How To Rank A Data Center

Transcription

1 REACHING ACROSS ILLINOIS LIBRARY SYSTEM RAILS Data Center Report Recommendations, Scenarios, & Considerations Prepared by Wesley Smith, Jane Plass, Aaron Skog, Judy Hutchinson, & Kendal Orrison 2012 A D M I N I S T R A T I V E O F F I C E S : 125 T OWER D R I V E, B U R R R I D G E, IL

2 Contents Executive Summary... 1 Key Considerations... 1 Scenarios... 2 Recommendation: Use Data Centers at Burr Ridge and East Peoria... 2 Next Steps... 2 Introduction... 3 Partnerships for Decision Making... 3 Scenarios Considered... 3 Other Considerations... 3 Scenario 1: Existing RAILS Data Centers... 4 Data Gathering... 4 Determining Consolidated Data Center Size and Bandwidth Needs... 5 Nine Elements Needed in Data Centers... 6 Data Centers Comparison... 7 How the New Data Center Ranking Affects the Overall IFF Score... 8 Data Center Ranking Conclusion... 8 RAILS Data Centers Overview... 9 Burr Ridge... 9 Coal Valley... 9 East Peoria... 9 Geneva Rockford Shorewood Wheeling Scenario 2: Data Center at a New RAILS Facility Scenario 3: Colocation Possible Colocation Sites Northern Illinois University Illinois Century Network Commercial Colocation Sites Comparison of Colocation Costs Additional Start-up and Ongoing Costs for Colocation January 13, 2012 i

3 Colocation Summary Scenario 4: Cloud Computing/Software as a Service/Hosting Scenario 5: Data Center at a Member Library Recommendation: Use Data Centers at Burr Ridge and East Peoria Next Steps January 13, 2012 ii

4 Executive Summary The merger of five regional library systems to create RAILS has presented the new organization with the challenge of reviewing its technology infrastructure in light of facility consolidation. RAILS facility decisions must include assessment of its existing data centers and consideration of possible outcomes and implications. This executive summary presents a recommendation and outlines next steps. Key Considerations As RAILS makes facility decisions, computer equipment still in use at the facilities to be closed must be transferred to another facility. Although data center consolidation is desirable for efficiency and cost savings, some redundancy is needed for disaster recovery planning. Decisions about a RAILS data center should be made in the context of other RAILS facility decisions. The IFF analysis of the RAILS facilities (presented August 31, 2011 to the RAILS board) included existing data centers as one of the six categories in its analysis. The RAILS Data Center Report: Recommendations, Considerations, & Scenarios builds on the IFF report and outlines some alternatives for RAILS. Much of the computer equipment currently in use at existing RAILS data centers belongs to the LLSAPs (MAGIC, PrairieCat, RSA, and SWAN). Therefore, it s important to get buy-in from the LLSAPs and involve them in discussions about facility decisions in general and data center issues in particular. This report addresses facility needs for housing and operating data center equipment. It does not cover facility needs for IT and LLSAP staff. Most server and network work can be done remotely, so it is not necessary, or even desirable, that all IT and LLSAP staff be located at one facility. LLSAP staff availability for its service area, member meetings, and member site visits is a concern, as is retention of trained, experienced employees who are needed to provide high-quality service to LLSAP members. Data centers require far more than a raised floor. Critical elements include room size large enough to contain and work with the equipment and large enough to comply with ADA requirements, security, waterless fire suppression, dedicated air conditioning, a dedicated electrical panel, protection against power disruptions (including a back-up electrical generator and uninterruptible power supply), and primary and back-up telecommunications data pipes. Relocation of existing equipment will incur costs for consulting, moving, and possibly replacing some equipment. RAILS is contractually obligated to pay relocation costs for LLSAP equipment moved to another system facility. Consolidation should be carefully planned and done in stages to minimize the possibility of service disruptions. January 13,

