The Cloud Part 4 -- Rent versus Own -- Dropbox versus iCloud
Capex vs. Opex - The Costs of Storing Your Data
One
of the great debates in cloud computing involves business economics and the
inherent expense that stocking and running a data center entails. You may
even hear the phrase "Capex vs Opex" in this debate. This
phrase refers to the trade-offs of investing in building and operating your own
data center (Capital Expenditure and Operating Expenditure) versus using
someone else’s data center (Operating Expenditure) on a pay-as-you-go or rental
model. It's important to consider the financial implications of both
approaches in the long run - especially since “renting” costs less in the short
term, but the investments in data centers will ultimately be passed on to the
end users, making that approach more expensive.
Owning
and stocking a physical data center requires capital expenditure (Capex), large
amounts of space filled with computer hardware, and the cash flow to pay the
power bill. Many "cloud-based" data centers, like Amazon's
Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2), or iCloud, still rely on physical servers to store
data. The "cloud" allows users
to access programs and data as a "virtual instance" on physical
servers. Thus Amazon rents space to businesses like Dropbox, but it is
still expensive. Dropbox may not have to invest in creating their own
their data center, but they pay a higher operational cost than someone like
Carbonite who built their own datacenter.
The
Capex Vs. Opex debate is really a “own versus rent” debate. But either
option still has two big issues – they use massive amounts of global energy to
run and to cool, and data centers are still subject to the possibility of
server outages.
An
article from CIO.com highlights some of the cost issues of owning and
operating servers ((http://www.cio.com/article/484429/Capex_vs._Opex_Most_People_Miss_the_Point_About_Cloud_Economics):
1. The direct costs that accompany
running a server: power, floor space, storage, and IT operations to manage
those resources.
2. The indirect costs of running
a server: network and storage infrastructure and IT operations to manage the
general infrastructure.
3. The overhead costs of owning
a server: procurement and accounting personnel, not to mention a critical
resource in short supply: IT management and its attention.
Money
Magazine has an interesting article on security ( see http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/21/technology/amazon_server_outage/index.htm).
Of course, neither option takes into account the "true
cloud".
What is "true cloud?"
Even though Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud is called a"
cloud", Amazon still has to host a warehouse of servers to make their
"cloud" available to users. This will always be more costly
than using a "true cloud" service. In fact, Amazon's
"cloud" is no more than a marketing term, considering the need for a traditional data
center to hold their "elastic" storage. For a service to be hosted on
a "true cloud", the architects would have to eliminate the need for
large, costly datacenters, completely.
The
Digital Lifeboat model is based on a highly secure peer-to-peer "true
cloud" - which doesn't require a datacenter and the accompanying;
computer hardware, floor space, and extra power. This keeps our overhead
low so that our service costs less than our competitors. In addition, Digital
Lifeboat requires less computer hardware and less energy which makes our
company greener than if we were to house your data in a large data center.).
We've pioneered a method of cloud-based storage that's automatic and continuous;
self-managing and self-healing - all without a datacenter. That's
the "true cloud"; that's Digital Lifeboat's online backup and
recovery service.
Comments