Differentiators Appear
All responses were comparable in their ability to satisfy the baseline requirement: to host Romao's Web-based applications with high availability and security. However, some differentiators appeared.
Vendors submitted varying responses to Romao's requirement for two master databases, operating at two hosting centers separated by significant distance, to be synchronized to within 30 minutes of data concurrency. We included this pie-in-the-sky database synchronization requirement because it remains a thorn in the side of site-mirroring strategies, and companies request it more often than they need it.
Only Exodus and Interliant stated that such a strategy was viable. Both vendors quoted Oracle's Advanced Replication Server marketing brochure almost chapter and verse. They said master/master synchronization could be accommodated, and they would deal with any performance problems that arose when and if it became necessary. E^deltacom also filed a positive response on this point but stopped short of defining a specific strategy.
EDS said database synchronization would not work. The vendor asserted that master/master database mirroring would cause unacceptable performance degradation. As an alternative, EDS proposed a data replication strategy in which updates to databases -- redo logs -- would be sent between the sites every four hours. Comdisco, CSC and Xand echoed EDS' sentiments and proposed similar solutions.
Such diametrically opposed responses surprised us. We wondered why some vendors would promise functionality that other vendors claimed was technically impossible. But the naysayers' arguments seemed more consistent with the facts as revealed to us by other integrators and resellers.
The respondents also differed in their handling of Romao's requests for external access to vendor security monitoring and platform/network-management tools. Given the lack of standards and best practices in managed Web hosting, we could understand why a company would want access to primary information about how its applications and data were being protected and managed (see "Access to Tools," below).
E^deltacom and EDS said security is their job and not their customers'. EDS went further to claim that providing remote access to management tools creates an inroad to the otherwise protected hosting platforms of all customers. By contrast, Exodus, Interliant and Xand answered the remote security and management console requirements simply: no problem.
After reviewing the vendors' positions and checking with outside resources, we concluded that it's better to err on the side of greater security. Being told to trust your provider to account accurately for management and security activities may seem strange. However, if delivering remote "windows into the hosting environment" compromises the security, we have to agree with EDS in answering the requirement with a gentle but firm nyet.
That said, none of these responses is right or wrong for every situation. By keeping tight controls on access, vendors can make a strong case that customers' mission-critical applications and data are safe in the vendors' hosting environments. Yet, the former collocation vendors' willingness to extend managerial-tool access to customers may reflect a different take on outsourcing. The vendors' openness is geared to the customer that doesn't want to relinquish control of the corporate jewels but prefers to "out-task" the heavy lifting of Web hosting to a qualified third party that serves as an extension of its own IT staff.
Romao Vineyards lacks the capability to support its own e-business initiative and needs the expertise of an outsourcing expert that can let Anthony Romao focus on growing grapes. Therefore, the successful vendor will need to adjust some of Romao's requirements -- mainly by educating him about e-business and the capabilities and limitations of Web technology while assuaging his concerns about potential vendor roguery. Romao can expect not only a solution but a long-term partnership with a service provider.
The two most impressive solutions were submitted by EDS and Xand. EDS impressed us with the extensiveness of its proposal and its willingness to accommodate virtually every requirement set forth by the customer -- except, of course, Romao's desire for a dual-master database solution and direct access to managerial tools. We also appreciated that the company defined the limitations of the solution it could provide and did not commit to a database synchronization strategy just to get the bid. EDS' proposal signaled the professionalism and insight of a long-time player in the outsourcing game. One might have expected the same from rival CSC, but that vendor's response waffled in too many instances.
In contrast to EDS' lengthy proposal, Xand's response was the most succinct. Such brevity is not an indication of any shortcomings. The company offered the most comprehensive description of the infrastructure it would provide. Xand's willingness to be apolitical and question Romao's architectural preferences was impressive. The company stated that a dual-site strategy for Romao Vineyards is silly. However, to accommodate the RFI, Xand worked up two sets of prices: one for a dual-site solution and the other for a single-site, high-availability solution.
Ultimately, the EDS solution stole the show and got our nod as Editor's Choice. The Xand offering came in a very close second.
RSS
