3 ms·
If a hard drive doesn’t need to spin up because the patch you’re serving a zillion copies of fits in cache, you’re saving the power to run it and the heat it wo
by egypturnash 8y ago
If a hard drive doesn’t need to spin up because the patch you’re serving a zillion copies of fits in cache, you’re saving the power to run it and the heat it would have generated.
Similarly with all the other resources that would be used on its journey between the data center and the end user. You’re wasting time if you could send an efficiently-generated 2 gig patch instead of a 60 gig file, especially for users in remote places. You’re taking up more space and cycles on your CDN. CPUs switch from idle power consumption to active. Every stage you can think of takes some amount of power and other resources, and if you’re delivering an unnecessarily huge file, you’re wasting everything it took to run all the steps along the way.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoHuman time is most valuable compared to the various waste you mention (cycles on CDNs, power, heat, etc).
- CydeWeys 8y agoAnd a lot of human time is being wasted waiting for update operations that take much longer than necessary.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 8y agoYes, the oft repeated mantra in this industry. It's a cute thing to say when it's about saving your (developer) time by externalizing energy use on other people.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoThe world is awash in energy. Time is fleeting. Sort of a cheap shot to call it "cute" when it's factually accurate. I'm sure your time is worth more than overly optimizing every technical process to save a few KwH of power.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoA few kWh of power times a million users. I'm not complaining about individuals buying time by paying for energy. I'm talking about saving little time for yourself by burning a disproportionate amount of power, distributed among all your users.