1. Changing Data Center Economics Cisco UCS EMC World 2012
Cisco Systems Thomas Cloyd
Data Center and Virtualization Unified Computing System
May 2012

2. DID YOU KNOW? CISCO SELLS SERVERS WORLD CLASS SERVERS
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
WORLD CLASS SERVERS

3. UCS Application Performance—63 Records A History of World Record Performance on Industry Standard Benchmarks
Best CPU Performance
SPECfp_rate_base socket
C260 M2
SPECint_rate_base socket
SPECint_rate2006 X86 4-socket C460 M2
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 4-socket C460 M1
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M2
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M1
SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M2
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M2
SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 4-socket C460 M1
SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M1
SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket C220 M3
SPECfp_base2006
X86 2-socket
C220 M3
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket C220 M3
Best Virtualization Performance
VMmark 2.0
Overall B200 M2
VMmark 2.1
2-socket Blade B200 M2
VMmark 1.x
2 –socket Blade B230 M1
VMmark 1.x
Overall C460 M1
2-socket B200 M1
2-socket B250 M2
Blade Server B440 M1
Best Cloud Computing Performance
VMmark 2.1
Overall C460 M2
Two–node 4-socket C460 M2
4-socket C460 M2
Best Enterprise Application Performance
Oracle E-Business Suite Medium Model Payroll Batch B200 M2
Oracle E-Business Suite Xtra Large Model Payroll B200 M3
Oracle E-Business Suite Medium Model Order-to-Cash B200 M2
Oracle E-Business Suite Large Model Order-to-Cash B200 M3
Oracle E-Business Suite Ex-large Model Payroll Batch B200 M2
Oracle E-Business Suite Xtra Large Model Payroll Batch B230 M2
TPC-C
Oracle DB 11g & OEL C250 M2
TPC-H
Microsoft SQL Server C460 M2
TPC-H
VectorWise C250 M2
UCS had posted 63 World Records, Certainly leadership on benchmarks change, but coming out of the gate setting new records for Vmmark, SPECComp, SPECint, SPECfp and Oracle E-Business shows you just how good and how flexible Cisco UCS servers are.
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
Cisco just added another 8 in March with the new Intel E-5 processors.
< NEXT SLIDE >
SPECjEnterprise2010 Overall B440 M1
SPECjEnteprise2010
2-node B440 M2
TPC-H
VectorWise C250 M2
Best Enterprise Middleware Performance
SPECjbb2005
2-socket C260 M2
2-socket B230 M2
4-socket B440 M2
X86 2-socket B200 M2
X86 4-socket C460 M1
SPECjAppServer2004
2-node B230 M1
X86 2-socket B230 M1
1-node 2-socket C250 M2
SPECjbb2005
X86 2-socket C220 M3
Best CompetitorC Performance
SPECompMbase2001
2-socket B200 M2
SPECompLbase2001
2-socket B200 M2
LinPack
2-socket B200 M2
LS-Dyna
4-socket C460 M1
SPECompMbase2001
4-socket C460 M1
SPECompMbase2001
4-socket C460 M1
SPECompMbase2001
2-socket C240 M3
SPECompMbase socket B200 M2
SPECompLbase2001
2-socket B200 M2
SPECompMbase2001
2-socket B230 M2
SPECompLbase2001
2-socket B230 M2
SPECompMbase2001
4-socket C460 M2
SPECompMbase2001
4-socket C460 M2
SPECompLbase2001
2-socket C220 M3
Data Current as of March 15, 2012

