Wharton report predicts doom of IT sector by 2033

A yet to be published Wharton study by Colin Ward predicts that by 2033 IT sector will transition to decline phase by 2033. He applied asset pricing to find future valuation of IT sector. His model indicates that growth of IT sector is already in the transition phase and transition to end roughly by 2033. He cliams to "develop a new method that puts structure on financial market data to forecast economic outcomes."

"I apply it to study the IT sector's transition to its long-run share in the US economy, along with its implications for future growth. Future average annual productivity growth is predicted to fall to 52bps from the 87bps recorded over 1974-2012, due to intensifying IT sector competition and decreasing returns to employing IT. My median estimate indicates the transition ends in 2033. I estimate these numbers by building an asset pricing model that endogenously links economy-wide growth to IT sector innovation governed by the sector's market valuation.", He elaborates.
   The paper is accessible at

 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11770278/JMP_Ward_ITrevolution.pdf
If you find the paper little too technical and finance-oriented for your interest, there is another way of testing the hypothesis. We could try to extrapolate the future based on the patterns that we see now. The way we see the IT industry today was unimaginable in 1974, though people consider 1974-80 to be the beginning of the growth of the industry. The industry experienced the growth
in massive scale during 1995-1999 and most of that rode on banking industry's fear of Y2K glitch. Once that crest passed, the industry saw first massive slump in 2001. Very few imagined that trough will come so soon after crest, because it was never seen before. Industrial revolution lasted for a long time before people saw the economy decline.
   People accepted dot-com bust to be credible explanation although banking industry's IT budget also showed fast contraction right after year 2000. Traditionally IT consumption always showed sharp increase or decline as an effect of overall economy's growth/collapse.
One must not miss the fact IT needs are not fueled by direct consumption from the consumers [which has direct impact on real-estate, manufacturing, luxury and cosmetics items, electronic equipment etc] but by those industries that serve
the consumers and those industries increased IT budget as a response to threats such as probable banking software malfunction due to Y2000 round up or pressure from business consolidation.Business consolidation happens organically in any industry when growth slows down and large players invest in IT to leverage information availability. Thus a bank upgrades its back-end software and IT hardware as a need to remain competitive [it improves scale of operation, information flow and customer response] when it faces slow growth. Retail
industry upgrades its CRM and analytics software in order to capitalize faster the retained data of its consumer base. Now once they upgrade (spend in IT) their IT setup, next upgrade would happen only if they outgrow their present capacity.
                 There is another dimension to it. Given that the IT providers themselves are coming up with innovations faster that brings down the overall cost of IT in order to remain competitive, the value of IT erodes faster. For example setting up a CRM for a retail chain is lot cheaper today when compared to that a decade back. The solution today is lot more open, agile and powerful compared to what they used to get a decade back.
Compare this with any other Industry e.g. automobile or nuclear reactor. The price of automobile such as Toyota Corolla has consistently gone up over the years and so has the cost of a nuclear reactor. Unfortunately same cannot be said about IT produces.
 Also over the last few years, industries witnessed fast transition from in-house IT setup to outsourced IT setup. Salesforce has consolidated CRM of many of its clients who earlier had their own CRM solutions. Salesforce thus brought down the consolidated IT expenditure of its clients to a fraction of what they used to spend together. And it is clear that this transition is going to be faster in next 10 years as SAAS become mature and more secure. IT budget will shrink sharply once the transition reaches 70-80% of total market. Mainstream industries will not buy IT product, they will simply consume IT as service, just like they consume electricity or water. Net effect? Growth disappears!
Colin's model gives us another tool to reach the same conclusion, albeit with far more analytical rigour.

