It seems to me that somewhere back a spell the hardware giants got together and created the three year hardware upgrade. Some very intelligent and talented sales person perhaps extolled Moore’s Law and painted pictures of massive data center downtime should hardware not be refreshed every three years. This is a brilliant sales move, guaranteeing quota at least every three years. But is it necessary from a buyer’s perspective?
The answer is perhaps somewhat complicated. There are some pieces of hardware that you may want to look at around age three – at least those performing mission-critical tasks, but even those can likely be extended beyond three years.
The recent economic downturn forced many data centers and IT departments to test this lifecycle as a means to save money. OEM’s have seen softer server sales over the past two years and according to surveys (IDC and others), 35% or more of IT managers say that they’ll keep their servers in play for 6 months to a year longer than normal, and a whopping 34% say that they’ll extend their server lifecycles up to two years!
And why not? You can likely use Moore’s Law to justify extending lifecycles just as easily as refreshing hardware. I’d venture that servers today are built better than they were 5 or 10 years ago given all the advancements in computing technology, so extending their useful existence is probably not only feasible but smart.
Add to the increased durability of hardware today, the fact that third party hardware maintenance providers are available to provide assurance, peace-of-mind, and cost savings for older hardware. OEM’s that try to lock you into maintenance contracts that contain 3 year refresh cycles aren’t an issue. You can extend the life of your hardware while still being covered with maintenance coverage.