Proprietary and Confidential, Copyright © 2014 Gravitant, Inc. Gravitant Proprietary & Confidential Cloud Provider Portfolio Selection Ilyas Iyoob, PhD

Proprietary and Confidential, Copyright © 2014 Gravitant, Inc.

Cloud Provider Portfolio SelectionIlyas Iyoob, PhD

Director, Advanced Analytics

Aaron Yan, M.S.Operations Research Analyst

Selecting a set of providers to support the full application portfolio

Proprietary and Confidential, Copyright © 2014 Gravitant, Inc.2

Case StudyLarge IT Services Company

3,500 million(2013)

18,000worldwide

LegalTax & AccountingFinance & Audit

Risk & Compliance

Healthcare Ops

Over 35 countries in:

EuropeAsia Pacific

North AmericaLatin America

Revenue Employees Markets Operations

Question 1


Question 1 - Which apps should be moved to the cloud?



… ~ 500 apps



… ~ 500 apps

Gravitant’s Cloud Screener helps answer this questionhttp://www.gravitant.com

/product-features/cloud-application-assessment/

http://www.gravitant.com/product-features/cloud-application-assessment/






… ~ 500 apps

Example: TyMetrix and BankOrion should not be moved to the cloud because:- TyMetrix is a core business app for this company, so it should be kept in-house- BankOrion has financial data that is subject to very high compliance requirements

Not all apps should move to the cloud – in fact, 50 of them shouldn’t



… ~ 500 apps

More on application screening some other time. Let’s focus on the next question which is the focus of this case study…

Question 2


Question 2 - Which provider should be selected for each app?



… ~ 500 apps



… ~ 500 apps

8 region

s

2 region

s

13 region

s

4 region

s

~ 20 providers

…



… ~ 500 apps

8 region

s

2 region

s

13 region

s

4 region

s

~ 20 providers

…Solution

Methodology



• Current Solution: Solve each app individually

Gravitant’s Cloud Comparehttp://tools.gravitant.com/cloud-compare-for-cloud-applications/

http://tools.gravitant.com/cloud-compare-for-cloud-applications/






• Suggested Solution: Solve for entire application portfolio simultaneously

To account for- Dependent apps that should be placed together- Conflicting apps that should be placed apart- DR environments that should be placed apart from Prod environments- Volume discounts from providers







• Suggested Solution: Solve for entire application portfolio simultaneously

To account for- Dependent apps that should be placed together- Conflicting apps that should be placed apart- DR environments that should be placed apart from Prod environments- Volume discounts from providers

Few providers(high vulnerability)

Many providers(low tractability)

vs

Tradeoff




⋮

Apps

ProvidersProblem

Statement


⋮

Apps

ProvidersProblem

StatementAssign providers to apps so the constraints are satisfied while minimizing cost

Constraints• Coverage• Performance• Apps together• Apps apart


⋮

Apps

ProvidersProblem

StatementAssign providers to apps so the constraints are satisfied while minimizing cost

Constraints• Coverage• Performance• Apps together• Apps apart

In other words,fill this table out so nothing breaks! and maybe save some money too…

Formulation


Mathematical Formulation


Mathematical Formulation

Minimize cost of operating in the cloud

Satisfy performance requirements of every app

Meet coverage needs for every app

Group apps that need to be on the same infrastructure

Split up apps that need to be on separate infrastructures

Assign every app to some provider Result

Proprietary and Confidential, Copyright © 2014 Gravitant, Inc.20⋮

Apps

Providers

Result


Apps

Providers

Most apps can be in AWS except for a few.

Impact

Result


Apps

Providers


MarkLogic and IntelliConnect have been put in Azure because its incremental VM sizes are better than AWS.

Impact

Result


Apps

Providers


MarkLogic and IntelliConnect have been put in Azure because its incremental VM sizes are better than AWS.

Oracle needs to be apart from others for data security, so it ends up in Google.

Impact

Result


ImpactRadical Approach(everything on AWS)

$571k/month

87% coverage

Customer had significant shadow IT with AWS

*Coverage: capabilities and feature sets of a CSP that are needed for specific applications to function optimally



Conservative Approach(everything on Azure)

$571k/month

87% coverage

$684k/month100% coverage


Customer’s existing environments were Windows based




Conservative Approach(everything on Azure)

Optimal(80% AWS, 7% Google,13% Azure)

$571k/month

87% coverage

$684k/month100% coverage

$553k/ month100% coverage


Customer’s existing environments were Windows based



Conclusions

• Practical conclusions▫ Realized savings of 15-20% per year

This equates to $1.5M saved per year (from just 15 apps). Replicate this exercise for the rest of the 450 apps to realize much more savings!


Conclusions


• Theoretical conclusions▫ Coverage constraints simplify the problem▫ Performance constraints simplify the problem▫ Apps together constraints simplify the problem▫ Apps apart constraints complicate the problem



Conclusions


• Theoretical conclusions▫ Coverage constraints simplify the problem▫ Performance constraints simplify the problem▫ Apps together constraints simplify the problem▫ Apps apart constraints complicate the problem

A full survey of Operations Research problems in Cloud Computinghttp://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~adieker3/publications/cloudOR.pdf


http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~adieker3/publications/cloudOR.pdf

http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~adieker3/publications/cloudOR.pdf

Documents

Proprietary and Confidential, Copyright © 2014 Gravitant, Inc. Gravitant Proprietary & Confidential Cloud Provider Portfolio Selection Ilyas Iyoob, PhD