5 Scenarios This report explores five scenarios for a consolidated RAILS data center: 1. Data center at an existing RAILS facility 2. Data center at some new RAILS facility 3. Colocation, where RAILS and LLSAP equipment is located at a third-party data center 4. Software as a service/cloud computing/hosting, where the services and equipment are provided by vendors 5. Data center at a member library Recommendation: Use Data Centers at Burr Ridge and East Peoria If the Burr Ridge facility is kept, it should house the consolidated data center. This takes advantage of the investment in infrastructure that has already been made. The Burr Ridge server room can easily accommodate the amount of equipment needed, and it has all the other elements needed for a data center. This data center report ranked the Burr Ridge data center the highest of the existing RAILS facilities. Based on this ranking, the revised overall IFF score would place Burr Ridge second, and the East Peoria facility first. If the East Peoria facility is kept as a delivery hub and/or Talking Books center, it should also be used as a secondary data center. Although significant bandwidth upgrades would be needed, remote backups could then be done from Burr Ridge to East Peoria to provide data redundancy as part of disaster recovery planning. The distance between Burr Ridge and East Peoria is an advantage in this case, as it reduces the likelihood of a catastrophic event occurring at both locations. (East Peoria is not well suited for a primary data center, as it would need power and HVAC upgrades as well as bandwidth upgrades, and space for the equipment could be tight.) This approach also eliminates the need to move RAILS, SWAN, and RSA equipment and staff from their current buildings, although some internal shifts and network configuration changes may still be needed. This would reduce moving costs and the potential for service disruption. Next Steps Clarify the process and timeline for facility decisions and how LLSAPs can be involved. Plan facility needs for IT and LLSAP staff currently working at facilities that will be closed. Hire and work with property management and information technology consultants. In December, 2011, the RAILS Personnel and Finance committees recommended outsourcing for property management rather than hiring an interim property manager. An outside IT consultant will also be needed to help plan these complex data center moves. Once facility decisions are made, RAILS staff should work with these consultants, the RAILS board, and the LLSAP boards to plan a staged transition to the chosen data center. January 13,

6 Introduction The merger of five regional library systems to create RAILS has presented the new organization with the challenge of reviewing its technology infrastructure in light of facility consolidation. RAILS facility decisions must include assessment of its existing data centers and consideration of possible outcomes and implications. This report summarizes data center planning efforts by RAILS IT and LLSAP managers. Jane Plass (MAGIC LLSAP Services Manager), Aaron Skog (SWAN LLSAP Services Manager), and Wesley Smith (RAILS Information Technology Manager) spearheaded efforts to outline various scenarios and approaches and to identify issues that need to be considered. Judy Hutchinson (PrairieCat LLSAP Services Manager) and Kendal Orrison (RSA LLSAP Services Manager) have been involved, as have many other RAILS staff. Partnerships for Decision Making Many, if not most, of the servers located at current RAILS facilities are used for LLSAP services and are owned by the LLSAPs. There s a potential for service disruptions when equipment is relocated. Therefore, it s important to get buy-in from the LLSAPs and involve them in discussions about facility decisions in general and data center issues in particular. We recommend that the RAILS board clarify the process and timeline for facility decisions and how LLSAPs can be involved. Scenarios Considered Five scenarios for the data center plan were identified by the RAILS IT and LLSAP managers. 1. Data center at an existing RAILS facility 2. Data center at some new RAILS facility 3. Colocation, where RAILS and LLSAP equipment is located at a third-party data center 4. Software as a service/cloud computing/hosting, where the services and equipment are provided by vendors 5. Data center at a member library Other Considerations LLSAP servers and equipment are the property and assets of the independent LLSAPs. The hardware, software, and vendor contracts were purchased using LLSAP funds. LLSAPs are required within vendor support contracts to perform routine tasks in order to comply with vendor support. Therefore, certain scenarios could conflict with the vendor-recommended support. Some scenarios could require the LLSAPS to make expensive changes in equipment or maintenance agreements, which may not be feasible. Section 6 of the FY2012 RAILS/LLSAP contracts states: RAILS will also assume all costs associated with the LLSAP s relocation to a different library system facility, including but not limited to moving, acquiring furniture, network infrastructure, space planning, and moving consultation. RAILS will provide at least 120 days written notice to LLSAP prior to any relocation. Although data center consolidation is desirable for efficiency and cost savings, some redundancy is needed for disaster recovery planning. The LLSAPs network infrastructure should be transitioned to their own unique website/network domains, rather than using the new RAILS domain or those of the four legacy library systems. January 13,