4. March 15 2012: 8 new benchmark records on Cisco UCS M3 platforms
UCS Application Performance—63 Records A History of World Record Performance on Industry Standard Benchmarks
Best CPU Performance
SPECfp_rate_base socket
C260 M2
SPECint_rate_base socket
SPECint_rate2006 X86 4-socket C460 M2
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 4-socket C460 M1
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M2
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M1
SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M2
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M2
SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 4-socket C460 M1
SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket B200 M1
SPECfp_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket C220 M3
SPECfp_base2006
X86 2-socket
C220 M3
March : 8 new benchmark records on Cisco UCS M3 platforms
Two-socket Record SPECCompLbase 527,122
B200 M3
Two-Socket Record SPECjbb* ,584,567 BOPS
C220 M3
Two-Socket Record SPECompM*base ,065 base score*
C240 M3
Overall Record Oracle E-Business Suite Payroll Extra Large Model 828,729 Employees/hr
Two-Socket Record SPECint*_rate_base base score
Two-Socket x86 Record SPECfp*_rate_base2006
496 base score
Two-Socket Record SPECfp*_base base score*
Overall Record Oracle E-Business Suite Order-To-Cash Large Model 206,044 Lines/hr
SPECint_rate_base2006 X86 2-socket C220 M3
Best Virtualization Performance
VMmark 2.0
Overall B200 M2
VMmark 2.1
2-socket Blade B200 M2
VMmark 1.x
2 –socket Blade B230 M1
VMmark 1.x
Overall C460 M1
2-socket B200 M1
2-socket B250 M2
Blade Server B440 M1
Best Cloud Computing Performance
VMmark 2.1
Overall C460 M2
Two–node 4-socket C460 M2
4-socket C460 M2
Best Enterprise Application Performance
Oracle E-Business Suite Medium Model Payroll Batch B200 M2
Oracle E-Business Suite Xtra Large Model Payroll B200 M3
Oracle E-Business Suite Medium Model Order-to-Cash B200 M2
Oracle E-Business Suite Large Model Order-to-Cash B200 M3
Oracle E-Business Suite Ex-large Model Payroll Batch B200 M2
Oracle E-Business Suite Xtra Large Model Payroll Batch B230 M2
TPC-C
Oracle DB 11g & OEL C250 M2
TPC-H
Microsoft SQL Server C460 M2
TPC-H
VectorWise C250 M2
UCS had posted 63 World Records, Certainly leadership on benchmarks change, but coming out of the gate setting new records for Vmmark, SPECComp, SPECint, SPECfp and Oracle E-Business shows you just how good and how flexible Cisco UCS servers are.
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
Cisco just added another 8 in March with the new Intel E-5 processors.
< NEXT SLIDE >
SPECjEnterprise2010 Overall B440 M1
SPECjEnteprise2010
2-node B440 M2
TPC-H
VectorWise C250 M2
Best Enterprise Middleware Performance
SPECjbb2005
2-socket C260 M2
2-socket B230 M2
4-socket B440 M2
X86 2-socket B200 M2
X86 4-socket C460 M1
SPECjAppServer2004
2-node B230 M1
X86 2-socket B230 M1
1-node 2-socket C250 M2
SPECjbb2005
X86 2-socket C220 M3
Best CompetitorC Performance
SPECompMbase2001
2-socket B200 M2
SPECompLbase2001
2-socket B200 M2
LinPack
2-socket B200 M2
LS-Dyna
4-socket C460 M1
SPECompMbase2001
4-socket C460 M1
SPECompMbase2001
4-socket C460 M1
SPECompMbase2001
2-socket C240 M3
SPECompMbase socket B200 M2
SPECompLbase2001
2-socket B200 M2
SPECompMbase2001
2-socket B230 M2
SPECompLbase2001
2-socket B230 M2
SPECompMbase2001
4-socket C460 M2
SPECompMbase2001
4-socket C460 M2
SPECompLbase2001
2-socket C220 M3
Data Current as of March 15, 2012

5. Customers Have Spoken UCS After Three Short Years WW
UCS momentum is fueled by game-changing innovation; Cisco is quickly passing established players 1 WW
UCS momentum is fueled by game-changing innovation; Cisco is quickly passing established players 1
UCS #3 with 12.3%
x86 Blade servers are growing over twice as fast as the overall x86 computing market 2
UCS After Three Short Years
X86 Server Blade Market Share, Q4 CY121 US
Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) has been seeing wide adoption Worldwide as you can see from this set of charts. In just three short years Cisco UCS has been seeing rapid acceptance across a wide strata of applications and workloads.
From stand-alone data bases and other applications, to highly virtualized environments, UCS is hitting the mark for data centers today and tomorrow.
So Cisco gained share, who lost share?
< NEXT SLIDE >
11,000 UCS Customers WW
UCS #2 with 19.1%
$1.3B annualized revenue run rate for CY11Q4
UCS FY12Q2 growth of 91% Y/Y
Source: 1 IDC Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker, Q4 2012, February, 2012, Revenue Share 2 IDC Q3 CY11 Server Forecaster, Based on Blade Revenue

