External IaaS vs ROI ? An impressive mind opening comment on Chuck’s EMC blog…

Please take a look on first comment by “nate” on Chuck’s EMC blog article titled
“Why The Cloud Discussion Is So Polarizing”… , he writes this:

(..) I have spent a bit over a year managing systems in the Amazon cloud and I have to say it is the most frustrating experience ever. I’m flying to Atlanta tomorrow night to start installing hardware to move my current company out of it. ROI? 6 months or less. And we get tons more functionality, uptime, less latency etc. (..)

4 Responses to “External IaaS vs ROI ? An impressive mind opening comment on Chuck’s EMC blog…”

  1. Peter says:

    One IaaS is not equal to other one. Sometimes public IaaS like Amazon could be problem, but don’t forget about dedicated IaaS.

  2. admin says:


    That’s right of course. However the nature of the comment involved persons at the level of VPs in ITs, so one could assume that the comment it is actually about bigger enterprises with bigger IT departments that can be actually pretty effective/optimized. If the internal systems are being transferred to external IaaS which has worse SLA (or even is not meeting any form of SLA as mentioned in the comment) and it’s price is higher… what’s the benefit ? Transferred risk?

    I’m not saying that external IaaS or SaaS are bad, because actually they ARE wave of the future… but in certain cases it might not be worth the money (as shown in the comment – big enterprises, security-sensitive/mission critical/regulated systems). It is certainly worthy for small companies and middle sized companies which just one cannot cope with managing all related infrastructure as monitoring/security(fw, IDS, IPS, A/V, etc)/backups/DR/patching/power redundancy/redundant BGP-enabled connections/etc and associated costs such as knowledgeable people/knowledge/trainings/skills/automation/CMDBs/etc. IMHO there also certain quite opposite use cases … if someone would be requiring mainframe or p795/p595/p590/HP Superdome in addition to hundredths of Windows/x86_64 systems and have no clue to run a really big system .. then perhaps it’s worth transferring it to external IaaS, because they might be having set of people who are capable of doing it even more cost efficiency than the customer using single/pair of p795 for the first time and having to hire a lot of new people to support it (even if that’s just in case).


  3. Peter says:

    From the real life I know big company (you can call it enterprise), their IT department decided to move critical resources to dedicated IaaS. Benefits – first of all: clear SLA. Second: as you wrote – transferred risk. Third: no need to buy new hardware, maintain it, worry about external support, etc. They have what they want – resources for business for mission critical applications. If business needs more resources they can order it without talking with CTO and especially with CFO. Cost of new resources can be in one step transferred to department, which needs this resources.
    In my opinion for small companies SaaS is much more better. Of course not best in any area – there are a lots of apps impossible to implement with SaaS.