7 After the data center facility decision has been made, outside consulting will be needed to help plan the buildout (if needed) and the moves to the final facility. Downtime of mission-critical systems for LLSAP members, RAILS members, and RAILS staff should be avoided if at all possible. A staged approach, similar to that used for the RAILS staff network integration, will be needed. Cost considerations include: o o o Initial costs: outside consulting, buildout, moving, and reconfiguring existing equipment New and ongoing operational costs: power, bandwidth, overhead, colocation direct charges, fees for managed services if RAILS staff are not on-site Affordable to LLSAP organizations: Although RAILS is building a financial reserve as a cushion against funding delays, the worst case scenario still needs to be considered. In the event of a total shutdown of RAILS system services due to the prolonged funding crisis, the LLSAP organizations should be able to support the data center. Data center planning so far has focused just on the technical needs. A consolidated data center supported within a RAILS facility could be staffed by relatively few IT staff focusing on general server and network management. However, as RAILS plans to dispose of facilities, LLSAP staff will potentially need to be relocated. Many of these staff members provide support to LLSAP members rather than (or in addition to) server management. LLSAP staff availability for its service area, member meetings, and member site visits is a concern, as is retention of trained, experienced employees who are needed to provide high-quality service to LLSAP members. Local satellite facilities and telecommuting options should be explored within RAILS. LLSAP involvement in these discussions is important. Scenario 1: Existing RAILS Data Centers Data Gathering Existing RAILS data centers were ranked in terms of their potential as a consolidated data center for RAILS. This ranking includes more specific data center issues than included in the IFF report, such as physical security, waterless fire suppression systems, bandwidth, etc. The ranking is designed to fit within the overall IFF ranking model. The data gathering process also helped to: Identify equipment that would need to be moved to a consolidated data center. Much of the existing equipment will not need to be moved. For example, some LLSAP equipment has been taken out of service. Additionally, RAILS IT staff have made substantial progress in consolidating the technology infrastructure for a merged organization. RAILS no longer needs an server, web server, and finance server at each site. Facility needs and costs will be easier to assess with this better overall understanding of what equipment needs to be supported. Gather information on other issues that need to be considered for implementation, such as current backup methods, etc. Use of a colocation site would require server management services or January 13,

8 new backup methods that don t require hands-on staff intervention for changing tapes or external hard drives. Determining Consolidated Data Center Size and Bandwidth Needs Based on the consolidated inventory of equipment that will need to be moved to a data center, the number of rack units was determined. Rack unit is a measure used to describe the height of equipment intended for mounting in a 19-inch rack or 23-inch rack. It was important to determine the total rack units in order to plan for space allocation. This is particularly important for colocation estimates, as the common cost estimator is the rack unit or the number of total racks. The size of a piece of rack-mounted equipment is frequently described as a number in U. For example, one rack unit is often referred to as 1U, 2 rack units as 2U, and so on. The RAILS Information Technology Manager estimated that eleven network racks with 40 rack units each would accommodate the equipment needed at a RAILS consolidated data center. The average rack size is 4' deep x 2' wide x 7' tall (approximately the size of a vending machine), so eleven racks would occupy 88 square feet. IT staff needs access to both sides of the racks, which raises the minimum size for a RAILS consolidated data center to 264 square feet. Additional space will be needed for other equipment such as large air conditioners and uninterruptible power supplies. ADA requirements for ramps, aisle space, and wheelchair turnaround space may also increase the minimum size needed. Total bandwidth needs were estimated at Mbps (megabits/second). Example of single server rack Fiber optic Ethernet services from providers such as AT&T and Comcast can meet these needs and allow for flexibility in easily increasing bandwidth capacity when needed. For comparison, the T1 lines still used by many libraries are limited to Mbps. January 13,

