3 ms·

>The only exception is the cost of the hardware, but over the long term this is a relatively small factor compared to the cost of electricity and bandwidth. My

by jasode 10y ago

>The only exception is the cost of the hardware, but over the long term this is a relatively small factor compared to the cost of electricity and bandwidth. My electricity rate is is 15.7 cents per kw-hour. During typical usage (MS Office, web browser, programming), my Intel 6-core desktop (without LCD monitor on) draws about 150 watts. For back-of-the-napkin estimates, let's round the kwh cost up to 16 cents and the wattage to 300 watts (to cover scenario of some of cpu cores being 100% pegged). The electricity cost of 24x7 for one year would be ~$413. What remains would be bandwidth costs -- if any. I like many others have Verizon FiOS and even if others have Comcast or ATT, there's no obvious residential bandwidth costs I can think of to calculate. Maybe... if the homeowner wants to upgrade the speed from 75GB@$99/month to 150@$199/month because the he wants to download the datasets faster. That extra $100 wouldn't have been spent for plain web browsing. So conceivably, that would be $1200 per year. What we don't know is how big the datasets are that must be downloaded. I assume the upload size would be minimal because the compute tasks appear to be variations on "y_output = computecombinationsmontecarlobruteforce(x_input)." The y_output answer would usually be order-of-magnitude(s) smaller than x_input. Assuming there are no extra bandwidth costs, it would be hard for a company to buy computer hardware for less than a homeowner's $413/year electricity cost. Perhaps suchflex's particular business model is financially wrong. However in general terms, it does seem possible to find a monetizing sweet spot of computing tasks that takes advantage of the idle and wasted resources of existing home computers. However, if the homeowner has to buy extra hardware that was only dedicated to suchflex, that's probably where the economics won't make as much sense.

nbmh 10y ago
>During typical usage (MS Office, web browser, programming)... That's the issue though, this wouldn't be similar to your typical usage. Instead, if they're using your GPU to train neural networks, it'll be running close to or at full capacity. I realize that you rounded the costs up, but lets just look at the costs of a GPU often used for machine learning - Nvidia GTX 980 TI. According to Nvidia, it draws 250W under load which according to your figures would result in a yearly cost of roughly $344. That's just for the reference card, a typical card that a consumer would purchase would draw even more. You can buy a 980 TI for a little more than $400. That doesn't even begin to look at hardware actually designed for commercial and research applications. I think that it's possible to find a way of monetizing computer resources, however, I think it has more to do with arbitraging differences in electricity costs. Suchflex's model certainly wouldn't work where I live (electricity costs in NYC are roughly 20 cents per kw-hour) but parts of the US are under 10 cents. I could see a company attempting to profit from these differences by setting up hardware in a cheap state and negotiating a favorable electricity rate. Heavy computation could then be done on these networks for significantly less than it could in New York or California. In summary, the value of a consumer's unused computer has more to do with their electricity rate than their hardware.
- jasode 10y ago
  >In summary, the value of a consumer's unused computer has more to do with their electricity rate than their hardware. I don't see how the calculations support that. For example if we use your worse case scenarios of an entity (such as Suchflex) that had its own datacenter in a 20 cent kwh region and the crowdsourced homecomputers in a 9 cent kwh region, that's a difference of 11 cents. If we round up the energy usage to 600 watts (pc + GPU), that 11 cents is an annual difference of ~$578. However, for Suchflex to even run computations at all on their own hardware -- whether its 20 or 9 cents -- they have to spend capex of ~$1500 of motherboard+cpu+gpu. That's the $1500 the homeowner already spent for his own purposes. Therefore, Suchflex can redirect $1500 to pay commissions/awards/etc towards pure computations instead of buying their own depreciating hardware (which includes buying/renting the physical datacenters to hold it all). It seems like the homeowner's hardware is a very significant part of the arbitrage/monetization equation. Yes, there is also potential arbitrage in regional differences of electricity rates. However, the greater arbitrage (at least the first 3 years) is the unused time on residential pc that would have been wasted. That "unused time" arises from computer hardware that was already purchased for other purposes than Suchflex.
  - nbmh 10y ago
    >crowdsourced homecomputers in a 9 cent kwh region My suggestion was not that an entity use crowdsourced home computers, rather that it would be more efficient for a company to setup their own hardware and rent CPU cycles that way. The big difference is that Suchflex is limited to using hardware that consumers regularly purchase, whereas a company could use significantly more energy efficient setups and negotiate a better electricity rate. This is essentially what AWS already offers. Additionally, if you already have to transmit everything remotely, there's no need to stay in the US. Iceland offers rates around 4.3 cents. I chose the 980 TI for my example because it's about as close to perfect as you can find for this scenario while sticking with consumer grade hardware, average setups would be much worse. My general point is that I don't think Suchflex's model is viable unless, as pliny mentioned, you have access to free electricity through some less-than-legal means (or you live in Iceland).

