While virtual servers themselves have proven to be both useful and effective; a way for companies to empty their power-hungry storage rooms and move their data to a secure and easily scalable virtual model. The cost of storing this data has become increasingly an issue for many companies looking to make the switch. A recent Coraid survey found that 54 percent of companies asked said that their storage cost was three to one or higher than the cost of virtualization itself, and 62 percent of respondents said that they were paying $2,000 per terabyte or more for the storage of their virtual data.
This speaks to the current bottleneck in the industry, defined by the fact that storage has not been able to keep up with the demand for virtualized servers, and not in a way that is efficient and effective. Standard storage methods will not work for virtualized servers; they simply do not have the mobility or adaptability necessary in order to properly handle the volume of data being used. Two of the most common virtual storage choices are Ethernet SAN and Fibre Channel over Ethernet, but when asked which technology was their preferred storage method for the coming year, almost 80 percent of respondents said they would be using SAN over Fibre.
While SAN is proving to be a more cost-effective alternative to Fibre storage options, the fact remains that storage is the current blockage preventing companies from making the most out of their virtual networks. While the upfront and long-term cost savings can be substantial, without a viable and budget-conscious storage choice, many companies are choosing to pass on virtual technology for the moment or commit only a part of their resources to a virtual platform.
Related News:
