5 ms·

I can understand the reasons, but it would probably make more sense to transfer the costs to the customers (for example for excessive IO, energy consumption,...

I can understand the reasons, but it would probably make more sense to transfer the costs to the customers (for example for excessive IO, energy consumption,...) and let them be if they are willing to pay them. It's not illegal after all.

pfp 5y ago
Indeed. It should be common knowledge that shared platforms work because the company can make assumptions about load patterns and provision resources accordingly. Some might call that fair use, others overprovisioning. Mining crypto under such a cost structure would force other users subsidize your buttcoins. Personally I wouldn't feel too happy about such an income transfer. > transfer the costs to the customers (for example for excessive IO, energy consumption,...) That would be fair, but enabling it might have costs beyond the plain consumed resources: io/cpu/etc schedulers that take the exceptional loads into account and mitigate performance impacts, metering and other business overhead, productisation, investments into all that, etc.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Mining crypto under such a cost structure would force other users subsidize your buttcoins. Personally I wouldn't feel too happy about such an income transfer. The "buttcoins" part or the "income transfer" part? I guess if you have a grudge against crypto users there isn't anything worth arguing. On the other hand in a multitenant situation there's always going to be users using more resources than others, which means the "income transfer" part will always exist.
  - pfp 5y ago
    The latter. I don't care about buttcoins one way or another > there's always going to be users ... that fit those predictable load patterns I mentioned.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> transfer the costs to the customers Have friends in the hotel business. There is a particular type of rich customer who serially trashes every room they stay in. Some hotels indulge them. These customers pay for their damages and then some, after all. Others turn them away. The extra cash doesn’t make up for the toll taken on employees and other guests. These are both sensible business decisions, and they each have consequences. Miners are the loud, trashy guest who can pay. Hetzner is saying they don’t want them because they’re ruining the experience for their other customers.
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  > Miners are the loud, trashy guest who can pay. I upvoted your comment, but I think it is worse than that. If miners were willing to pay for their own damn hardware it would be closer to ok. They instead want to externalize the costs they create, by trashing the hardware without paying for the repairs. Remember that Hetzner rents servers for a fixed monthly fee and the miners weren't getting charged more than anyone else, or getting stuck with the repair bills. SSD's are rated for a given number of DWPD and if you exceed it, the warranty is invalid (the drive firmware monitors the usage). So Hetzner has to pay for the drive replacement that the miner trashed. Even if warranties covered the replacement, that just shifts the costs to other SSD buyers instead of to Hetzner. It's not an attractive proposition either way.

pfp 5y ago

Indeed. It should be common knowledge that shared platforms work because the company can make assumptions about load patterns and provision resources accordingly. Some might call that fair use, others overprovisioning. Mining crypto under such a cost structure would force other users subsidize your buttcoins. Personally I wouldn't feel too happy about such an income transfer. > transfer the costs to the customers (for example for excessive IO, energy consumption,...) That would be fair, but enabling it might have costs beyond the plain consumed resources: io/cpu/etc schedulers that take the exceptional loads into account and mitigate performance impacts, metering and other business overhead, productisation, investments into all that, etc.

gruez 5y ago
>Mining crypto under such a cost structure would force other users subsidize your buttcoins. Personally I wouldn't feel too happy about such an income transfer. The "buttcoins" part or the "income transfer" part? I guess if you have a grudge against crypto users there isn't anything worth arguing. On the other hand in a multitenant situation there's always going to be users using more resources than others, which means the "income transfer" part will always exist.
- pfp 5y ago
  The latter. I don't care about buttcoins one way or another > there's always going to be users ... that fit those predictable load patterns I mentioned.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> transfer the costs to the customers Have friends in the hotel business. There is a particular type of rich customer who serially trashes every room they stay in. Some hotels indulge them. These customers pay for their damages and then some, after all. Others turn them away. The extra cash doesn’t make up for the toll taken on employees and other guests. These are both sensible business decisions, and they each have consequences. Miners are the loud, trashy guest who can pay. Hetzner is saying they don’t want them because they’re ruining the experience for their other customers.

throwaway81523 5y ago
> Miners are the loud, trashy guest who can pay. I upvoted your comment, but I think it is worse than that. If miners were willing to pay for their own damn hardware it would be closer to ok. They instead want to externalize the costs they create, by trashing the hardware without paying for the repairs. Remember that Hetzner rents servers for a fixed monthly fee and the miners weren't getting charged more than anyone else, or getting stuck with the repair bills. SSD's are rated for a given number of DWPD and if you exceed it, the warranty is invalid (the drive firmware monitors the usage). So Hetzner has to pay for the drive replacement that the miner trashed. Even if warranties covered the replacement, that just shifts the costs to other SSD buyers instead of to Hetzner. It's not an attractive proposition either way.