Despite the consolidation trend, some companies are continuing to branch out with their datacentres for reasons including redundancy of the centralised datacentre for backup, a more comprehensive disaster recovery plan and better uptime at regional offices.
Indeed, some companies actually prefer this approach, and experts say it makes sense for organisations such as those with branch employees who can act as IT technicians or firms with locations dispersed on different continents.
“The satellite datacentre model is alive and well in companies that support multiple regional offices, such as banks, chain stores and insurance companies,” says Charles King, a principal analyst at Pund-IT, based in California.
“The benefits are substantial for any industry where it’s important and advisable to keep workers close to data and their IT infrastructure.”
George Hamilton, an analyst at Yankee Group Research, says he’s also in favour of satellite datacentres in some instances.
“The advantage is leveraging existing space, rather than having to build additional datacentre capacity,” he says. “With virtualisation, you can make the satellite datacentres appear as one big datacentre — the users have no idea where the physical devices reside, nor do they care. It also builds in local redundancy — unless the entire building is affected. You can also shut down one satellite datacentre and have another pick up the functionality during technology refreshes and upgrades.”
Three kinds of satellites
One type of satellite datacentre is a “data room” on each floor. This was formerly known as an intermediate distribution frame (IDF) and is now commonly called a tenant technology room (TTR). Granted, these are not true datacentres. However, the TTR of a large organisation might be larger than an entire datacentre in a small company.
A second type is a regional office with a local datacentre that provides a subset of services, such as email and document servers. Law firms are well known for having datacentres at each office, serving just a few hundred employees.
A third is a datacentre located in a different state from the main datacentre entirely, usually to reduce constantly escalating utility costs.
In this approach, the IT organisation might be relocated to the remote datacentre, with the home office staying in the original location.
Business continuity is key
In all cases, decentralising can help organisations minimise the consequences of a catastrophe, said Steve Novak, CIO at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago.
For some mission-critical applications, such as email and instant messaging, the firm runs a datacentre in each office that is redundant with the centralised datacentre. “If we lose email in the local office, we know the secondary server is available and vice versa,” Novak says.
In the Kirkland & Ellis model, a 100-square-foot TTR on each office floor handles basic networking, a 1,000-square-foot satellite datacentre handles mission-critical services such as email, and a 10,000-square-foot global datacentre in Chicago handles most companywide services.
That said, however, Kirkland & Ellis stores all documentation — the intellectual capital that forms the lifeblood of the company — in a centralised datacentre where long-term redundancy is more important than uptime. The other option, which is less reliable, would be to store documentation in each regional office.
With a move to server virtualisation, the firm is building a global datacentre next year that will further unify data services but still not change the regional datacentre strategy with regard to email and instant messaging.
Power savings too
Another reason some companies use satellite datacentres is the escalating cost of power, especially in New York and California.
Ken Brill, founder and executive director of the Uptime Institute in Santa Fe, sees a trend towards data-centres being located in a different state from the company’s headquarters, or even in another country such as India.
The Google and Microsoft model is to build server farms in states where energy costs are low, Brill explains. These sites do not always provide data services for the corporation itself — in Google and Microsoft’s cases, the server farms are intended to deliver improved performance for external customers. But Brill notes that even major datacentres don’t necessarily have to be located at a company’s headquarters.
One Uptime Institute client that Brill declines to name is building a global datacentre in a market where utility costs run only about four cents per kilowatt-hour. Compared with New York, for instance, which costs around 15 cents per kWh, that’s a savings of US$30 million per year.
In general, Brill advises customers to weigh up the risks of datacentre location carefully. Centralisation reduces management and staffing costs, yet “the more centralised you are, the greater the consequences from a single event,” he says.
“The challenge for CIOs is to weigh the economies of scale with reliability.”
Brian Babineau, a senior analyst at Massachusetts-based Enterprise Strategy Group, says that the main reason companies build regional datacentres is to save power.
Further, Babineau says, when a company builds a new satellite datacentre, the company typically uses it only for data, not for telecommunications. The customer leaves its existing equipment at the main datacentre until it has moved to IP. When that happens, the satellite datacentre can handle both voice and data, all in one space, making it more efficient.
An added benefit, according to Babineau, is that because the computing load can be spread among multiple locations, power bills can be reduced in each location, particularly if the satellites are in areas with lower power costs.
Babineau says the biggest downside to regional datacentres is that customers have to disperse the workforce. But the cost-savings from locating a datacentre in a relatively low-cost area such as Arizona or the Pacific Northwest could outweigh the detriment of having employees spread out across the country.
Of course, there are higher management and staffing requirements in a decentralised environment — reasons that one Gartner analyst is vehemently against the notion. “Gartner’s view is that clients need to move to the smallest number of datacentres and make them as large as possible — and to limit the number of satellite locations,” says Rakesh L Kumar, a UK-based analyst. “This way, an organisation is able to streamline its people-resources and operational processes.”
Steve Sams, an IBM vice president for site and facilities services in New York, agrees. “We do not see a trend in moving to satellite datacentres,” he said. “In fact, the trend is just the opposite, with customers moving towards datacentre consolidation.”
Sams points to an example with an unnamed client company that went from 32 datacentres down to just two and is now saving US$180 million (NZ$246 million) annually in operational costs.
He also refers to a Gartner study that indicates that 57% of those surveyed plan to consolidate in the next 12 to 18 months.
“In most cases, it is easier to define and manage a set of best-of-breed operational procedures across a small number of datacentres versus a large number of datacentres,” Sams adds.
Kumar, however, wonders about the US$180 million savings for the IBM customer, saying most datacentre managers would not see such a dramatic drop in operational costs due to consolidation.
The bottom line
Overall, the case could be made that satellite datacentres certainly make sense in some information-dependent industries, especially those that would completely shut down their operations if a datacentre failed. For others, such as an industrial organisation that depends more on manufacturing and shipping equipment, centralisation may be the right move to lower IT costs.
Satellite datacentres are still common and are perhaps even a more viable approach for some companies than taking the centralisation tack. As with much in IT, there is no hard and fast rule that works for all.