After giving it some thought, I came up with the following benefits. Indeed, it is a good solution but there some challenges in implementing this solution.
According to numerous estimates, most servers deployed in this one server/one app model are running at less than 15% of their capacity.
This may be good for response time but it also means organizations are not getting the full value of their hardware.
When there is a small-scale server deployment for a new department or a new branch office, seemingly inexpensive at the onset, additional servers are added to the infrastructure creating additional needs for power and operations management, not to mention floor space consumption.
Mergers and acquisitions add to the plethora of servers and applications.
Additionally, costs for replacing the servers down the road must be planned for. Electric and cooling costs grow with each new machine.
However, the real cost of server sprawl lies in the administration.As one expert put it, "Each penny spent on hardware costs a dollar to manage." As the number and types of server platforms proliferate, IT efficiencies drop.This is often the result of the one server/one application datacenter model.When a company acquires or creates new applications, typically the organization deploys each new application on its own server.If AD is implemented in Japan, there should be a problem. "Server sprawl" describes a situation in which multiple, under-utilized servers take up more space and consume more resources than can be justified by their workload.