For capacity larger than 100TB, Private Cloud Storage is significantly cheaper than Public Cloud Storage
Scality CEO, Jérôme Lecat, Lifts the Lid on Storage Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) findings
SNW Europe, Frankfurt, Germany – 2nd November 2011 – Today, in his address to the storage industry, Scality CEO, Jérôme Lecat unveils why Scality RING, the storage solution from organic storage pioneer Scality, is the most cost-effective storage technology for building private clouds.
According to published data collated from multiple storage reports and analyses from multiple sources including Amazon, Openwave, ESG, Forrester, Gartner, and Frys [see Notes to Editors], Scality RING emerges as the cheapest option for a common use cases of cloud storage : file-sharing.
Jérôme Lecat, Scality’s CEO, said: “One of the most challenging aspects of making an accurate and meaningful comparison is determining how to compare different providers – it depends on the use case concerned. But, in the popular use cases that we examined, and using figures published either by vendors themselves or by respected analysts, Scality RING is the cheapest solution. We would also argue that, by virtue of its extensive capabilities, Scality RING is also the most cost-effective option.”
According to Forrester’s report “File Storage cost less in the cloud than in-house”, it costs $955 000 per year for an enterprise to deploy and operate 100 TB of file sharing space. The same capacity, costs $141 180 per year with Amazon S3, according to their web site. With Scality Organic Storage, the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of 100 TB can be as low as $26 025 at scale, and is only $85 478 when storing just 500 TB.
Lecat will present the full results of the analysis at SNW Europe, Frankfurt, Germany, on November 2nd at 2:35pm, as part of “Powering the Cloud”.
“The real difference that Scality RING brings to customers is ease-of-use at the petabyte scale – but, understandably at that volume of storage, one of the first questions customers ask is: what’s the cost, it must be huge, right? We’ll still be asked that question but we now have a very compelling means of answering it, enabling us to get on with meeting customers’ needs – and presumably our answer to the cost question will put a smile on their face before we’ve even started,” added Lecat.
Scality organic storage brings performance and cost-effectiveness to storage, even at volumes exceeding many petabytes. Its object-based technology will handle billions of files and deliver a very high number of input/output operations per second (IOPS). It also enables continuous replacement of old hardware without the need for any manual migration process.
Applications for Scality RING include: SaaS, webmail storage, Web 2.0 and cloud communities, Storage as a Service, file-sharing, unstructured data archive and backup, rich media, security and video surveillance data, health care and PACS, Big Data, life science and high-performance computing.
Notes to Editors
1) Lecat’s presentation and Forrester’s report will be available upon request on the Scality website or by contacting email@example.com
2) Data sources:
Amazon S3: http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/
Dell & Intel: “Hosting vs in-house implementation of Exchange 2010: It’s decision time“
ESG: “Archive TCO: Five-Year TCO comparing Dell DX to tape and NAS for long term archive“
Forrester: “File storage costs less in the cloud than in-house“
Openwave: “Navigating the storage tsunami: low cost messaging and content storage solutions for service providers”
Seagate hard drive price: http://www.frys.com/product/6618844
3) In assessing the total cost of ownership, Scality took into account the same elements as Forrester’s analysis, i.e.:
* cost of storage hardware and software
* copies for data protection (replication, RAID, 5, Raid 6, backup, archive)
* software for high availability, file system, management and control
* maximum utilization ratio
* hardware lifespan, duration of software license
* hardware and software maintenance
* staff for storage administration
* facilities and power
* data migration costs
Scality’s analysis also included the cost of networking equipment, which was not included in Forrester’s analysis.