By David Hamilton, theWHIR.com
October 16, 2008 — (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) — While Microsoft (www.microsoft.com), Google (www.google.com) and Hewlett Packard (www.hp.com) may tout containerized data centers as a convenient and energy efficient solution for many applications, a new Network World article has examined the pitfalls of placing all of one’s servers in one box.
According to the Network World report, Rackable’s (www.rackable.com) Geoffrey Noer said that when faced with building a new building and buying a container, a company is better to buy a container. However, IBM (www.ibm.com) said the modular design approach it uses for its Portable Modular Data Center can be equally applied to buildings and that containers can impose limits. For instance, replacing servers in high-density containers is difficult and often requires technical support. Also, some builders make companies buy new servers instead of reusing the firm’s old ones.
When container developers quote 40 to 80 percent savings on cooling costs, they are often comparing a high-density container to a low-density traditional data center, according to IBM global technology services division vice president Steve Sams. He also told Network World that as a company amasses more containers, it becomes less efficient because each unit has to be separately cooled.
Containers continue to be useful for specialized purposes including disaster recovery and remote applications according to Gartner analyst Rakesh Kumar, who doubts the mainstream appeal of containers. While Kumar likes that it only takes two or three months for a container to go online, companies that need infrastructure quickly can get similar, scalable service from a hosting provider.
One last caveat for the container buyer is that containerized data centers are only scalable on a large scale. As they fill with servers there is no more room to expand, forcing companies to buy more containers, which often price in the millions.