NetApp's response to EMC's XtremeIO

After almost two years of maintaining the line that flash is good only as accelerator, NetApp  finally firmed up its all-flash storage array roadmap. First came EF540, a Flash version of EF5400, NetApp's present top-end disk-array a product-line that was brought through Engenio acquisition. Luckily this time NetApp decided not to take the path of ONTAP integration and adopted Engenio's SANtricity as its second OS. It helped NetApp to shorten the path between  technology acquisition and taking it to the market. A distinct sign that NetApp has permanently dropped its policy of one company one OS, NetApp also took up the challenge to develop a new OS for Flash drives. Tagged as project Mars, NetApp developed this product with a few of its old-timer technical stalwarts, isolated from it mainstream engineering development over last two years.  FlashRay, the new platform developed for the flash system, is expected to be released as beta, by around the end of this year. It probably will take another 6-12 months for NetApp to take the new product through its engineering verification process and mature it as a product. But the announcement has already created enough flutter in the market. It is clear that FlashRay is carved out of ONTAP. In all likelihood it has all the popular ONTAP gears like snapshot, deduplication, scale-out clustering. It is expected to support seamlessly all NetApp Data protection software like snap* suites but it is not clear how much of the FlashRay is not ONTAP.
After its failed attempt to acquire XtremeIO, NetApp did not have anything to offer to its customers looking for SSD-scale performance. EF540 has filled that lacuna in NetApp's portfolio especially in SAN space.  But FlashRay will be NetApp's flagship platform for SSDs and hybrid storage for the future. It is expected to counter EMC's yet to be launched high-performance Flash-array, being developed as Project-X. Project-X, if one goes by the buzz in the Industry, is built over XtremeIO's technology which EMC bought last year.
 From the engineering standpoint a design excavation was a long-due item for ONTAP, its storage OS for last 20 years. Fact is ONTAP already is quite heavy with years of additions of features and injections of codes to take care of diverse needs that it was not designed for to start with. Although WAFL[ONTAP's File system] designers took inspiration from Log-structured File system besides FFS and Episode from Berkeley in the beginning [see Dave's Blog], it was originally designed for a NAS server that maximized NFS write throughput. Obviously it cannot make efficient use of Flash read/write throughput unlike HDD. Flash wearing is another problem that WAFL needed to be made aware of [WAFL can recognize disk failure but memory loss due to wearing is a different problem] So WAFL needed an overhaul for it to be useful for all Flash-system or even hybrid storage arrays.
With XtremeIO, EMC got a head-start in all-flash array space. Though NetApp lost its bid to buy XtremeIO, it still could pick another Flash startup [Violin memory, whiptail among others] but  experience taught them that  a home-grown alternative, if one can build, is always a credible and safe bet. Spinnaker acquisition taught them that buying a startup technology and integrating it into its its existing portfolio is fraught with high complexity and delay. Datadomain acquisition taught them that buying a proven startup may not be that easy with EMC getting stronger every year. They had a proven Deduplication solution and it was that  home-grown Deduplication solution which saved them in front of the customers when Datadomain deal fell through. So they did not want to commit the same mistake for Flash. Some commented that NetApp took up Mars project after its acquisition bid for XtremeIO fell through but that hardly sounds logical. NetApp has a strong engineering capability, no doubt, but developing a winning product requires a lot more careful planning and long-term budget-commitment that hardly can be expected from a knee-jerk response to a failed acquisition attempt.
Many suspect that NetApp will keep its option of buying a Flash startup open [in fact some of its customers are buying flash-based storage controllers from a specific start-up with full knowledge that the startup is on radar of NetApp and they expect NetApp to buy that startup in the long run] but there are chances that FlashRay will find persistent and passionate support from the NetApp engineering community, starved for a long-time to work on ground-breaking innovations, making it another success story for NetApp engineering. Re-engineering Ontap and WAFL has also another advantage, they can reuse the experience to trim their mainstream version of Ontap.
                    How the flashArray will fare in the market is in the realm of speculation but this endeavour will  surely prove to its own people that NetApp still values its engineering team.

Mini-mill phenomenon in Enterprise Storage sector

"Disruption is a theory : a conceptual model of cause and effect that makes it possible to better predict the outcomes of competitive battles in different circumstances. These forces almost always topple industry leaders when an attacker has harnessed them because disruptive strategies are predicated on competitors doing what is in their best and most urgent interest : satisfying their most important customers and investing where profits are most attractive. In a profit-seeking world, this is a safe bet." - The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth, by Michael E Raynor and Clayton M. Christensen

   Clayton M. Christensen in his all-time business classic named Innovator's Dilemma narrated how mini steel plants (called minimills) brought disruption in the US Steel market between 60s and 90s and pushed the established large Integrated steel mills out of business. It is a classic case of incumbents pursuing the path of higher profitability ceding the low-profitability space to new entrants and in turn helping the new entrant to get better in operation and finding the opportunity to replace the incumbent from more premium segments. 

