Hidden Cloud Costs: AWS, Azure Management Costs Compared - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Cloud // Infrastructure as a Service
Commentary
8/14/2014
12:15 PM
Charles Babcock
Charles Babcock
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
50%
50%

Hidden Cloud Costs: AWS, Azure Management Costs Compared

With the help of in-depth Gartner analysis, InformationWeek takes a closer look at the cost of managing Amazon vs. Azure.

7 Cloud Service Startups To Watch
7 Cloud Service Startups To Watch
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

What's so hard about assessing cloud ROI?

When it comes to determining cloud cost, one of the murkiest areas to assess is the implicit management expense of cloud workloads. Is there a difference between the management expenses of different services? You bet there is. To illustrate this, here's a quick look at the differences in operation between Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure.

If you can get the workload to run in either location, which one runs more efficiently, compute-wise? That might be possible to determine through some kind of improvised benchmark. Which one runs more efficiently, management-wise? That might be harder to determine, but recent research from Gartner will help us make some comparisons.

To determine how well your workload is running on Amazon, some basic tools are available. CloudWatch supplies a basic set of metrics on CPU, memory, and bandwidth use per application to customers. The IT cloud manager can programmatically retrieve data collected by CloudWatch, analyze it, chart it, and look for trends. Service basics are free; metrics and alerts can be customized for small fees. In addition, AWS's free CloudTrail logs API calls and delivers the log files to the customer.

[GE and Airbnb take different approaches to measuring cloud computing value. Read Cloud ROI: It's Still Hard To Measure.]

Microsoft also supplies free monitoring for Azure operations, but according to Gartner research director Kyle Hilgendorf's report, Microsoft Azure: In-Depth Assessment (registration required), it does not allow creation of custom metrics. The report says Azure holds the operational data for only 10 days, and then it's discarded.

On the other hand, if you're a skilled Microsoft shop -- and there are many -- using Active Directory, Windows Server 2012, SQL Server, and particularly System Center will make it easier to monitor and manage your cloud workload. They'll also work with tasks sent to Azure, more or less as if they were on premises. That's also true of SharePoint. In terms of efficient management, this can be a big plus.

Perhaps the main drawback in the Microsoft management approach is that it uses some, but not all, types of Linux under Hyper-V. For example, SUSE and Oracle Linux are welcome; Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not. Many modern enterprise datacenters depend on both Windows Server and Linux, specifically Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If yours does, Azure's blind eye for Red Hat is a problem. Similarly, Azure can see and work with SQL Server, but not MySQL. This pattern is seen across many examples of popular open source code, with a few exceptions Microsoft does support, such as PHP.

So what will it cost to cope with this dichotomy? Can you save money on Azure? It's noted in certain benchmarking tests for delivering consistent, efficient compute service. But you may need to change the Linux you depend on (an expensive and unlikely proposition) or use a different service than Azure for your Red Hat Linux workloads, complicating the management challenge. Amazon, of course, welcomes Red Hat workloads.

Amazon provides a battery of configuration and deployment tools, including Elastic Beanstalk for scalable deployments, Data Pipeline for making connections between compute and storage deployments, and Cloud Formation for generating reusable templates that capture all the dependencies of a given workload.

Again, familiarity with Windows Server and System Center will give you roughly equal capabilities for similar workloads. The Gartner report notes one difference: Azure's Autoscale allows customers only to turn VMs on and off. In other words, it requires customers to pre-deploy instances for the scaling group. This means customers must predict ahead of time how many instances may be needed for the peak usage, according to the report. Then instances get turned on as needed, and hopefully the number reserved matches the need.

The report notes, "Amazon includes robust load-balancing options... AWS has expanded the feature set of its Elastic Load Balancing service to include session affinity and metrics-driven load balancing."

Here's a little-known fact: If an AWS server hardware dies and your application goes with it, that's your tough luck. It's up to you to monitor CloudWatch or set up alerts to let you know when a virtual machine has died. Alternatively, you could set up a backup system in a second "availability zone" such as an independently powered section of the AWS data center for high-availability operation. Moving your data from one zone to another, of course, results in transfer fees, along with the fees for a second system.

"AWS customers can set up CloudWatch alarms and automatic scripting options to ensure a new healthy instance is created, if the original instance fails," Gartner's report says. "Customers can create auto-scaling groups that will make sure that a fixed number of instances are available, so that if one fails, a new one is launched as a replacement."

If failure is pending -- for example, hardware is showing signs of impending demise -- Amazon will provide notice to affected customers of a maintenance issue and give customers leeway to migrate to a new server before the faulty unit is shut down.

