5 ms·
I'd be surprised if any of this mattered for them, since their workload (at least the "copy movie files from disk to network" part of it) is embarrassingly para
by mikepurvis 5y ago
I'd be surprised if any of this mattered for them, since their workload (at least the "copy movie files from disk to network" part of it) is embarrassingly parallel.
Unless they're really squeezed on power or rack space budget, I would imagine they'd do just fine being a generation back from the bleeding edge.
- extropy 5y agoYeah, using significantly cheaper but just somewhat slower hardware works great if you can parallelize. Also cutting edge is usually very power hungry and power/cooling costs are majority of your expenses at data center scale.
- nijave 5y ago>Unless they're really squeezed on power or rack space budget I think this is the case for their open connect appliances (or whatever they call them). They want to try to maximize throughput on a single device so they don't have to colocate so much equipment
- loeg 5y agoThey are very squeezed on rack space budget in at least some locations.
- ksec 5y agoThey are doing 400Gbps per box already [1], they have 800Gbps Network card waiting to be tested, with PCI-E 6.0 they could do 1.6Tbps, assuming they somehow figure out how to overcome CPU and Memory bottleneck. Sapphire Rapids with HBM3 would give 2TB/s :) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28584738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28584738