6. Market Share Changes – Customers are voting for UCS
WW x86 Blade Servers Q4'2009 to Q4'2011 Share Changes
Market Share of WW Total Factory Revenue
Market Share of WW Total Units
Vendor
Market Share Change
Cisco
10.8%
9.1% HP
-6.9%
-5.8%
IBM
-5.9%
-5.3%
All Others
1.9%
2.0%
USA x86 Blade Servers Q4'2009 to Q4'2011 Share Changes
Market Share of WW Total Factory Revenue
Market Share of WW Total Units
Vendor
Market Share Change
Cisco
16.2%
14.5% HP
-7.8%
-4.3%
IBM
-7.3%
All Others
-1.0%
-2.9%
In just the last 2 years, Cisco UCS blade server Customers have moved Cisco to:
10.8% of the total WW factory revenue and the #3 position.
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
16.2% of the total USA factory revenue and the #2 position
The obvious question is “Why are customers moving to UCS?” What is the driving movement?
Let’s take a look at the root causes behind this movement.
< NEXT SLIDE >
Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker, Q4 2012, February, 2012, Revenue Share

7. Server Related Spend – growth over time
SERVER-RELATED SPEND (CAPEX+OPEX)
WW Spending on Servers, Power & Cooling, and Mgmt. / Administration
80% OpEx
Customer Spending ($B)
Today, the data center makes up 44% of overall IT spend.
The traditional data center design was to build in silos - with dedicated resources for each application - and to design silo resources for peak load environments.
This model had some inherent inefficiencies:
Resources can’t be shared and,
For the majority of the time, applications aren’t maximizing the capability of the server platform,
All of which drives up costs due to underutilization of resources.  
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
Enter virtualization. As you can see here, the amount of investment to actually buy servers has been flat to declining for the past 15 years.
Virtualization has helped keep hardware costs down but at the expense of escalating management complexity, burden and therefore cost.
The cost of managing and operating servers has been growing steadily and represented 66% of the total spend in 2011, and is projected to be 80% of the total by 2013.
Data Centers need to deliver increased efficiencies in areas that have the greatest effect for your IT department and business. The answer is devote your efforts against the largest cost bucket, OpEx.
This is not a “Do More, With Less” conversation. It is a “Do More, With What I Have” and “Maximize the Delivered Benefit” for every person and purchase.
Let’s see why customers are choosing Cisco UCS to help them meet this OpEx challenge.
< NEXT SLIDE >
20% CapEx
Source: IDC, “New Economic Model for the Datacenter”; IDC 2011

8. 16 blades – 1 x Legacy Chassis
Simpler Architecture = Fewer Touches UCS has Fewer Management Touch Points
16 blades – 1 x Legacy Chassis
Fabric Interconnects
Intra Chassis Switches 2
Chassis Mgmt Module
Total Mgmt Points 4
16 blades – 2 x Cisco UCS 5108
Fabric Interconnects 2
Intra Chassis Switches
Chassis Mgmt Module
Total Mgmt Points 1
What do you get with legacy blade chassis design? Even those that have now followed Cisco’s lead and rolled out “converged” (well almost) intra chassis switches?
Multiple points of management, even for just a single chassis.
Compare that to UCS on the right.
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
A pair of Fabric Interconnects in the center with two blade chassis and 16 blade servers.
All with a single point of management. A true single point of management, not multiple applets shoved inside of a single “pane of glass” to look like on tool.
Now let’s look at how these two environments scale, the Legacy blade chassis and Cisco UCS.
< NEXT SLIDE >

