[188289] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why the US Government has so many data centers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Mon Mar 14 13:28:28 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANjVB-hX3sGfDO+hq0YamjmJVCPHFf6zbkDk5acBJgO_oNvBJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 10:28:30 -0700
To: George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
At enterprise storage costs, that much storage will cost more than the OC-12=
, and then add datacenter and backups. Total could be 2-3x OC-12 annual cos=
ts.
If your org can afford to buy non-top-line storage then it would probably be=
cheaper to go local.
However, you should check how much of the bandwidth is actually storage. I s=
ee multimillion dollar projects without basic demand / needs analysis or sta=
tistics more often than not.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 10:01 AM, George Metz <george.metz@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Lee <ler762@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>> Yes, *sigh*, another what kind of people _do_ we have running the govt
>> story. Altho, looking on the bright side, it could have been much
>> worse than a final summing up of "With the current closing having been
>> reported to have saved over $2.5 billion it is clear that inroads are
>> being made, but ... one has to wonder exactly how effective the
>> initiative will be at achieving a more effective and efficient use of
>> government monies in providing technology services."
>>=20
>> Best Regards,
>> Lee
>=20
> That's an inaccurate cost savings though most likely; it probably doesn't
> take into account the impacts of the consolidation on other items. As a
> personal example, we're in the middle of upgrading my site from an OC-3 to=
> an OC-12, because we're running routinely at 95+% utilization on the OC-3
> with 4,000+ seats at the site. The reason we're running that high is
> because several years ago, they "consolidated" our file storage, so instea=
d
> of file storage (and, actually, dot1x authentication though that's
> relatively minor) being local, everyone has to hit a datacenter some 500+
> miles away over that OC-3 every time they have to access a file share. And=
> since they're supposed to save everything to their personal share drive
> instead of the actual machine they're sitting at, the results are
> predictable.
>=20
> So how much is it going to cost for the OC-12 over the OC-3 annually? Is
> that difference higher or lower than the cost to run a couple of storage
> servers on-site? I don't know the math personally, but I do know that if w=
e
> had storage (and RADIUS auth and hell, even a shell server) on site, we
> wouldn't be needing to upgrade to an OC-12.
