Skip to main content

Did you try Marathon's ROI calculator?


If not yet, then I'd suggest you do it. Try loading it with IE, Firefox issues are being resolved!

Asuumptions for the calculator:

  • Server consolidation is conservatively estimated based on the number of servers:
    • less than 50 servers virtualized – 8:1 consolidation ratio
    • between 50 to 200 servers virtualized – 10:1 consolidation ratio
    • 200 or more servers virtualized – 12:1 consolidation ratio
  • Server consolidation ratio is halved for productivity and business critical servers being protected with everRun VM.
  • Downtime costs are based on industry estimates for 350 person company. The ROI model prorates for a bigger or smaller company based on number of servers inputted.
  • While server virtualization improves IT efficiency, the model does not assume any reduction in staff.
  • Additional benefits such as savings from reduced provisioning time and reduced recovery time have been excluded from this model.
  • Design and implementation costs estimates double at 200 servers to account for the increased planning and design requirements for large implementations.
  • Citrix XenServer and Marathon everRun VM software pricing is MSRP, no volume discounts have been applied.


Go calculate your ROI online for free!
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Security: VMware Workstation 6 vulnerability

vulnerable software: VMware Workstation 6.0 for Windows, possible some other VMware products as well type of vulnerability: DoS, potential privilege escalation I found a vulnerability in VMware Workstation 6.0 which allows an unprivileged user in the host OS to crash the system and potentially run arbitrary code with kernel privileges. The issue is in the vmstor-60 driver, which is supposed to mount VMware images within the host OS. When sending the IOCTL code FsSetVoleInformation with subcode FsSetFileInformation with a large buffer and underreporting its size to at max 1024 bytes, it will underrun and potentially execute arbitrary code. Security focus
Post a Comment
Read more

OS Virtualization comparison: Parallels' Virtuozzo vs the rest

Virtuozzo's main differentiators versus hypervisors center on overhead, virtualization flexibility, administration and cost. Virtuozzo requires significantly less overhead than hypervisor solutions, generally in the range of 1% to 5% compared with 7% to 25% for most hypervisors, leaving more of the system available to run user workloads. Customers can also virtualize a wider range of applications using Virtuozzo, including transactional databases, which often suffer from performance problems when used with hypervisors. On the administration side, customers need to manage, maintain and secure just a single OS instance, while the hypervisor model requires customers to manage many OS instances. Of course, the hypervisor vendors have worked hard to automate much of this process, but it still requires more effort to manage and maintain multiple operating systems than a single instance. Finally, OS virtualization with Virtuozzo has a lower list price than the leading hypervisor for comme...
Post a Comment
Read more