At enterprise storage costs, that much storage will cost more than the OC-12, and then add datacenter and backups. Total could be 2-3x OC-12 annual costs.
If your org can afford to buy non-top-line storage then it would probably be cheaper to go local. However, you should check how much of the bandwidth is actually storage. I see multimillion dollar projects without basic demand / needs analysis or statistics more often than not. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 14, 2016, at 10:01 AM, George Metz <george.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Lee <ler...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, *sigh*, another what kind of people _do_ we have running the govt >> story. Altho, looking on the bright side, it could have been much >> worse than a final summing up of "With the current closing having been >> reported to have saved over $2.5 billion it is clear that inroads are >> being made, but ... one has to wonder exactly how effective the >> initiative will be at achieving a more effective and efficient use of >> government monies in providing technology services." >> >> Best Regards, >> Lee > > That's an inaccurate cost savings though most likely; it probably doesn't > take into account the impacts of the consolidation on other items. As a > personal example, we're in the middle of upgrading my site from an OC-3 to > an OC-12, because we're running routinely at 95+% utilization on the OC-3 > with 4,000+ seats at the site. The reason we're running that high is > because several years ago, they "consolidated" our file storage, so instead > of file storage (and, actually, dot1x authentication though that's > relatively minor) being local, everyone has to hit a datacenter some 500+ > miles away over that OC-3 every time they have to access a file share. And > since they're supposed to save everything to their personal share drive > instead of the actual machine they're sitting at, the results are > predictable. > > So how much is it going to cost for the OC-12 over the OC-3 annually? Is > that difference higher or lower than the cost to run a couple of storage > servers on-site? I don't know the math personally, but I do know that if we > had storage (and RADIUS auth and hell, even a shell server) on site, we > wouldn't be needing to upgrade to an OC-12.