Skip to main content

Complacency Kills Uptime in Virtualized Environments

Chris Adams

Risk is relative. For example, studies have shown that wearing seatbelts can reduce highway safety, while more padding on hockey and American football players can increase injuries. It's called the Peltzman Effect and it describes how humans change behavior when risk factors are reduced. They often act more recklessly and drive risk right back up.

The phenomenon is recognized by many economists, its effects have been studied in the field of medicine, and I'd argue it is at the root of an interesting trend in IT — namely the increasing cost of downtime despite our more reliable virtualized environments.

Downtime Costs Are Rising

A study by the Ponemon Institute , for example, found the average cost of data center outages rose from $505,502 in 2010 to $740,357 in 2016. And the maximum cost was up 81% over the same time period, reaching over $2.4 million.

There are a lot of factors represented in these figures. For example, productivity losses are higher because labor costs are, and missed business opportunities are worth more today than they were several years ago. Yet advancements like virtual machines (VMs) with their continuous mirroring and seamless backups have not slashed downtime costs to the degree many IT pros had once predicted.

Have we as IT professionals dropped our defensive stance because we believe too strongly in the power of VMs and other technologies to save us? There are some signs that we have. For all the talk of cyberattacks—well deserved as it is—they cause only 10% of downtime. Hardware failures, on the other hand, account for 40%, according to Network Computing. And the Ponemon research referenced above found simple UPS problems to be at the root of one-quarter of outages.

Of course, VMs alone are not to blame, but it's worth looking at how downtime costs can increase when businesses rely on high-availability, virtually partitioned servers.

3 VM-Related Reasons for the Trend

The problem with VMs generally boils down to an "all eggs in one basket" problem. Separate workloads that would previously have run on multiple physical servers are consolidated to one server. Mirroring, automatic failover, and backups are intended to reduce risk associated with this single point of failure, but when these tactics fall through or complicated issues cascade, the resulting downtime can be especially costly for several reasons.

1. Utilization rates are higher

Work by McKinsey & Company and Gartner both pegged utilization rates for non-virtualized servers in the 6% to 12% range. With VMs, however, utilization typically approaches 30% and often stretches far higher. These busy servers are processing more workloads so downtime impacts are multiplied.

2. More customers are affected

Internal and external customers are accustomed to using VMs to share physical servers, so outages now affect a greater variety of workloads. This expands business consequences. A co-location provider could easily face irate calls and emails from dozens of clients, and a corporate data center manager could see complaints rise from the help desk to the C suite.

3. Complexity is prolonging downtime

Virtualization projects were supposed to simplify data centers but many have not, according to CIO Magazine. In their survey, respondents said they experience an average of 16 outages per year, 11 of which were caused by system failure resulting from complexity. And more complex systems are more difficult to troubleshoot and repair, making for longer downtime and higher overall costs.

Read Part 2: Solutions for Minimizing Server Downtime

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...

Complacency Kills Uptime in Virtualized Environments

Chris Adams

Risk is relative. For example, studies have shown that wearing seatbelts can reduce highway safety, while more padding on hockey and American football players can increase injuries. It's called the Peltzman Effect and it describes how humans change behavior when risk factors are reduced. They often act more recklessly and drive risk right back up.

The phenomenon is recognized by many economists, its effects have been studied in the field of medicine, and I'd argue it is at the root of an interesting trend in IT — namely the increasing cost of downtime despite our more reliable virtualized environments.

Downtime Costs Are Rising

A study by the Ponemon Institute , for example, found the average cost of data center outages rose from $505,502 in 2010 to $740,357 in 2016. And the maximum cost was up 81% over the same time period, reaching over $2.4 million.

There are a lot of factors represented in these figures. For example, productivity losses are higher because labor costs are, and missed business opportunities are worth more today than they were several years ago. Yet advancements like virtual machines (VMs) with their continuous mirroring and seamless backups have not slashed downtime costs to the degree many IT pros had once predicted.

Have we as IT professionals dropped our defensive stance because we believe too strongly in the power of VMs and other technologies to save us? There are some signs that we have. For all the talk of cyberattacks—well deserved as it is—they cause only 10% of downtime. Hardware failures, on the other hand, account for 40%, according to Network Computing. And the Ponemon research referenced above found simple UPS problems to be at the root of one-quarter of outages.

Of course, VMs alone are not to blame, but it's worth looking at how downtime costs can increase when businesses rely on high-availability, virtually partitioned servers.

3 VM-Related Reasons for the Trend

The problem with VMs generally boils down to an "all eggs in one basket" problem. Separate workloads that would previously have run on multiple physical servers are consolidated to one server. Mirroring, automatic failover, and backups are intended to reduce risk associated with this single point of failure, but when these tactics fall through or complicated issues cascade, the resulting downtime can be especially costly for several reasons.

1. Utilization rates are higher

Work by McKinsey & Company and Gartner both pegged utilization rates for non-virtualized servers in the 6% to 12% range. With VMs, however, utilization typically approaches 30% and often stretches far higher. These busy servers are processing more workloads so downtime impacts are multiplied.

2. More customers are affected

Internal and external customers are accustomed to using VMs to share physical servers, so outages now affect a greater variety of workloads. This expands business consequences. A co-location provider could easily face irate calls and emails from dozens of clients, and a corporate data center manager could see complaints rise from the help desk to the C suite.

3. Complexity is prolonging downtime

Virtualization projects were supposed to simplify data centers but many have not, according to CIO Magazine. In their survey, respondents said they experience an average of 16 outages per year, 11 of which were caused by system failure resulting from complexity. And more complex systems are more difficult to troubleshoot and repair, making for longer downtime and higher overall costs.

Read Part 2: Solutions for Minimizing Server Downtime

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...