9 Nine Elements Needed in Data Centers Existing RAILS facilities were rated on nine elements needed in a data center. Nine Data Center Feature Requirement Description Point System Elements 1 Room Size Can the 11 server racks be housed, including space in front and back? 2 points: yes 0 points: no, room is too small 2 Room Security Can the server room have limited access (e.g. be locked?) 1 point: yes 0 points: no 3 Waterless Fire Suppression Does the server room have a dedicated waterless fire suppression system? (Fire extinguisher does not count.) 2 points: yes 0 points: no 4 Air Conditioning Does the server room have a dedicated, installed HVAC system? (Mobile air conditioning units or no separate air conditioning are not dedicated HVAC systems.) 5 Dedicated Electrical Panel Is there a dedicated electrical panel for the server room? 2 points: yes 0 points: no 2 points: yes 0 points: no 6 Dedicated Back-up Electrical Generator 7 Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) 8 Primary telecommunications data pipe 9 Secondary telecommunications data pipe Total Points Is back-up electric power present at the facility for the server room? Is there a dedicated UPS in the server room? (Individual UPS units for specific units do not meet this criteria.) Fiber optic Ethernet service, such as AT&T s OPT-E-MAN service, allows for flexible bandwidth options. However, standard T1 lines were also awarded points. Secondary Internet service allows for failover of server room telecommunications. 1 point: yes 0 points: no 2 points: yes 0 points: no 2 points: fiber 1 point: T1 0 points: other 1 point: yes 0 point: no 15 maximum points January 13,

10 Data Centers Comparison Summary results are included in the table below. The spreadsheet with full data is available upon request. Max Data Center Feature Burr Ridge Coal Valley East Peoria Geneva Rockford Shorewood Wheeling Points 2 Room size Room security Waterless fire suppression Dedicated HVAC Dedicated electrical panel Dedicated back-up electrical generator Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) Primary telecommunications data pipe Secondary telecommunications data pipe Max Totals January 13,

11 Facility Burr Ridge Coal Valley East Peoria Geneva Rockford Shorewood Wheeling How the New Data Center Ranking Affects the Overall IFF Score Current Equipment- Related Services LLSAP None LLSAP, Talking Books LLSAP, Talking Books None LLSAP None IFF Ranking Total (Weighted Score, including IFF data center ranking) New Overall Score for RAILS Facility Operating Cost Overall Space Appraisal Value/Ability to Sell Highway Rank Delivery Rank Existing Data Center (IFF) Data Center Overall Rank: from RAILS LLSAP Study Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Points Score Weight 100% 25% 25% 10% 10% 15% 15% 15% The maximum point total is 15. Numerical rankings were not assigned. To fit this evaluation into the IFF facility matrix, which weighted the data center score at 15%, the total points for each data center were divided by fifteen, multiplied by seven, and weighted at 15%. Data Center Ranking Conclusion 1. Burr Ridge had the highest score of 15 points. 2. Geneva and Shorewood scored 12 points. 3. East Peoria scored 11 points. 4. Wheeling and Coal Valley scored 4 points. 5. Rockford scored 2 points. Based on this ranking, the revised overall IFF score would place RAILS facilities in the following order: 1. East Peoria 2. Burr Ridge 3. Geneva 4. Wheeling 5. Shorewood 6. Coal Valley 7. Rockford January 13,

12 RAILS Data Centers Overview Burr Ridge Of the existing RAILS facilities, the Burr Ridge server room is best equipped to serve as a consolidated data center. It s more than large enough and already has all the other elements listed above. Coal Valley The Coal Valley facility is already on the market and does not have an appropriate server room for use as a consolidated data center. East Peoria The East Peoria server room is much smaller than the Burr Ridge facility, but might be able to serve as a consolidated data center. Space requirements would need to be carefully calculated, and upgrades for electrical backup during power outages would be needed. Bandwidth capacity of the primary data pipe would need to be upgraded. AT&T has just run fiber in front of the building, so RAILS staff are working with AT&T to get estimates of buildout and ongoing costs for fiber data service. Because of its distance from other RAILS facilities, the East Peoria server room is wellsuited to serve as a secondary data center as part of a disaster recovery plan. January 13,