Backblaze's comparison

The question is whether the similar pattern can happen in the storage industry. 
 But steel was commodity, you argue and storage system is not. Buyers know that EMC, NetApp, IBM, HP storage servers are expensive but IT managers buy them for the vendors guarantee for the system's reliability, features and the performance. While that argument does hold good, there were few who tried to build a business, the success of which were critically dependent on the cost of storage and they were astonished to find that they could bring down the cost by a magnitude if they built the entire system on their own.  Backblaze in 2009 published their finding of how much cost saving they could bring by building their own storage.  But Backblaze had a specific need and they had to develop/customize whole range of software to make their hardware useful for their business. Their chart shows that, even with all those R&D cost, they still managed to keep the cost of storage quite close to barebone disks. You may argue that  this could be a special case and it hardly proves the rule. 

Well, it wouldn't, had it been a single case. Gartner and other analysts have predicted that most enterprises will have cloud storage in their setup in next 3-4 years. When they talk about Cloud storage, they primarily mean the specific way of accessing and organizing storage, which is different from traditional methods of storage access, like NFS, CIFS or fibre-channel based block storage i.e. SAN. Beside renting storage from public cloud vendors e.g. Amazon, rackspace, enterprises may decide to build their own cloud infrastructure, especially if they have large user-base. Just like the PC hardware got freed from the clutch of IBM, HP and became commoditized at the hands of Taiwanese and Chinese ODMs few decades ago, storage server hardware is showing distinct signal of getting commoditized at the hands of Taiwanese ODMs like Quanta, Wistron.

Fact is, almost all enterprise storage vendors at present outsource their hardware manufacturing to ODMs in Taiwan [Quanta etc] or China [ where Jabil has a very large manufacturing base]. Traditionally storage OEMs have claimed to make their differentiation in their software. Now thanks to Open source movement, there are some proven solutions which can run on commoditized hardware. What prevents these enterprises to approach directly the ODM's for getting the customized hardware at cheap price?

Mike Yang, VP and GM for Quanta's
Cloud computing Business

 Nancy Gohring's recent article in IT World is an interesting read. She reports how Quanta has built itself as the vendor for data centre's customized hardware. Quanta, traditionally an ODM for server OEMs like Dell, HP is seen to be selling directly to the large-scale cloud providers after their first success story with Facebook around  five years ago. 

EE Times article tells how likes of Facebook, Google found viable alternative to likes of IBM, EMC, NetApp in Quanta and how Quanta recognized the opportunity to expand itself as the customized hardware vendor for big data centres. Facebook's need was to find a source for large number of low-cost hardware customised for their huge data centre. Clearly branded storage servers were found to be too costly and a little inflexible for them to sustain their business model. So they followed what other cloud providers like Rackspace, Google did. They approached the ODM, who have been supplying the unbranded hardware to the storage/server OEMs, and brought down their hardware cost drastically. The advantage that Facebook, Google or Rackspace have is that their unique model of services are driven entirely with software and they have a very strong software team who just needs powerful hardware [which ODM's manufactured based on customized design from Facebook] for their software to run. The necessary question is: does one need as big a data centres as the ones that Amazon, Rackspace have to justify the risk of taking this approach against the cost advantage that one gains. 
There are reports that second tier of cloud providers have already adopted this strategy of going directly to the ODMs for their hardware. Check this recent EE times article if you need reference.