For Azure, Microsoft provides automated restart for a stopped virtual machine. "AWS does not currently support automatic instance recovery or restart of the original instance, should a failure occur," Gartner's report explains. Amazon instead gives customers the tools to monitor, alert, and restart the VM on their own.

What is the difference in cost for the one approach versus the other? Amazon offers a more complete way for customers to manage workloads themselves -- for those who know how. But many Microsoft shops see a benefit in the Azure restart feature. If they are already Premier support contract holders, technical support will notify them of any outage issues.

Of course, it's not a black and white issue. If your company already has expertise in Microsoft products, Azure will likely offer an edge in lower costs. On the other hand, "companies that have existing people with skills in .NET, Visual Studio, System Center, Active Directory, Hyper-V, SQL Server, and SharePoint will be able to transfer some of this knowledge to the Azure platform," Gartner's report says. "Current Microsoft customers with enterprise agreements can also use the negotiated discount for Azure."

As for its rating on overall infrastructure-as-a-service operation, AWS meets 92% of Gartner's criteria, and Microsoft meets 75%. With Amazon, you'll have to learn the Amazon way of doing things versus the datacenter software you already know. Doing so, however, will give you a more thorough management approach and possibly a more cost-effective handle on operations.

But not everyone needs the full Amazon treatment. Those who want an auxiliary operation to complement their data center may find Azure less expensive and easier to use. Take your pick -- and estimate your costs -- on where you wish to end up.

In its ninth year, Interop New York (Sept. 29 to Oct. 3) is the premier event for the Northeast IT market. Strongly represented vertical industries include financial services, government, and education. Join more than 5,000 attendees to learn about IT leadership, cloud, collaboration, infrastructure, mobility, risk management and security, and SDN, as well as explore 125 exhibitors' offerings. Register with Discount Code MPIWK to save $200 off Total Access & Conference Passes.

Charles Babcock is an editor-at-large for InformationWeek and author of Management Strategies for the Cloud Revolution, a McGraw-Hill book. He is the former editor-in-chief of Digital News, former software editor of Computerworld and former technology editor of Interactive ... View Full Bio
We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Charlie Babcock
50%
50%
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Author
8/18/2014 | 2:10:47 PM
My cost of managemenet comments reflect hybrid-cloud assumptions
Yes, DougL321, my comments reflect an assumption that someone wants a hybrid cloud operation, with some operations on-premises and some workloads in the cloud. Picture looks different for a startup with no on-premises data center; and right, it's also different for someone only interested in platform as a service. How many companies are only interested in PaaS?
Charlie Babcock
50%
50%
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Author
8/15/2014 | 6:16:46 PM
Watch your app from outside the cloud
"If possible, something outside of your cloud environment should be checking to make sure that services are still up and available rather than relying on built-in cloud tools." Exactly, PCComf. There's more than a cottage industry trying to provide this: think Compuware, Solarwinds, New Relic, AppDynamic, NetScount and don't forget the French firm Cedexis. All can supply info. that the cloud provider may not.
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Author
8/14/2014 | 6:55:43 PM
Re: Just a wee bit of fine print...
That's news to me. I had always assumed AWS provided enough redundancy and failover that the risk of a server going out wasn't an issue.
Charlie Babcock
50%
50%
Charlie Babcock,
User Rank: Author
8/14/2014 | 4:00:23 PM
Azure, Amazon and what about VMware?
As you review management costs for Azure and Amazon, it's hard not to see how VMware has a shot at grabbing part of the bybrid cloud market. The pretty good things that Windows Server, Hyper-V and System Center can do will be amplified by all the things that vSphere and vCloud can do. Think hybrid computing based on live migration of virtual machines. That's not possible today. The same storage file system must underlie both departure point and host destination for live migration. But I'll bet VMware is working on it.
Laurianne
50%
50%
Laurianne,
User Rank: Author
8/14/2014 | 1:25:42 PM
good context
Good context on the Red Hat Linux issues Charlie. Readers, how has this issue shaped your thinking?
InformationWeek Is Getting an Upgrade!

Find out more about our plans to improve the look, functionality, and performance of the InformationWeek site in the coming months.

News
How SolarWinds Changed Cybersecurity Leadership's Priorities
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  5/26/2021
Commentary
How CIOs Can Advance Company Sustainability Goals
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  5/26/2021
Slideshows
IT Skills: Top 10 Programming Languages for 2021
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  5/21/2021
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Planning Your Digital Transformation Roadmap
Download this report to learn about the latest technologies and best practices or ensuring a successful transition from outdated business transformation tactics.
Slideshows
Flash Poll