13 Geneva The Geneva server room is only slightly smaller than the East Peoria server room, but its layout would make it difficult to fit in eleven racks. Bandwidth capacity of the primary data pipe would need to be upgraded, and secondary Internet connectivity added; the buildout and ongoing costs for such increased capacity might be reduced by the close proximity to an AT&T facility. Rockford The Rockford facility is leased and does not have an appropriate server room for use as a consolidated data center. Shorewood The Shorewood server room is large enough for a consolidated data center. The room would need a waterless fire suppression system installed and secondary Internet connectivity added. Wheeling The existing server room at the Wheeling facility is too small to serve as a consolidated data center. The IFF report notes, Wheeling, if the office with raised floor adjoining the server room is enclosed to create one room, would have the next largest server room (as compared to Burr Ridge). However, a raised floor does not a server room make. Expansion of the server room would require upgrades to the electrical power and air conditioning. The existing CAT5 data cabling would not accommodate room expansion and is below current standards; thus, the entire building (including all offices and workspaces) would need to be rewired to CAT6 cable. January 13,

14 Scenario 2: Data Center at a New RAILS Facility RAILS may choose to dispose of all existing facilities or to keep one as its administrative center that s not well suited as a data center. In these scenarios, and if colocation is not feasible, RAILS would need to rent or purchase another facility for its data center. The nine elements discussed above would still be required. Transition time and costs would be greater in this scenario. An appropriate facility would need to be located and leased or purchased, and time and funds would need to be allocated for buildout needs. When SWAN investigated this scenario as part of its 2010 business planning, it estimated technology buildout costs for 300 square feet at $83,900 1, and it was advised to allow six months for buildout. This cost excludes moving costs and costs for office buildout. Scenario 3: Colocation Colocation is a service often used in the technology industry for housing servers and services within a contracted data center. Moving RAILS and LLSAP servers and network equipment to a colocation site may be a viable option if RAILS chooses not to retain current facilities with suitable data centers. However, this will be an expensive option due to the amount of equipment needed in a RAILS data center. The cost of colocation depends largely on the rack space and bandwidth needed. Although ongoing costs could be reduced by reducing the amount of equipment needed, the initial cost of replacing equipment and migrating LLSAP data to new hardware would be substantial. Such changes would require LLSAP board agreement, as the LLSAPs own their equipment. Costs will also be influenced by the requirements of LLSAP servers running integrated library system software. Presently, LLSAP staff must physically access the servers multiple times per day to perform routine operations, such as changing backup tapes. Colocation centers may limit access or set additional pricing based on staff access or the need for server management services. Costs are covered in more detail below. Possible Colocation Sites Several colocation sites have been identified. Costs associated with colocation are based on present size estimates of 11 server racks. Northern Illinois University Located in DeKalb, Illinois, Northern Illinois University (NIU) has two campus data centers. Each NIU data center has ample space to house the consolidated RAILS data center of 11 racks. NIU has implemented high-speed networks in DeKalb County, in conjunction with the Illinois Century Network and with grant assistance from the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), and there are plan to expand the networks to the nine surrounding counties. 2 These networks already include public libraries in DeKalb County January 13,

15 NIU seems interested in building partnerships within the library community and may be willing to negotiate some costs. Prices begin at $900/rack/month, but if seven or more racks are colocated, the price would be $600/rack/month. Data backups would need to move away from digital tape, as NIU has nearly completed a 100% conversion to disconly backup. Remote disc-to-disc backup could be arranged between the two NIU campus data centers. This redundancy Northern Illinois University data center would help protect against data loss due to equipment failure or fire. However, because the NIU data centers are only one mile apart, it would not provide ideal protection in the event of larger disasters such as tornadoes. RAILS servers would be monitored remotely. NIU staff could be directed to access a server for basic hands-on needs, such as turning a server on or off. In addition, NIU offers a suite of optional services (at additional cost) designed to meet the needs of a potential partner. For example, NIU supports server virtualization. (Virtualization lets a single physical server operate as multiple logical servers.) This would lower ongoing costs by reducing the RAILS data center footprint (i.e. the amount of rack space required); however, the initial cost of server virtualization would be substantial, both for RAILS and the LLSAPs. Other services include virtual firewalls (at an extra monthly cost), which could potentially replace existing firewall appliances, thus further compressing the RAILS data center footprint. Illinois Century Network The Illinois Century Network is a part of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services. In addition to operating a high-speed statewide network that connects to the Internet, its services include colocation sites in Schaumburg and Champaign. The benefits of using the Illinois Century Network (ICN) include: Unlimited bandwidth at no additional charge The majority of LLSAP members use the ICN as their primary Internet service provider ICN is upgrading its network infrastructure under the BTOP (Broadband Technology Opportunities Program) grant with the Illinois Department of Central Management Services 3 ICN charges $25 per rack unit per month, but there are no additional bandwidth charges. Because of this, ICN s model is best suited for equipment with high-bandwidth needs and a small physical footprint, such as the Illinois State Library s digital image server (IDA). 3 January 13,