Present Scenario

Future Scenario

Of course the cloud providers do not represent the general enterprise buyers who are the customer-base for enterprise storage/server vendors. Enterprises may be tempted but will never have the man-power or the risk-appetite to justify overhauling their existing IT setup..unless it becomes so cost-effective in the long run that they will be forced by their stakeholders [ It seems that Goldman Sach also bought hardware directly from quanta bypassing brands like Dell, HP ]. Remember, how virtualization swept every enterprise and forced every IT setup to adopt virtualization? Adopting public cloud could become a similar sweeping wave in next few years once the competition between Amazon, Rackspace, Google and second tier of Cloud providers flare up. Gartner says that Cloud and CRM will constitute large component in enterprise software spending in next two years. "It's very clear that mature regions like North America, Western Europe are focusing on public cloud computing, while emerging regions are focusing on private cloud computing," said Ms. Swineheart from Gartner during a recent press meet. Salesforce [leading CRM SAAS provider] already expanded their infrastructure anticipating larger customer acquisition. So one can reasonably expect that further expansion of Cloud infrastructure will reduce the revenue for storage OEMs and expand growth of Taiwanese commodity hardware ODMs like Quanta. All storage OEMs may not immediately see a revenue reduction since overall growth of enterprise IT expenditure will adequately compensate in absolute terms. Also following Clayton M. Christensen's conjecture, established players will find it unprofitable to compete with Quanta and instead focus on high-value customers who are too paranoid to try out commodity hardware. That will improve their profit margin and push their stock price, assuming there is enough growth in that segment. The pattern will continue till commodity hardware become baked enough to compete against branded hardware. Facebook's Open compute project can accelerate the process for a open standardized hardware design that people can use for enterprise servers.
However for the trend to be disruptive enough for the existing storage OEMs, enterprises need a viable ready-made software solution, an open source server software which can run on these commodity hardware which can directly be inducted, to data centres, like a HP or Dell server.  And that is one challenge that we do not have clear answer yet. While Rackspace sponsored openstack is becoming a strong contender for opensource software for cloud providers, it has some miles to go before standard-track enterprises can adopt it for their private cloud setup. But once they mature, OpenCompute certified commodity hardware with Openstack software could become a formidable entity to start the domino effect of disruption for the enterprise storage sector. Like enterprises running mainframes,  NAS and SAN will continue to exist in enterprise IT but major growth will be in cloud infrastructure.
  As Clayton M. Christensen explained, the disruptive solution always comes first as inferior alternative to existing solution and appeals to Niche buyers, in this case large scale cloud providers. But as the time goes opportunity pushes further innovations and soon the Industry gets a credible alternative to existing products at much lower cost-point at every customer segment. And when that happens Industry shifts to new structure quite fast creating new leaders of the Industry. That is how EMC became storage leader earlier pushing costly IBM servers. That is how Nucor became the leader riding on mini-mill disruption in US steel industry. Commodity enterprise hardware and open stack software have the potential to bring the mini-mill effect in enterprise storage sector but whether we will see a new leader in place of EMC depends on which path incumbents take. High tech software sectors are lot more connected compared to what steel Industry was in 70s-80s. EMC is in fact in the board of Openstack and so there are chances that incumbents will see the long-term pattern quite ahead and change themselves to survive the disruption force.

Commoditization of Enterprise Storage

Let's start with a question.
When was the last time that Enterprise Storage [NAS, DAS and SAN] Industry saw a new entrant challenging the incumbents and become successful?
Answer: 2001-2004 when NetApp successfully challenged dominance of EMC and picked up significant market shares in NAS space [NetApp today commands around 24% of NAS market while EMC has around 41%].
What happened at that time? Well, NetApp brought a new NAS appliance, in the industry, that was cheaper and lot more easier to manage for the IT folks. There is another side of the story. EMC, as we know today was not exactly the same in 2003. Between 2003 and 2005, EMC went through a transformation under the leadership of Mr. Tucci from being an engineering-driven organization to marketing-driven organization. They bought few companies which later on changed the way people look at EMC. Some of the dazzlers that they bought at that time are Documentam and VMware, much smaller but very interesting entities at that time. But these are all past data. Why are we bringing them now?  The next question will lead to the answer.
Question 2: Networking hardware segment [Routers, Switches] has already seen a mass-scale commoditization. HDD segment is also heavily commoditized. Surprisingly Enterprise Storage segment has resisted it till now. The question therefore is how are they doing it?
Well, the easy and quick answer is that the storage technology space is not as transparent as IETF-driven  networking technologies and more importantly Storage gears deal with storing and managing the organization data which is critical to organization's survival unlike Networking gears which only see the data in transit. High sensitivity to data  has made the organizations extremely risk-averse and a prisoner of sort to a particular set of vendors [who they bought the equipment from earlier].
Will my new system smoothly talk to old systems? How do I trust that my data will not mutate (get corrupted or changed irretrievably ) or storage infrastructure will not become unavailable and shaky when I bring a relatively unknown vendor in the same setup when the vendors themselves did not certify the configuration? I want my vendor to guarantee that the setup will be stable and I can demand that if the setup is relatively homogeneous.
Life of Data is another important aspect of the puzzle. Since regulatory compliance require firms to keep their internal data for a long period [some critical data must be stored for 25 years or more], IT managers tend to buy equipment from those vendors who are likely to survive for that long, and that leaves the buying decision heavily skewed towards the established players, making it a little difficult for new-entrants to find foot-hold.
All the leading Storage System vendors capitalize on this fear in customers' mind which kind of explains why they have been successful in resisting commoditization of storage systems and how they have been successful in pushing their servers and disk arrays to customers year after year. If you have invested in NetApp gears, you will continue to buy NetApp boxes and software and likewise for HP, EMC unless the cost dynamics pushes you to change.
  A curious thing to note that all the leading storage OEMs today use processors, HDDs and Flash drives from the same set of vendors and have their manufacturing outsourced to same part of the world but somehow they have maintained the product differentiation in customer's mind. Multiple Design patents and proprietary software are the secret sauce behind their dominance, they would argue. It is also curious to observe that relative positions in terms of market share between the top 5 did not see significant changes over the past 5-6 years with EMC leading the pack and IBM, NetApp, HP following EMC from a distance. Quite miraculously the incumbents have not really seen a challenger like NetApp in last half of a decade.
But is it really a miracle?
It is only when we look closely, the veil of miracle drops and we realize it is rather a vigilant and clever market maneuvering, by the incumbents, that did not allow the challenger to find success and sustain the way NetApp did. Each time, we saw a new entrant creating a niche for itself, we also knew that it is going to be bought over in a matter of months. When clustered Storage became hot domain for startup, we saw spinnaker got acquired by NetApp, and Isilon got bought over by EMC. If EMC bought XtremeIO, HP bought 3PAR. When Deduplication brought the spotlight on efficient storage, IBM bought Storwize. Datadomain was bought over by EMC just when people thought they would be the change-agent in disk-based back-up. As many observed, the incumbents somehow always managed to gobble up new entrants before they became challenger.
How long can they sustain? Well, they will sustain as long as the game is played in the same way by the new entrant and buyers continue to look at storage in the same way they have been looking.
But what happens if the game itself changes? Is it realistic to expect that the game will change when incumbents have low incentives to change the game? What incentives customers have to take up the risk of changing their way of looking at their IT puzzle?
We will explore that in next post.

