5 ms·

ARM servers aren't much cheaper and you deal with extra stuff. I'm sure they have their use cases, but as a typical VPS user I don't see the point.

ashtonkem 7y ago
I’ve always seen the primary utility of ARM being in devices attached to a battery. In a data center the costs of changing probably trounce whatever power savings may be available.
- progval 7y ago
  Note that power savings in a DC are double: the device itself uses less; but you also save power in the AC. Using non-x86 (or even just non-Intel) is also an investment, as you are less dependent on a duopoly.
  - ashtonkem 7y ago
    The former makes sense. It’s just a question of whether those power savings are enough to offset the cost of switching, both for the hosting provider and the consumer. The latter is tricky. You’re creating redundancy, which is good. But that redundancy is mighty expensive, as you have to either accept a lower quality of service in both, or invest in more specialized labor for both platforms. Analogy: One of the ways that Southwest managed to keep costs down was to use one type of plane. While its peers used a mixed group of Airbus and Boeing aircraft tailored to the route, Southwest only used the 737. This allowed it to save huge amounts of money on maintenance and pilot training, as tons of parts and crew were easily moved around. And then the 737 MAX8 clusterfuck happened, and Southwest is stuck spending more fuel than its Airbus A321-neo flying competitors are.
  - RL_Quine 7y ago
    Not double, really. Phase change cooling is surprisingly efficient, you get a lot more heat moved than you'd expect for the power consumption (hundreds of percent).
- karambahh 7y ago
  As a former Scaleway employee, I can confirm the energy profile of the ARM racks were very nice. It has been publicly said before by many, though I'm not sure we ever released any data publicly on this, so I'll keep this at the anecdata level

ashtonkem 7y ago

I’ve always seen the primary utility of ARM being in devices attached to a battery. In a data center the costs of changing probably trounce whatever power savings may be available.

progval 7y ago
Note that power savings in a DC are double: the device itself uses less; but you also save power in the AC. Using non-x86 (or even just non-Intel) is also an investment, as you are less dependent on a duopoly.
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  The former makes sense. It’s just a question of whether those power savings are enough to offset the cost of switching, both for the hosting provider and the consumer. The latter is tricky. You’re creating redundancy, which is good. But that redundancy is mighty expensive, as you have to either accept a lower quality of service in both, or invest in more specialized labor for both platforms. Analogy: One of the ways that Southwest managed to keep costs down was to use one type of plane. While its peers used a mixed group of Airbus and Boeing aircraft tailored to the route, Southwest only used the 737. This allowed it to save huge amounts of money on maintenance and pilot training, as tons of parts and crew were easily moved around. And then the 737 MAX8 clusterfuck happened, and Southwest is stuck spending more fuel than its Airbus A321-neo flying competitors are.
- RL_Quine 7y ago
  Not double, really. Phase change cooling is surprisingly efficient, you get a lot more heat moved than you'd expect for the power consumption (hundreds of percent).
karambahh 7y ago
As a former Scaleway employee, I can confirm the energy profile of the ARM racks were very nice. It has been publicly said before by many, though I'm not sure we ever released any data publicly on this, so I'll keep this at the anecdata level