16 ICN also charges for physical access to servers located at its colocation sites, so data backups would need to change to remote backups to disc and away from digital tapes that need to be changed daily. The Decatur LLSAP (elcat), formerly in Rolling Prairie Library System (RPLS) and now in Illinois Heartland Library System (IHLS), moved six Us (rack units) of equipment to the ICN site in Champaign. (elcat also contracts with another vendor for server maintenance, including remote backups.) Its quoted cost from ICN was the same as that quoted to RAILS, $25 per rack unit, 4 although ICN temporarily reduced the price to zero since RPLS could not afford to pay the regular rate. ICN has indicated to the information technology managers at both RAILS and IHLS that the standard fee would apply for colocation of entire data centers. The scale of RAILS data center needs is much larger than elcat. ICN s colocation site in Schaumburg would be completely filled by the RAILS consolidated data center. ICN staff appear reluctant to host the RAILS data center at its Schaumburg facility, as this site would no longer be able to host any other customers. Although ICN s colocation site in Champaign has more space than the Schaumburg location, space is still an issue. In addition, it s likely that Champaign would be further away from whatever administrative facility that RAILS selects. Although most server work can be done remotely, it would take longer for RAILS staff to get to the Champaign facility if physical access to the equipment was needed during an emergency. Commercial Colocation Sites Colocation sites in the Chicago area were difficult to find based on the large size of the RAILS consolidated data center. However, several quotations were obtained. Commercial colocation sites require rack or rack unit counts, estimate of bandwidth usage, and power consumption. Thermal/heat output from equipment is not as much of an issue. 4 January 13,

17 Comparison of Colocation Costs Costs associated with colocation are based on existing equipment requiring 11 racks of rack units each and bandwidth needs of 30 Mbps. Colocation NIU ICN Unit/Rack Cost $600/full rack/month $25/rack unit/month ($1,050/full rack/month) Bandwidth Cost Other Fees Estimated Annual RAILS Cost $750/100Mbps/month $88,200 No additional charge $138,600 Creative Data Concepts (commercial vendor) $735/full rack/month $85/Mbps/month $13,750 setup fee $127,620 + $13,750 (first year only) = $141,370 Steadfast Networks (commercial vendor) Gigenet (commercial vendor) Netsource (commercial vendor) $1,100/full rack/month $1,125/full rack/month $1,128/full rack/month $500/50Mbps/month $151,200 $750/50Mbps/month $157,500 $500/50Mbps/month $154,896 Additional Start-up and Ongoing Costs for Colocation As noted previously, colocation would require that RAILS and its four LLSAPs convert from digital tape backups to disc-to-disc backups. Because the LLSAPs own their own equipment, this would require investment from the LLSAPs. For example, SWAN backs up approximately 182GB of data for its three ILS servers each night. SWAN estimates that it would cost $38,000 to convert this to disc-to-disc backup. The other LLSAPs also have large amounts of data that must be backed up daily: approximately 724 GB for RSA; 1,050 GB for PrairieCat; and 14 GB for MAGIC. Because ongoing colocation costs are primarily based on the number of occupied rack units, some ongoing savings could be achieved by reducing the number and/or size of servers. Possible approaches for reducing the physical footprint include: January 13,