9. Simpler Architecture = Easier to Scale
Legacy doubling servers = doubling touches; UCS = 1 touch point
64 Blades – 4 x Legacy Chassis
Fabric Interconnects
Intra Chassis Switches 8
Chassis Mgmt Module
Total Mgmt Points 16
80 Blades – 10 x Cisco UCS 5108
Fabric Interconnects 2
Intra Chassis Switches
Chassis Mgmt Module
Total Mgmt Points 1
Mgmt switch
LAN
SAN A
SAN B
Mgmt switch
LAN
SAN A
SAN B
Looking to the left side again,
The Legacy chassis scales in building blocks, every chassis identical. Here we show 64 blade servers with 16 separate switch/network management points that are for the blade network only, we haven’t gotten to the blades yet. You have to buy more switches with every chassis, consuming more upstream ports.
This adds ever increasing management burden, both at the server chassis level and further into the data center where port consumption is escalating with every new chassis.
Let’s compare this to the way UCS scales:
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
Cisco UCS is supporting 80 blades here (16 more than the legacy) and still only has ONE management point. AND this management point covers both the network AND the blade servers
Management Touch Points is one of the major drivers behind the rapid adoption of UCS, there are others.
There is obviously cost associated with scale, and as you might guess, including all the switches in every chassis is not very cost effective.
Let’s see how architecture cost plays out at scale.
< NEXT SLIDE >

10. Simpler Architecture = No Penalty No Infrastructure Penalty to Scale
BLADE CHASSIS SAVINGS AT SCALE—BLADE SLOT SOLUTION 34% to 38% with UCS
Blade Chassis Infrastructure cost to support servers is critical.
The Chassis and I/O.
Competitor is $39,872 more to get ready to add a 17th server.
Cisco UCS is 34% less expensive
Chassis and I/O Cost
This is a blade chassis and chassis networking comparison only. No blades are included yet. You have to put the infrastructure in place first.
For the first 16 blade slots, there is some extra cost for UCS associated. You are putting the Unified infrastructure capability in place. About $11,000 extra at retail to retail comparisons.
The real question is: “What is the value I get for making that extra infrastructure investment?”
The answer is obvious when you consider the management savings illustrated on the prior slide and then looking at this graph.
We already saw where UCS delivers less complex and easier scale on the network management front.
Now you are seeing the second leg of the infrastructure stool – lower cost to scale infrastructure.
We still need to look at a third leg, managing the compute nodes themselves, since compute management costs (both physical and virtual) are spiraling upwards quickly as we saw earlier.
< NEXT SLIDE >
Total Number of Chassis Blade Server Slots
Cisco UCS
Competitor Chassis, Switches & Mgmt.
UCS 5108 with pair of UCS 6248UP Fl (four 10 Gbps uplinks per chassis = 5Gb/s per blade) vs. Competitor’s Chassis with one pair of CNA switches, and mgmt.
Competitor’s pricing publically available on April 16, Cisco UCS pricing MSRP on April 16, Pricing is for blade chassis and networking only. Servers are not included.

11. Cisco Stateless vs. Server Identity Computing
Blades
Adapters
Chassis Modules
Multi Chassis Access Layer
Converged
Adapter
Unified Fabric
Cisco UCS
Service Profile
NIC MACs
HBA WWNs
Server UUID
VLANs Assignments
VLAN Tagging
FC Fabrics Assignments
FC Boot Parameters
Number of vNICs
vNIC Transmit Speed
vNIC Receive Speed
PXE settings
Boot order (full)
IPMI Settings
Number of vHBAs
QoS
Call Home
Template Association
Org & Sub Org Assoc.
Server Pool Association
Statistic Thresholds
BIOS scrub actions
Disk scrub actions
BIOS firmware
Adapter firmware
BMC firmware
RAID settings
Advanced NIC settings
Serial over LAN settings
BIOS Settings
Power Capping settings
Other Vendor
Server Profile
Server Serial Number
VLANs
FC Fabrics
FC Boot Params
Boot order (FC only)
12 Server Settings
127+ Server Settings
Switches
Compute management is another driver behind the growth of UCS adoption.
As you can see, there is no comparison between the left and right side in this slide. Cisco UCS lets a user pre-set over 127 different server identity features, IF THEY WANT.
The Legacy chassis does not has this same degree of flexibility. This means more manual steps, which means more time to deploy and greater potential for error, leading to even longer times to deploy.
The other vendor mgmt software is able to assign some server parameters, but the hardware (the server) still tells the system how it is configured. Additional management is required to configure the BIOS, Firmware, Full boot paths, Array settings etc…. Not UCS.
UCS service profiles enable full logical server abstraction. Every detail about a servers identity or any configuration option that would have to be set locally on the server is configurable in the Service Profile.
Service Profiles enable UCS to dictate to the server the manner in which it should be configured. This “profile” can be saved as a template and gives the server admin a repeatable methodology for deploy and redeploying servers to identical known good states.
The legacy vendor is missing much of the logical server abstraction and cannot equal the capabilities that are enabled with the Service Profile.
Lets look at how this plays out in a data center.
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
Their Server Profile doesn’t stack up to Cisco UCS Service Profile