by jasode 10y ago

nbmh 10y ago

>During typical usage (MS Office, web browser, programming)... That's the issue though, this wouldn't be similar to your typical usage. Instead, if they're using your GPU to train neural networks, it'll be running close to or at full capacity. I realize that you rounded the costs up, but lets just look at the costs of a GPU often used for machine learning - Nvidia GTX 980 TI. According to Nvidia, it draws 250W under load which according to your figures would result in a yearly cost of roughly $344. That's just for the reference card, a typical card that a consumer would purchase would draw even more. You can buy a 980 TI for a little more than $400. That doesn't even begin to look at hardware actually designed for commercial and research applications. I think that it's possible to find a way of monetizing computer resources, however, I think it has more to do with arbitraging differences in electricity costs. Suchflex's model certainly wouldn't work where I live (electricity costs in NYC are roughly 20 cents per kw-hour) but parts of the US are under 10 cents. I could see a company attempting to profit from these differences by setting up hardware in a cheap state and negotiating a favorable electricity rate. Heavy computation could then be done on these networks for significantly less than it could in New York or California. In summary, the value of a consumer's unused computer has more to do with their electricity rate than their hardware.

jasode 10y ago
>In summary, the value of a consumer's unused computer has more to do with their electricity rate than their hardware. I don't see how the calculations support that. For example if we use your worse case scenarios of an entity (such as Suchflex) that had its own datacenter in a 20 cent kwh region and the crowdsourced homecomputers in a 9 cent kwh region, that's a difference of 11 cents. If we round up the energy usage to 600 watts (pc + GPU), that 11 cents is an annual difference of ~$578. However, for Suchflex to even run computations at all on their own hardware -- whether its 20 or 9 cents -- they have to spend capex of ~$1500 of motherboard+cpu+gpu. That's the $1500 the homeowner already spent for his own purposes. Therefore, Suchflex can redirect $1500 to pay commissions/awards/etc towards pure computations instead of buying their own depreciating hardware (which includes buying/renting the physical datacenters to hold it all). It seems like the homeowner's hardware is a very significant part of the arbitrage/monetization equation. Yes, there is also potential arbitrage in regional differences of electricity rates. However, the greater arbitrage (at least the first 3 years) is the unused time on residential pc that would have been wasted. That "unused time" arises from computer hardware that was already purchased for other purposes than Suchflex.
- nbmh 10y ago
  >crowdsourced homecomputers in a 9 cent kwh region My suggestion was not that an entity use crowdsourced home computers, rather that it would be more efficient for a company to setup their own hardware and rent CPU cycles that way. The big difference is that Suchflex is limited to using hardware that consumers regularly purchase, whereas a company could use significantly more energy efficient setups and negotiate a better electricity rate. This is essentially what AWS already offers. Additionally, if you already have to transmit everything remotely, there's no need to stay in the US. Iceland offers rates around 4.3 cents. I chose the 980 TI for my example because it's about as close to perfect as you can find for this scenario while sticking with consumer grade hardware, average setups would be much worse. My general point is that I don't think Suchflex's model is viable unless, as pliny mentioned, you have access to free electricity through some less-than-legal means (or you live in Iceland).