Future Energy Efficient Enterprise Storage Servers

When I was finishing my last post, another thought came to my mind. If 30% of data centre energy bill goes to Storage and Servers and half of that are consumed only by storage, we still have a large expense head to target. Present Intel Xeon or x-86 based processors that most enterprise servers use today are quite power hungry. Given that processors are the biggest power consumers in server hardware, should we not be looking at making them more energy efficient?
ARM enjoys today as the de-facto processor design for all energy sensitive segment, particularly miniature and consumer devices such as smartphone. Intel brought up ATOM processor based on ARM design but somehow the server industry stayed away from ATOM. Traditionally Server work profile used to be considered too heavy for ARM-based processor. But the trend is changing slowly. Since ARM is inherently lot more power efficient, there is an interest to use cluster of ARM core processors to replace more powerful Intel variants. Baidu, the Chinese Google [search] equivalent announced that it has deployed ARM based processor from Marvell for its storage servers. The particular version that Baidu is using is known to be Marvell's 1.6GHz quad-core Armada processor, that Marvell launched in 2010. However, AMD and some semiconductor startups like Calxeda also are trying to bring a 64-bit version for the storage server market. In last 3-4 years most of the storage vendors have moved to (mostly Intel-based) 64-bit processors for their enterprise servers. So, it is quite obvious that for them to seriously consider a ARM-based processor, they would need at least a 64-bit version. Taking cognizance of this need, ARM has already announced to bring out two new core designs. Last October, ARM unveiled its 64 bit Cortex A-50 server processor. ZDNET reports that this design is already licensed by AMD, Broadcom, Calxeda, HiSilicon, Samsung and STMicroelectronics. AMD announced that their first ARM based server CPU is targeted for production in 2014.

AMD Bridges the X86 and ARM Ecosystems for the Data Center from AMD

 At this point, it is not clear if Intel's response would be another version of ATOM or Xeon. Storage vendors who adopted Xeon in their storage controllers definitely would like if Intel makes Xeon more energy efficient. But we sure can expect the data centres to be lot more energy efficient compared to their present versions.

Innovations towards more energy- efficient storage

source: ComEd

Electrical Power Consumption is one large cost component in data centre expenses. As per some of the available reports, 30% of data centre energy bill is attributed to IT Equipment. Last year in September, New york Times published an article that highlighted how much energy bill these modern data centres run. As per that article [read here], Google’s data centers consume nearly 300 million watts and Facebook’s about 60 million watts. "Worldwide, the digital warehouses use about 30 billion watts of electricity, roughly equivalent to the output of 30 nuclear power plants, according to estimates industry experts compiled for The Times.", NYT reports.
Since power consumption has become such a big issue with data centres, there are many companies like ComEd whose business entirely is focused to solutions for reducing the energy use of data centers.
But given that 30% of that consumption is driven by servers and storage devices, the question arises as to why the storage vendors are not bringing more energy efficient storage. Fact that 'energy efficient storage' has not been highlighted to be one of the major trends in 2013, tells us that  addressing the problem is not very simple. Let us see why.

