3 ms·

Its super interesting to dive into the world of cryptocurrency mining, where some DCs are getting PUE of 1.1 or better with a buildout that's basically amounts

by Taek 7y ago

Its super interesting to dive into the world of cryptocurrency mining, where some DCs are getting PUE of 1.1 or better with a buildout that's basically amounts to shelves and box fans. No generators, just eat the downtime. No batteries. No 24/7 staff. No racks, just shelves (folded sheet metal is cheap). Security varies from farm to farm. These servers don't need to run cool, as long as you are in a climate that doesn't get over 100 degrees you can get away with fans and no AC.

walrus01 7y ago
If all you intend to do is generate hashes and run for the exits when your mining equipment is no longer economical, due to difficulty increase, sure. Reliable data storage for paying customers is a very different thing.
- ajross 7y ago
  Per-site reliability (beyond a stated/assumed 95%, which is right around the "I put a computer on my desk" level) isn't a design goal, though. You can argue with their math or their assumptions, but you can't say they're wrong for not designing in the reliability features you list above.
  - walrus01 7y ago
    Things on my desk are meeting three nines or better of uptime at present, 95% would be 18 days hard down per year.
    - ajross 7y ago
      I think it very much depends on the desk. I mean, power alone at my home just barely reaches three nines. Internet connectivity glitches out occasionally. I'll fat finger configurations and reinstall stuff for some more hours a year. It all adds up. You're right that you can take the same hardware, add a $70 UPS and some thought and care, and do much, much better. But my point was only that "95%" is a trivially achievable goal even in the most naive setups, which makes me treat their analysis with a little more credence than most folks here.
    - ubercow13 7y ago
      Which should give you even more confidence in Sia's reliability, no?
thawaway1837 7y ago
Crypto currency servers didn’t need to last though. Their primary components were being replaced regularly with the latest generations. Here they’re depreciating components over 7 years, so will those components last 7 years under those conditions?

by Taek 7y ago

walrus01 7y ago

If all you intend to do is generate hashes and run for the exits when your mining equipment is no longer economical, due to difficulty increase, sure. Reliable data storage for paying customers is a very different thing.

ajross 7y ago
Per-site reliability (beyond a stated/assumed 95%, which is right around the "I put a computer on my desk" level) isn't a design goal, though. You can argue with their math or their assumptions, but you can't say they're wrong for not designing in the reliability features you list above.
- walrus01 7y ago
  Things on my desk are meeting three nines or better of uptime at present, 95% would be 18 days hard down per year.
  - ajross 7y ago
    I think it very much depends on the desk. I mean, power alone at my home just barely reaches three nines. Internet connectivity glitches out occasionally. I'll fat finger configurations and reinstall stuff for some more hours a year. It all adds up. You're right that you can take the same hardware, add a $70 UPS and some thought and care, and do much, much better. But my point was only that "95%" is a trivially achievable goal even in the most naive setups, which makes me treat their analysis with a little more credence than most folks here.
  - ubercow13 7y ago
    Which should give you even more confidence in Sia's reliability, no?

thawaway1837 7y ago

Crypto currency servers didn’t need to last though. Their primary components were being replaced regularly with the latest generations. Here they’re depreciating components over 7 years, so will those components last 7 years under those conditions?