12. UCS—More Flexible, Less Complexity
Legacy Design Blade Chassis
Cisco UCS Architecture
Other Vendor
Server Hardware Management
Multiple Layers of Software Required
UCS Manager
1 Console
No Added Cost
Rack and Blade Together
Control Chassis Power & Capping $
Virtual Address Enterprise Manager
System Mgr. Update Central Console
Virtual Address Hdwr Manager
Out of Band Management
Onboard Administrator
Here you see the various management applications that are necessary for a typical Legacy blade environment from a competitor.
All of these touch every blade server.
Contrast this with UCS on the right side of the slide.
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
The legacy management design touches every compute node, with added cost vs. UCS with a single touch management touch point for no additional cost.
So how does this scale?
< NEXT SLIDE >
16 blade servers
0 rack servers
16 blade servers
6 rack servers
Unified Compute Unified Management
Unified Networking
Separate Management - Every Chassis, All Software
Separate Enet & Fibre Channel I/O leaving the chassis

13. UCS—More Flexible, Less Complexity
Legacy Design Blade Chassis
Cisco UCS Architecture
Other Vendor
Server Hardware Management
Multiple Layers of Software Required
UCS Manager
1 Console
No Added Cost
Rack and Blade Together
Control Chassis Power & Capping $$$$
Virtual Address Enterprise Manager $$$$
System Mgr. Update Central Console
Virtual Connect Manager
Virtual Connect Manager
Virtual Connect Manager
Virtual Connect Manager
Competitor iLO Advanced for BladeSystem
Competitor iLO Advanced for BladeSystem
Competitor iLO Advanced for BladeSystem
Competitor iLO Advanced for BladeSystem
Onboard Administrator
Onboard Administrator
Onboard Administrator
Onboard Administrator
Not very graceful. This legacy environment adds not just more management, it also adds additional cost to go with the increased complexity as you add servers.
The Legacy environment now has 64 blade servers, each needing touching and having a number of higher level management tools to help manage the whole mess. More management points, more consoles, all just a bunch of “consoles as applets” inside a single pane of glass. And additional costs at each chassis add.
What does UCS look like?
< ADVANCE SLIDE >
This UCS environment can scale up to 160 blade AND OR rack servers, and does it with truly one single console. NO additional cost. The management functionality is built into the Fabric Interconnects.
Now lets take a look at what the entire hardware TCO stack looks like including servers, power and deployment time, as well as other items
< NEXT SLIDE >
64 blade servers
0 rack servers
Up to 160 servers
Blade &/or Rack mount
Unified Compute Unified Management
Unified Networking
Separate Management - Every Chassis, All Software
Separate Enet & Fibre Channel I/O leaving the chassis