Electrical Power efficiency in disk based system

Storage systems at present are primarily disk-based. Even our backup system is predominantly disk-based except possibly the main-frame systems. With disks-based systems, historically the storage software are designed assuming that all attached disks are online i.e. disks have to be connected to the data bus of the storage controller and are powered on and are always available for the higher level . These systems traditionally cannot differentiate between a failed disk and a powered off disk. Fact is disk vendors, initially did not provide any different device state in the disk controller [electrical circuitry attached to the disk that controls read/write to the disk] that would identify that disks are powered down.  So the storage vendors too designed their File Systems /RAID Arrays with the assumption that disks are always powered on and in active state. Probably nobody imagined that hundreds of disks will be attached to a single storage controller one day. With the rising clamour for better power management, by 2008-2010, the disk vendors introduced power management scheme in SATA controllers. Since SATA is mostly used in near-line, backup and archive systems, and these systems have large number of disks which are not used all the time, one can power down 'idle' disks, if possible and bring considerable power saving. SATA provides two link power management states, in addition to the “Active” state. These states are “Partial” and “Slumber,” that, by specification, differ only by the command sent on the bus to enter the low power state, and the return latency. Partial has a maximum return latency of 10 microseconds, while Slumber has a maximum return latency of 10 milliseconds [further read].  Storage systems would need to tweak their File System and/or RAID controller to take advantage of SATA power management. Handling microseconds of latency is easier but handling miliseconds of latency requires major design change in the software.
EMC first brought this power management feature in their Clarion platform. The solution was to create a new RAID group and assign the powered down disks to that group after 30 min. idle state. The controller could recognize these disk states and can wait for maximum 10 seconds for the disks to come back to active state. EMC claims that this power down feature would save around 54% in average [ further read].  To my knowledge, other storage vendors are in the process of adopting this power saving feature in their controllers. If they haven't done already, it is probably because their disk based system would require pretty large design changes to accommodate these new states of disks. I personally was involved in analysis for one prominent storage vendors, and was made adequately aware of how deep the changes would go. However my take is that in next 3-4 years, most disk-based storage vendors will adopt the SATA power management.
That obviously leaves out a large number of systems that use FC/SAS disks. Fortunately SAS 2.1 brought in a new set of power management features which disk vendors are expected to adopt in next few years and SAS is expected to replace FC disks going forward, so we have a workable solution in the future.

Tape-based system as an alternative

Tape controllers on the other hand do not suffer such issues. Tapes, in fact are designed with specific attention to offline storage. One can backup the data to the tapes, take the cartridge out of the online system, store them in separate locker and insert them to the system when needed. Inside the vault, the tape cartridge do not consume any electrical power. They do however needs periodical data auditing since tape-read fails more frequently that disks.
But with the  new long-life  and a high-capacity LTO-5 and LTO-6 tapes, those problems are much reduced. Many are in fact bringing back tape storage in their system. EMC also is promoting tapes for backup data. Although it sounds like a regressive step, one must accept that tape does provide a considerable power saving option especially when it comes to storage for data backup and archival.

