Here’s the situation: You’re the CIO or similarly empowered representative of an organization. Different voices within your business are calling attention to the awesome scalability and power of hyperscale computing, which you’ve also noticed with increasing interest. Now the word comes down from on high that you’ve been tasked with designing and implementing your company’s hyperscale computing solution—whatever that should be. Your organization already has an ambitious agenda in mind for whatever IT infrastructure you wind up choosing. The company is working with extremely high volumes of data and expects this situation to continue or grow. So, you’ve got a ton of assets earmarked for data storage, with many more workloads on the way. Your business isn’t expecting this data to collect dust in a vault, either. Company leadership is already trumpeting new data processing applications and how smoothly already favored apps will be integrated into the new, high-performance system. Still others are wowed by the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation that hyperscale data centers offer. For these reasons, there’s a lot of positive support for going ahead and building a hyperscale data center, customized expressly for this business. However, that’s just one set of opinions. Other leaders remind you that the company’s primary allegiance is to the bottom line and that your solution needs to be cost-effective and “thread the needle” by providing the most return for the least investment possible. These voices forcefully advocate using a colocation solution, where your company will instead rent space in a hyperscale data center, thus saving USD millions or even billions in construction costs and other associated charges. Both options offer compelling arguments for their adoption. So, hyperscale vs. colocation—which do you choose? Big systems, costly decisions When deciding between building hyperscale data centers or renting in colocation data centers, there are many variables for hyperscale customers to consider. To effectively weigh the decision, one must consider the total costs of ownership versus renting—plus a range of other, tangentially related issues. Both data center options have their advantages and disadvantages. Both options deliver complex Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions. Both are based on complicated digital infrastructures and depend on virtualization, the underlying concept of cloud computing. To make the smartest decision possible, it’s important to first focus on each option, and check out their advantages and disadvantages. What is a hyperscale data center? Hyperscale data centers represent data storage on a gigantic scale. According to the Independent Data Council (IDC) definition of a hyperscale database, as reported by VIAVI Solutions (link resides outside ibm.com), to be considered a true hyperscale data center, it must contain at least 5,000 servers and occupy at least 10,000 square feet of physical space. There is no hard-and-fast guideline concerning energy usage, although most hyperscale data centers use somewhere between 100 megawatts (MWs) and 300 MWs. Components that go into building a hyperscale data center It’s not an overstatement to say that creating an on-premises hyperscale data center from the ground up is a major endeavor—one that will require deep pockets and considerable effort. Even a simple listing of basic components provides a sobering idea of the project’s overall complexity and pricing:
- A tract of land that can support a structure of at least 10,000 square feet.
- Development costs to survey the land, clear the site and prepare it for construction.
- One structure with at least 10,000 square feet of floor space.
- Fire-safety equipment that is sufficient for protecting the building and its operators, such as sprinkler systems and extra extinguishers, as well as the development and instruction of fire-safety Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
- A parking lot of sufficient size to support the number of vehicles used by data center operators, as well as ample parking room for any emergency vehicles that might be needed.
- Cooling system equipment to offset the immense heat generated by 5,000 servers operating 24 hours per day.
- Specialized water lines and piping to support the cooling system.
- Dedicated and reinforced power lines and equipment to safely handle massive electrical loads.
- Back-up power systems in case of mainline outages.
- At least 5,000 servers.
- Metal (or wooden) racks for housing 5,000 servers.
- Associated IT equipment.
- Reinforced cabling to connect 5,000 servers.
- Networking equipment to connect 5,000 servers.
- Telecommunications (telecom) equipment.
- Specialized firewalls and other protocols for enhancing the cybersecurity of data centers.
Keep in mind that this list is in no way comprehensive and doesn’t represent the full costs associated with building a hyperscale data center. For example, it doesn’t include the primary asset needed for such activities: electricity. Nor does it mention the complicated and possibly expensive agreements that will need to be struck with local governments and communities. The list does, however, suggest how complex and multi-faceted this undertaking can be by showing that what’s being constructed is nothing less than a full-scale data factory. What is colocation? Some organizations are interested in the power and potential of hyperscale computing but have no wish to build their own data center, especially once they see a breakdown of all associated costs. The concern of such companies is understandable and legitimate; the sums of money required to operate in this space are not small. Depending on the facilities constructed, some use cases will require USD millions or even billions. Businesses building hyperscale data centers do have to maintain deep pockets—both when they construct the facility and then during its entire operation. A hyperscale data center should not be considered a one-time purchase. Colocation, on the other hand, is simply a situation wherein one company owns a hyperscale data center and rents out its facilities, servers, bandwidth and/or space to interested businesses that presumably do not have their own data center facilities. The obvious benefit for the company renting space in the off-site data center is that doing so saves it from having to make its own large-scale investment into a hyperscale data center. Viewed another way, what the company is, in fact, purchasing when it rents out data center space is flexibility. By opting for colocation, the company can delay the significant investment in a hyperscale data center until a later time, keeping its cash reserves right where they are. There’s even a specific term for when smaller companies make a gradual entry into this market— retail colocation, which allows organizations to start slowly. Typically, this plays out like this: The company sets up servers within a colocated environment and starts getting the feel for the process. Then the business begins experimenting with different cloud deployments, trying on different configurations and checking them for fit. So, colocation (and retail colocation) allows businesses to enjoy the benefits of hyperscale, without the major investment required to make it happen. On the other hand, nobody’s going to let a company use their hyperscale data centers for free, as anyone trying to negotiate such an arrangement soon learns. Further, since you’re renting these facilities, you should probably accept the fact that a colocated data center will not provide the same perfect “fit” as custom-built hyperscale data centers. Regardless of whether you choose to build a hyperscale data center or rent space through a colocated data center, organizations usually need to designate someone as an integrator to shepherd the project across all possible hurdles and into completion. For the purposes of this blog post, the integrator is you. Hyperscale vs. colocation: Biggest misconceptions It’s interesting that at such a “modern” time as this, when whole new vistas of computing are opening up, that some people’s attitudes are still trapped in old ways of thinking. For example, when you see the phrase “buy or rent,” certain longtime assumptions can still come to mind: Renting options are primarily provided for those who can’t afford to make purchases. Persons or organizations purchasing items can afford such purchases. Renting options are primarily provided for those subject to frequent moving around. While the first two statements contain some measure of truth, the only statement that’s fully true is the final bullet point. Renting options, it turns out, are indeed perfectly designed for people whose work keeps them in constant motion and relocating to different areas. So, there’s validity to the third bullet point. The…