14. All chassis fully populated with servers (starting at qty 16)
No Compromise – full chassis adds Cisco Solution TCO advantage increases at scale
All chassis fully populated with servers (starting at qty 16)
Identical servers with two E Intel Xeon processors with 64GB memory (eight 8GB DIMMs)
64GB
Here you see a comparison between Cisco UCS and another vendor at retail to retail pricing for the hardware.
It is important to note that the full stack of OpEx has been included.
All the servers for both vendors have identical dual Intel E processors and 64GB of memory (8 x 8GB DIMMs). No I realize that no one pays retail, but we cannot make comparisons using discounted pricing because it is important that you be able to verify and validate these numbers independently. That can only happen using retail pricing
The important take away from this slide is that UCS is more cost effective for the hardware purchases at lower server counts, and this clearly illustrates that point. “Top of Rack” switches are included in the competitive cost because they are required to scale the competitor’s solution to the same 160 server count that UCS can support with a single pair of Fabric Interconnects.
Graphs and tables showing saving and economies are great, but……
The real measure is what have savings have actual UCS customers seen.
< NEXT SLIDE >
*********************
Descriptions of contents:
Retail Pricing:
Cisco pricing is MSRP (47% discount for UCS hardware and 17% discount for services from GPL); Global Price List dated March 27, 2012.
Competitor server, chassis, and software pricing from their public web configuration page as of March 29, Competitor networking prices from the Competitor Product Bulletin updated March 30, 2012.
Server Configurations:
Cisco- UCS B200 M3, 2 x Intel Xeon E GHz processors, memory uses 8GB DDR3 1333MHz with quantity qty 2 for 16GB configurations and qty 8 for 64GB configurations. PC R 1.35v DIMMs, and the VIC 1240 mLOM.
Competitor- New Gen Blade Server, 2 x Intel Xeon E GHz processors, either 2 (16GB configuration) or 8 (64GB configuration) 8GB DDR3 1333MHz, PC3L R CAS-9 LV DIMMs, and the Converged CNA 10Gb 2P Flex type CNA LOM. System Manager is included under Hardware Management.
Chassis & Interconnect Configurations:
Cisco UP Fabric Extender; 5108 Chassis, 4 PSU, 8 fans, 2 x 2204UP Fabric Extender, and 4 uplinks per chassis. 6248UP Fabric Interconnect, 2 PSU, and port licenses as required.
Competitor – Blade Chassis Enclosure, 6 PSU, 10 fans, redundant Onboard Administrators, 2 x Converged blade chassis switch 10Gb/24-Port Modules. Virtual Control Enterprise Manager included for two or more chassis under Hardware Management.
Networking:
Cisco- No top-of-rack switches needed.
Competitor- Competitor port 1Gb switch with rack kit for OOBM. Competitor XG 10Gb switch with accessories and rack kit. Competitor 8/24 SAN Switch with accessories and licenses as needed.
Server Deployment Times:
Data extrapolated from Principle Technologies Test Report, March 2011.
Power:
Calculated from vendor's public tools for servers; switch power from QuickSpecs.
Other Vendor Trend Line
Cisco Trend Line
Servers
Other Vendor Parity Server
Cisco: B200 M3
Other
Vendor
Other
Vendor
Other
Vendor
Other
Vendor
Other
Vendor
Other
Vendor
Cisco
Cisco
Cisco
Cisco
Cisco
Cisco
# of Servers 8 16 32 48 64 80
Other vendor retail and Cisco MSRP pricing on 3/30/2012.