Little Longer-term Future

To envisage the future of power efficient storage, we need to look at the problem holistically.  One can power down idle disks. However more power is consumed by active disks. Data centres also spend considerable money in cooling the data centres. The pie chart at the top shows that almost 33% of total energy is spent in Cooling system and that cost is going to rise with rising global temperature.
     A better solution would therefore be to design storage media that consumes almost zero power when kept idle but also consumes much less power even in active state compared to existing hard disks. Much much better if these media can operate at room temperature which would translate to lower energy bill for cooling. Towards this, flash provides an excellent option. Flash storage [see previous post] consumes magnitude less power for regular read/write operation and consumes almost zero power when left idle. It also provides much higher random read/write throughput making it ideal for high-performance storage. At present its relative higher cost and limited write-span are the hindrance for  it to replace disks in mainstream storage. With time there is little doubt that further innovations will bring down the cost/GB drastically. Storage capacity also will be comparable to SAS. The biggest dampener for SSD/flash so far has been its number of writes limitation. A very recent article in IEEE Spectrum indicates that we already have a breakthrough. Macronix, a Taiwanese company has reported the invention of a self-healing NAND flash memory that survives more than 100 million cycles.
 Fact is they are yet to find the limit where it breaks. They strongly believe that it will survive a billion writes. Their method is simply a local heat treatment on the chip-set to lengthen the life of the media. If that invention works, we have an alternative storage solution that meets all our stated needs, namely, 1.consume low power, 2. can operate at room temperature, 3. provide both high capacity [~ around 2 TB] and high throughput and 5. consume a fraction of space compared to HDD [the IEEE Spectrum article can be accessed here].
In a couple of years the technology is very likely to matures with full-fledged induction of flash-only storage in mainstream storage systems. EMC's xtremeIO, whipTail, violin memory and other all-flash-storage systems are likely to define tomorrow's mainstream storage system.

Building a SAAS infrastructure using opensource components

Let's assume that you are in the low-cost web server business and you want to build your entire setup using only opensource components. This means that you probably are using a open-source LAMP stack for your web-servers. This also means that you definitely are using mySQL for your backend database. As far as programming tools are considered, you have plenty of choices. For our present discussion, we would assume that you are using PHP and Javascript since these are the tools majority use today. However, changing the tool should not be a big issue and we should be able to add new tools as needed. So in summary, we need an application server setup comprising a LAMP stack, a PHP server, a mySQL server. In case you need a Windows configuration, we would simply replace LAMP with WAMP stack.
All right, now let's say you need many of these servers and you need to be able to provision the application fast, ideally in just couple of hours, application in this case would mean a single server application and not the Hadoop type. This means you would prefer a virtual server instead of a single dedicated m/c. Since you do not know how many applications you would run and how many users would subscribe to a single application, you want to design a setup that can scale out instead of scale up. What we mean is this, let's say your application handles 4000 connections today. Now you can either design a server that can scale up to load for 100,000 connections [which is decidedly more complex] or you can decide to design to share the load with multiple servers, which is relatively easier.
Advantage of the latter approach is that you can scale down very easily by decommissioning few servers when your load goes down and re-provision the servers for different application(s).
  In short we need a cluster of VMs with each VM running either a web server or mySQL.
Let's look at your hardware investment. To start with, you want a mid-size server m/c. A good configuration would be six core x86-based processor [Intel or AMD] with 8 GB RAM at the least, somewhat similar to Dell Poweredge. The hardware must support Intel VT spec for hardware assistance for virtualization. To cover for hardware failures, you may want to have two of the servers connected in hot-standby mode. For storage, you may want to have another set of two servers with large cache of SAS disks running GlusterFS. No need to mention, all these m/c would be connected in LAN and would be interfacing to the external world through a Firewall router.
Now let's bring virtualization. We will install  Linux KVM hypervisor on the PowerEdge equivalent servers. Remember Linux KVM that we are talking here is free and does not come with many management tools that come with Both RedHat Enterprise Virtualization [RHEV] and SUSE enterprise virtualization version are used in large enterprise setup and one can choose either of them. Both of these versions come with a License Fee. If you like to check which guest OS is supported on which KVM version, check this page.
Once KVM is installed we can create around a hundred VMs on the server.  Each VM can be pre-configured with a guest OS [we used Ubuntu version] and a web-server template which would provide default configuration for LAMP stack, PHP servers, IP address, domain name in order to preload our VM installation work. I know that RHEV provides tool to create template. For free KVM, one may have to do it manually or write a tool. Having a template makes the provisioning jobe easier. All that one needs is to modify the configuration before commissioning the web-server.
For GlusterFS, many prefer the Debian linux as the host. Since they are not part of web-server, we actually can have a native debian server and have the GlusterFS installed on it. This page can be helpful in getting this setup ready. Now we need to install the mySQL cluster [it provides replication support]. this How-to document could be useful.
Now the setup is ready, we have almost the first version of open-source based cloud ready. You can commission the web-server as needed. There is one glitch though. You have no interface to monitor server load and health remotely. We picked Nagios tool for that job as it was relatively light-weight and easier to install. It is also used by some of the leading large cloud service providers. You still may have to develop few tools to make the provisioning the application and monitoring entirely autonomous as per specific need for the setup.
There is a nice article on building Ubuntu linux based cloud and you may want to check that too.