Earlier this week I was working with a cloud business to review their expenditure in AWS. The business had advised me of 3 challenges around their storage:
- Cost – EBS storage represented over 90% of the MySQL estate cost.
- Performance – The business was regularly purchasing more storage capacity than they needed (AWS EBS provides a baseline performance of 3 IOPS per GiB).
- Cloning – Cloning large 10TB databases resulted in reduced performance of the destination EBS volume whilst the blocks were rehydrated from the source S3 snapshot. It has taken 5 days in the past until full throughput was available to the system.
This was a really interesting experience that I’ve learnt a lot from, so I decided to take it further and do some modelling of the costs using 5 x MySQL servers each with 11TB of EBS storage attached:
In my modelling, the storage cost represented 94.3% of the total cost of running the 5 MySQL servers.
Now it’s no secret that I work for a company that develops a cloud storage platform that overlays native EBS storage and adds storage efficiencies such as deduplication and compression, plus the added advantage of instant cloning with no performance warm up time.
So, here’s how that same architecture looks with the ONTAP Cloud storage running:
This first thing you’ll notice is that you no longer have to manage the EBS volumes, ONTAP takes care of this for you. That means no worrying about raid types, capacity or performance on a host-to-host basis. Win.
The second benefit is reduced costs. ONTAP brings deduplication and compression to the party. Your mileage will vary depending on your data’s suitability for storage efficiencies but it’s not uncommon to see >30% space savings. Win.
If we apply that logic to this scenario, our resulting storage expenditure will be reduced from £5,188.92/mo to £3,329.56/mo. That’s a saving of £1859.36/mo!
But wait, this all assumes that I am not using the instant cloning functionality that ONTAP has. This scenario has 2 development servers (dev/test) that currently use EBS snapshots (S3). This is costly as each clone of the 10TB source database results in the full space consumption and costs from AWS. In comparison, clones created with ONTAP consume no additional space, therefore the cost of clones is significantly reduced. If the customer changes anything within the clone, those writes are the overall storage cost – again, significantly less that doing a full copy based clone from EBS to S3 back to EBS.
So what does this now look like if we start to use storage efficiencies AND instant cloning for the two dev/text databases?
The storage cost has reduced even further, from our original £5,188.92/mo to £1997.73/mo! That’s a saving of £3,191.19/mo or £38,294.28/year.
That’s all well and good, but of course ONTAP has a licencing cost, what would our final savings look like when we take that into account. I’m basing this on the pay & go licencing (most expensive option) over 12 months:
ONTAP Cloud Pay & Go (R3.2xlarge) / 12 months = $19,307 ~ £15,183.22/year
Therefore, the customer would be in line for a total saving of £23,111.06/year, saving almost 35% of their overall AWS cost, pretty impressive!
This solves the cost problem for the business I was working with, and also fixes the performance issue that they currently experience when working with native AWS cloning.
Not only that, ONTAP cloud has APIs, PowerShell, Kubernetes and CLI management, meaning that it can be seamlessly integrated into their developer toolsets and processes.
So, the customer is now able to rapidly develop in AWS with on-demand clones and further reduce their storage footprint with storage efficiencies.
So, it’s a no-brainer – try it today – free of charge for 30 days here.