15. Cisco UCS: Changing the Economics of YOUR Data Center
Deployment Time:
90%
Shorter
Unified
Management
Operational Efficiency
Open Interface
Simplified Allocation of Resources
Administrator Productivity:
80% Higher
Highest Server
Density
Increased Performance in reduced footprint
Optimization of Energy Resources
Infrastructure CAPEX:
30%
Lower
High Performance
Virtual Networks
Increased performance and scale
Optimized Virtualization Performance
Application Performance:
40% Faster
Highest Scale, low latency networking
Unprecedented Bandwidth and Scale
Consolidation of Infrastructure
Power and Cooling Cost:
60%
Lower
80% Higher Admin Productivity
90% Faster Server Deployment
When we talk about savings, here are some examples of what our customers are seeing.
30% Lower Infrastructure CapEx
40% Better Application Performance
60% Lower Power and Cooling cost
< NEXT SLIDE >
***************
Travelport reduced their cost of computing by 39% overall at the solution level, $5.65 million over 5 years.
TCO / ROI
Holmesglen TAFE Reduces Server Hardware Costs by 30%, Uses 50% Less Space in the Data Centre -
-NightHawk Radiology: 50% reduction in physical servers, 80% less cabling
CapEx:
-Cineca was able to quickly and easily migrate 96% of our physical servers to virtual machines.“
-Audience View Tracking saw a 25% decrease in opeprating costs
-Converge saved as much as $200,000 in VMware licensing costs and reduced rack servers from 25 to 6
University of Colorado shrinks footprint by 90% and reduces power use by $600,000 USD –
OpEx
Disaster Recovery
restore a system from anywhere. When a large SQL server went down over a weekend, they were able to
in anywhere from five minutes to an hour, instead of 8 to 12 hours. Full remote accessibility enables them to
-Pitt Ohio’s standard servers, with 8 to 15 GB of data, can be fully backed up in three to five minutes. VMs can be restored
–Miami Children’s Hospital has reduced backup times by 50%
completely restore it in 40 minutes from his home with no need to involve the database administrator.
Deployment Times
-Audience View Tracking reduced server provisioning from 1.5 days to 1 hour
-NetApp deploys 10,000 virtual machine servers in less than 1 hour.
-Euronet Worldwide implements and provisions virtual servers 95% faster with UCS –
-Enspire reduced provisioning from 13 to 6 weeks, with goal of achieving 2-wk deployments
-National FFA Organization reduced time spent managing physical servers by 80%
-Consert was able to get the [UCS] racks up, configured, and actually have virtual machines running within about three days from when we took the products out of the box
IT Staffing
–Exam Works reduced potential need for 20 admins per 1000 employees down to 4, saving an a projected $1.1 million USD annually
–Miami Children’s Hospital is at all time high for network availability, % -
-CareCore reduced time to launch new lines of business from 6 months to 2 weeks and increased time software engineers can devote to development from 50% to 80%
-RUN Balzano estimates that their engineers are spending at least 10% less time on management
-Columbia Sportswear reduced IT management costs for their SAP deployment
Power/Cooling
-Travelport reduced power and cooling cost by 69% with UCS.
- University of Colorado: 90% savings in power consumption
-Cisco IT saves 66% on power, 50% on cables and reduces licensing, support and maintenance cost by migrating critical applications like Oracle RAC and SAP ERP from Competitor Superdome to UCS AND gets faster response times –
-National FFA Organization lowered power consumption by 40%
Application Performance
Avago Technologies:
Taser: 50x application performance improvement
Despite adding third data center, previous platform, memory utilization averaged 60 to 80% and peaked at 100%, with UCS it’s just 15%
Accelerated long-running batch processes by 30-40%
EMC moves the world’s largest Oracle E-Business Suite apps off UNIX/RISC to Cisco UCS and got 51% to 95% performance improvements on quote and configuration activities with reduced power cost and complexity, at the same time delivering high availability capabilities in an effective, cost affordable better than previously possible –
Galliker Transport AG (Switzerland) two UCS systems deliver 4x the performance (75% better performance) than previously provided by their entire computer room (11 racks) and at the same time cut cabling by 80%.
Application
Performance
Leadership
Improved Application Performance
Proven Configuration Designs
Over 100 UCS Customer Case Studies Proving Real Results

16. Cisco Unified Computing System A Differentiated / Revolutionary Approach
Simpler Architecture Networking with fewer components
Lower cost and easier scaling
Fewer Management Touch Points
Faster, More Flexible Automated Deployment / Provisioning
Unification leads to reduced Complexity
Management via a single interface
Higher Performance Brings out the best of Intel Xeon Processors
Optimized Resource Utilization for Compute, Networking and Management
No Compromises
No Trade-offs for Function
Enhanced Design Capability
Designed for the Future, Today
Better TCO / ROI
Cisco UCS Provides customers:
A Simpler Architecture - Easy to Scale, Easy to Manage
A Faster More Flexible Management Structure - Policy Based Resource Allocation, automation means faster with fewer errors
High Performance for Single App or Virtualized Environments - Highest I/O per blade with prescriptive management control of over subscription at the blade and chassis level.
No Need To Compromise - Form Factor agnostic management. The back of the chassis is not a profit center
< NEXT SLIDE >
Cisco UCS—Unified Infrastructure, Scalability and Management Automation