 |
|
| INFORMATION |
| Published : |
Oct 09, 2009 |
| Length : |
28 |
| Type : |
White Paper |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Overview : |
|
In recent years, Open Source Software has been receiving significant consideration in the IT industry. As the maturity and reliability of open source application servers increases, more organizations will be looking to introduce them into their environment. While some concerns regarding open source are still being debated, a number of companies are experimenting with and deploying open source application servers in their datacenters. While some are attracted to the ability to view and modify source code as needed, a large majority are attracted to the perceived cost savings of open source. There is no question that for certain types of
deployment environments products such as Apache Tomcat, Geronimo, JBoss® Application Server (JBoss or JBoss AS) and IBM WebSphere® Application Server Community Edition (WAS CE) may be cost-effective alternatives, and it is important for IT managers to take advantage of the cost savings they can offer. In many environments, however, commercial application servers have cost advantages over OSS alternatives. As our study demonstrates, using an OSS application server under those circumstances can actually be higher. |
|
 |
|
|
|
| View All Items By This Company |
| Browse Related Categories : |
|
Application Integration
,
Open Source
,
Service Oriented Architecture
,
Total Cost of Ownership
,
Web Sphere
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For our analysis, we divided application server usage into four categories:
. Small configuration - these are departmental configurations without high requirements for
Quality of Services with single server running one or two web applications. Some of the
products that compete in this category are JBoss AS, IBM WebSphere® Application
Server Base (WAS) or WAS CE, Tomcat, JOnAS, and GlassFish. We found that in cases when production software support is purchased, IBM WAS Base has up to a double digit
percentage cost advantage over JBoss.
. Medium configuration - these are departmental configurations with one or more clusters of application servers; some times with dedicated servers for caching, WLM, HTTP serving, requirements for moderate scalability, failover and security among others. We found that JBoss is approximately 70% more expensive than IBM WebSphere® Application Server Network Deployment (WAS ND) in this category.
. Large configuration - these are configurations with increased scale and QoS requirements compared to the Medium configuration. These configurations are typical in large datacenters in which a dozen or more applications are deployed on twenty or more servers configured in multiple clusters for redundancy. The cost difference between WAS ND and JBoss in these configurations is approximately the same 70% as in the Medium configuration.
. Very large configuration - this is where it gets really interesting. The very large configuration is typical for a large data center. A number of different applications coexist on a shared pool of hardware with strict requirements for high scalability, manageability and monitoring. Spikes in peak workloads are significant and are often hard to predict. Request prioritization and advanced traffic routing must be in place to obey the pre-set SLA levels.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
