Over the past few months, we’ve engaged with numerous customers who express apprehensions regarding the total cost of ownership (TCO) for hosting Microsoft Windows workloads in the cloud. A noteworthy example is Infor, a prominent player in enterprise resource planning (ERP) for sectors like manufacturing, healthcare, and retail. They have successfully migrated thousands of their Microsoft SQL Server workloads to Amazon EC2 instances, resulting in a remarkable 75% reduction in monthly backup expenses. This substantial savings allows Infor to redirect resources toward significant business expansion, focusing on AI initiatives and optimization.
Another compelling case is that of Takeaway, a UK-based firm that shifted its SQL Server workloads to AWS. They are now leveraging that data to enhance Alexa skills for food delivery orders!
Here are three key points to consider to ensure you achieve the best TCO:
Fact Check #1: Microsoft’s Cost Comparisons May Be Misleading for Windows Workloads in the Cloud
Many customers consistently express their confidence in AWS for managing their critical Windows workloads. However, some have reported that Microsoft asserts Azure is a more cost-effective option for running Windows workloads. But is that truly the case?
Upon reviewing Microsoft’s cost comparisons, it’s evident that their analysis is flawed due to several incorrect assumptions. For instance, Microsoft only evaluates the costs associated with compute services and licenses, neglecting essential components like storage and networking. By omitting these critical services, Microsoft fails to present a realistic comparison.
Additionally, the comparison presumes that AWS and Azure offerings perform at the same level, which is not accurate. While they may use similar virtual instance configurations, Microsoft overlooks the significantly superior performance of AWS compute. Customers often find they need to operate between two to three times as many Azure instances to match the performance levels achieved on AWS (see Fact Check #2).
Moreover, Microsoft’s analysis only considers outdated versions of Windows Server or SQL Server from 2008, then adds expensive Extended Support costs to the AWS figures. This expense can account for over half of the claimed cost difference. They also assume that customers will not transition away from software that is over a decade old in the next three years. Feedback from customers indicates they intend to utilize their upgrade rights from Software Assurance (SA) to migrate to newer versions, such as SQL Server 2016, using our new automated upgrade tool to eliminate costly fees.
Lastly, Microsoft’s comparison factors in the Azure Hybrid Benefit to lower the cost of the Azure virtual instance but fails to include the necessary Microsoft SA cost per license, further skewing the results.
These assumptions culminate in a comparison that does not encompass all the expenses involved in running SQL Server in Azure, nor does it consider the performance advantages offered by AWS. At AWS, we are dedicated to maximizing your cloud resource efficiency while minimizing your Microsoft expenses. In contrast, it seems Microsoft aims to maintain or increase those costs by complicating licensing structures.
Fact Check #2: Price-Performance is Crucial for Your Business When Running SQL Server in the Cloud
When evaluating the ideal cloud solution for your Windows workloads, it is essential to weigh both price and performance to achieve the best operational value for your business. Additionally, consider the future and avoid making critical platform choices based on technology that predates the cloud’s emergence.
Enhancing application performance is vital for customer satisfaction, as superior performance can lead to a 39% increase in customer contentment. Poor performance can tarnish reputations and, in the worst cases, lead to customer attrition. Therefore, we have prioritized pushing performance boundaries.
Recent comparisons between Azure and AWS yield insightful results:
DB Best, a consulting firm specializing in enterprise databases, published two blogs—one for Azure and one for AWS—illustrating how to achieve the best price-performance ratio for current SQL Server versions in the cloud. ZK Research analyzed these posts and conducted an apples-to-apples comparison. Their findings showed that SQL Server on AWS consistently delivers 2–3x better performance than Azure, utilizing a TPC-C-like benchmark tool called HammerDB.
ZK Research further examined the DB Best data and calculated the costs of running 1 billion transactions monthly. Their results indicated that SQL Server on Azure would be twice as costly as on AWS when factoring in price-performance, including storage, compute, and networking.
Thus, the data suggests that AWS provides the best price-performance ratio for Windows workloads.
Fact Check #3: What Constitutes an Optimized TCO for Windows Workloads in the Cloud?
When determining which cloud to utilize for your Windows workloads, it’s crucial to extend your analysis beyond mere compute and support expenses. Evaluate the TCO of your workloads comprehensively, factoring in all necessary components such as storage, networking, and the financial benefits of enhanced reliability. Assess how you can leverage the cloud to reduce your overall TCO.
To minimize costs associated with running Windows workloads like Windows Server and SQL Server in the cloud, optimize these workloads for cloud scalability and flexibility. Many organizations planning cloud migrations attempt to align their on-premises servers with cloud servers on a one-to-one basis, overlooking the advantages of cloud-based systems.
Most on-premises servers are not optimized, with 84% of workloads currently over-provisioned. Numerous Windows and SQL Server 2008 workloads are still operating on outdated, slower hardware. By sizing your workloads according to performance and capability rather than physical servers, you can enhance your cloud migration.
You can also achieve significant savings by reducing the number of licenses used, both by server and core counts. Evaluate which on-premises workloads are fault-tolerant and consider using Amazon EC2 Spot Instances, which can offer savings of up to 90% on compute costs compared to On-Demand pricing.
To maximize the benefits of migrating your Windows workloads to the cloud, meticulously review and optimize each workload to fully utilize cloud scalability and flexibility. Our customers have found that working with assessment partners like Movere or TSO Logic, now a part of AWS, allows them to perform thorough assessments pre-migration, leading to up to 36% savings with AWS over three years. Even before considering the AWS price-performance advantage, customers with optimized environments often find their AWS solutions to be competitively priced against Microsoft.
Additionally, AWS Trusted Advisor can help optimize utilization. In fact, over the last few years, we’ve guided customers on how to reduce their spending with AWS, resulting in hundreds of millions in savings. For further insights, this is another blog post to keep you engaged: https://chanciturnervgt2.com/?p=1173.
For authoritative information on this topic, check out https://chvnci.com/?p=15197, and don’t miss this excellent resource: https://blog.dayone.careers/amazon-first-six-months-part-one/.
Leave a Reply