get to pick and choose "I'm using hydro, you're using coal" - the power grid is interconnected - everyone is using everything. Additionally all the possible hydro that can be used already is, so it's not like you can individually promote hydro usage - if you "use" hydro power, all the happens is that someone else doesn't get to use it, which means effectively you are burning coal, but remotely. There are some slight benefits to using the power near where it's generated to avoid transmission losses, but it's not large. Unless you can say "because of me there is a new, cleaner, power station that is built" you are not using cleaner power, you are just shifting less clean power to someone else.