3 ms·
I mean 10k requests/second seems quite achievable for a single server. And I'd totally believe that 12 seconds of compute (per year!) wouldn't use much energy.
by seoaeu 6y ago
I mean 10k requests/second seems quite achievable for a single server. And I'd totally believe that 12 seconds of compute (per year!) wouldn't use much energy. In reality those requests would be intermixed with millions more for other sites and the servers would be running continuously, but the resources attributable to an individual site should be the same.
- CobrastanJorji 6y agoI mean, let's think about this a bit. The US generated about 4.13 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2019, and that generation emitted about 1.72 billion metric tons of CO2, or about 0.92 pounds of CO2 per kWh (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php). Let's assume Google gets their power at that rate (which is unfair to Google because they claim to use 100% renewable energy, but I don't want to get into that). A typical server rack might use anywhere from maybe 5-50 kWh. Let's say Google has really beefy ones that consume 100 kWh per hour. That's 92 pounds of CO2 per hour. For the 12 seconds you mentioned, that's still only 0.011 kilograms of total CO2 used. And the claim is that they're BETTER by 4.5 kilograms. They've gotta be talking about some other expense than the server. But what sort of expense? The cost to build a server? Something about general maintenance of the Internet? ISPs between clients and the server?