[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The business case for OpenShift

On 02/01/15 17:45 +1030, Andrew Galdes wrote:
  Hello all,
  I don't want to come across as pessimistic but rather optimistic to see
  the light.�
  We love the OpenShift technology and we're investing plenty into education
  for staff and we provide limited (and slowly growing) OpenShift services
  to our clients. However, we're having a hard time identifying the business
  case from the clients point of view to adopt the technology as a solution.
  We conclude that, like all technology, its focus is just that and we
  should use the right tool for the job and OpenShift won't always be that
  Our web-dev clients we can see benefit from it. It's a saviour for them.

    * Businesses with simple 'brocher' or 'business card' type websites have
      no need for it.�

This is an excellent use case for OpenShift Online. The business can have a site
that performs very well while simultaneously outsourcing the operations work to the Online ops
team, who is fantastic and keeping systems up and running for all OpenShift

    * Businesses with retail sites need large databases, opt for iaas for
      high-tuned and customised environments and need fully customisable

Many businesses need high performance data storage, but don't need as much
complexity at the web/application tier. Depending on the customer, there's a
variety of approaches to take where OpenShift can still play a role.

This is where OpenShift can be part of a hybrid solution. The web/application
tiers could be running inside OpenShift gears, but the data resides elsewhere. This
delivers the known productivity gains to application developers. However, the
customer can then connect those gears to an external database or other data source.

In OpenShift Online, we have customers that connect their gears to their own
RDS instances that are not managed by OpenShift Online. We also have the Hosted
Node option for customers that want the OpenShift Online team to manage the
infrastructure, but want greater control over app performance by guaranteeing
exclusive access to a set of dedicated nodes.

    * Businesses with application websites have their own special
      infrastructure�needs and inter-system communications and often like it
      onsite. Also the possibility of large DBs.

Similar to the previous point, OpenShift Enterprise is an extremely flexible
on-premise solution. It's a great choice for organizations that want to manage
the hardware themselves, but still want to enjoy the greater level of operational
efficiency OpenShift provides.

Customers can opt into using OpenShift where it makes sense while still
connecting to other infrastructure when their core business requires it.

    * Start-ups with apps in the making are worried that the DB growth
      issues may well become an issue sooner rather than later.�

The OpenShift scaling (and auto-scaling) story is an excellent one. The user is
100% capable of scaling their app as they grow their business. In addition, they are not being locked-in to the platform, so when the use case evolves, they can make adjustments and even migrate some or all of their infrastructure to a different
solution, if needed.

  So other than OpenShift being a cool technology servicing web developers,
  who else can benefit?
  A little maths shows the costs with Origin on EC2s pushing the acceptable
  cost barrier:

    An EC2 of m3.2xlarge costs $564 per month and has 30GB RAM supporting 60
    small gears. That's $9.50 per gear per month. Based on per hour costs
    and in AU$. The server would need to be running at 100% customer
    utilisation (not resources utilisation). The PaaS supplier would need to
    add their margin pushing the prices above the current options. There are
    always exceptions and the reserved prices are considerably lower.�

Even Amazon is open about the fact that there is a cost break-point where
running your own hardware is more cost-effective than running in AWS. However,
the vast majority of use cases are simply not running at that scale.

But really, direct costs of a server aren't ever the whole story. There's also
the costs of administration, the patching and maintenance life cycle costs,
and the hidden costs related to man-hours gained/lost due to the sophistication
and value provided by the tools being used.

If we look at the complete picture, I think you'll find that from a TCO
perspective, the value delivered to application developers by the OpenShift
platform far exceeds the simple cost overhead of merely running the server

  I fully understand that any business could host their website and/or web
  application on OpenShift which is great but as it stands, their sites are
  working fine and the recourses to provide OpenShift instance is larger.
  Happy new year.�
  -Andrew Galdes
  Managing Director

  AGIX Linux

  Ph: 08 7324 4429
  Mb: 0422 927 598

  Find us: [1]Website | [2]LinkedIn | [3]Blog | [4]YouTube |�[5]Google+
  Platform Architects for High Demand Web Applications.



OpenShift Online Operations | http://openshift.com

Attachment: pgpkNg8ZN1pjn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]