Cost / right-sizingIndustrial fastener distributor, anonymized × red9CS-0433
Proved one ERP database could run on half the Azure cores and cut about $6,588 a year
The problem. An industrial fastener distributor was paying for a 16-core Azure VM to carry its ERP database, and nobody was sure the box actually needed it. Renewal was coming, the invoice kept climbing, and the fear of a slowdown was the only thing keeping the larger, pricier instance in place.
What we did. We replayed the full production workload against a smaller 8-core Azure VM with a set of new indexes, then measured it head to head against the current 16-core server. The smaller instance finished the same work faster, which made the downsize safe to recommend.
Red9 · Performance Impact
Annual cloud cost cut
$6,588 / yr
Recurring, from dropping the ERP database to an 8-core Azure VM.
Cores required
16 → 8
The smaller VM ran the full workload faster in a replay test.
Benchmark duration score
1,019 → 333
Distributed Replay of the production workload; lower is faster.
Duration score
1,019 → 333
3x lower
Annual cost
~$6,588 saved
recurring
Azure VM cores
carrying the ERP database
Where these numbers come from. The $6,588 a year is the price gap between the 16-core VM and the 8-core one it replaced. The 1,019 to 333 is the duration score from a Distributed Replay of the real production workload, where a lower score means the work finished faster. Both figures came off the client's own Azure billing and the replay run.
The result. The distributor moved the ERP database onto half the cores and kept it faster than before, thanks to the new indexes, trimming about $6,588 a year off the cloud bill with no drop in throughput.
The technical detail
What the replay showed. The current 16-core Azure VM was oversized for the workload once the indexing was fixed. A full Distributed Replay on an 8-core VM with the new indexes returned a duration score of 333 against the 16-core box's 1,019, so the smaller instance carried the same production load with room to spare.
What we changed (identifiers generalized for privacy):
-- Distributed Replay of the production workload, current vs proposed:
-- 16-core Azure VM (current) duration score ~1,019
-- 8-core Azure VM + new indexes duration score ~333 (faster on half the cores)
-- => right-size 16 -> 8 cores, add covering indexes; ~$6,588/yr cloud saving
Halving the VM while adding the covering indexes made the database both cheaper and quicker, so the renewal landed on the smaller instance instead of the bigger one.