18 Virtualization of existing rack-mounted hardware to reduce the number of servers required (i.e. configuring one physical server to act as multiple logical servers) Migration from low-cost pedestal or tower servers to rack-mounted servers of 4U or 2U Both options require investing in servers with higher specifications and thus higher initial costs. Data migrations to new LLSAP servers are typically done by the ILS software vendors, so replacement cost estimates must include data migration as well as hardware replacement and configuration. The LLSAPs may be willing to invest in higher-end servers over time, as they go through their normal server replacement schedules. However, they may be reluctant to change servers outside their normal replacement cycle; in addition to the costs, the time required and the potential for service disruption must be considered. Colocation Summary Colocation should be considered if RAILS sells all existing facilities or chooses to keep an existing facility that would require significant remodeling or upgrades for use as a data center. This approach provides greater flexibility, but would incur substantial upfront and ongoing costs due to the amount and nature of the RAILS and LLSAP equipment. There are no free colocation solutions: costs include rack space, bandwidth, and charges for staff access. This approach also requires relocating all RAILS and LLSAP equipment, which will increase transition time, initial costs, and the potential for service disruptions. After investigating Illinois Century Network (ICN), Northern Illinois University (NIU), and third-party companies, the least expensive is NIU. NIU offers the most services, expertise, and the potential for collaboration with RAILS. Scenario 4: Cloud Computing/Software as a Service/Hosting Cloud computing, software as a service (SaaS), application service providers (ASP), and other forms of vendor-hosted services are becoming increasingly common. RAILS may choose to use hosted solutions for some technology services in the future (such as website hosting, hosting, etc.). Individual LLSAPs are exploring hosted services and, in some cases, implementing them to replace some local LLSAP servers. For example, RSA s Discover Search and digital archives are hosted by SirsiDynix. At this time, however, hosted solutions cannot replace all the LLSAP servers running integrated library system (ILS) software and related services. RAILS does not own the LLSAP servers and equipment, as these purchases were made using LLSAP funds and are recorded LLSAP assets. Switching to a vendorhosted solution would require massive infrastructure changes and is not always possible. Innovative Interfaces is unable to host SWAN s ILS services, as SWAN s size and activity is beyond its current capacity. Even when possible, LLSAP inquiries into hosted options during 2010 and 2011 indicate that cost would be problematic. For example, the quote that RSA received for having SirsiDynix host its ILS service was 58% more expensive than current ILS costs. PrairieCat received a quote that was 43% higher than its current costs. MAGIC has a cost-control clause in its current SirsiDynix maintenance contract that would make a hosted solution more costly. Response time and customization options are other possible concerns when evaluating hosted solutions. January 13,

19 Scenario 5: Data Center at a Member Library Several LLSAPs studied this option in With the future of Illinois library systems in doubt, the LLSAPs sought alternative locations, including identifying possible sites at member libraries. SWAN s investigation found that a SWAN data center at a member library was not an immediately feasible option. 5 MAGIC s investigation found one member library that could host MAGIC s servers and staff, but it would not be large enough for a combined RAILS data center. Based on these previous investigations, the feasibility of establishing a RAILS consolidated data center at a member library seems low. Recommendation: Use Data Centers at Burr Ridge and East Peoria If the Burr Ridge facility is kept, it should house the consolidated data center. This takes advantage of the investment in infrastructure that has already been made. The Burr Ridge server room can easily accommodate the amount of equipment needed, and it has all the other elements needed for a data center. This report ranked the Burr Ridge data center the highest of the existing RAILS facilities. Based on this ranking, the revised overall IFF score would place Burr Ridge second, and the East Peoria facility first. If the East Peoria facility is kept as a delivery hub and/or Talking Books center, it should also be used as a secondary data center. Although significant bandwidth upgrades would be needed, remote backups could then be done from Burr Ridge to East Peoria to provide data redundancy as part of disaster recovery planning. The distance between Burr Ridge and East Peoria is an advantage in this case, as it reduces the likelihood of a catastrophic event occurring at both locations. (East Peoria is not well suited for a primary data center, as it would need power and HVAC upgrades as well as bandwidth upgrades, and space for the equipment could be tight.) The approach also eliminates the need to move RAILS, SWAN, and RSA equipment and staff from their current buildings, although some internal shifts and network configuration changes may still be needed. This would reduce moving costs and the potential for service disruption. Next Steps Clarify the process and timeline for facility decisions and how LLSAPs can be involved. Plan facility needs for IT and LLSAP staff currently working at facilities that will be closed. Hire and work with property management and information technology consultants. In December, 2011, the RAILS Personnel and Finance committees recommended outsourcing for property management rather than hiring an interim property manager. An outside IT consultant will also be needed to help plan these complex data center moves. Once facility decisions are made, RAILS staff should work with these consultants, the RAILS board, and the LLSAP boards to plan a staged transition to the chosen data center. 5 January 13,