4 ms·

Replacing really obsolete machines used as servers by RPI does certainly makes sense power-wise (as long as you don't need storage), so not arguing with the poi

by lelag 4y ago

Replacing really obsolete machines used as servers by RPI does certainly makes sense power-wise (as long as you don't need storage), so not arguing with the point you make about that. However, I agree with with the OP comment that computer should not be replaced simply because newer, more energy efficient alternatives exist: at least not for anything made after 2010. When comparing whether it is worse it or not to extend the life of a device that still does the job its intended to do, it's almost always worth it to extend the device's life. As an exemple, if we go by Apple's data: a 2016 13' Intel MacBook Pro create a yearly impact of 18 kg of CO2eq through usage (electricity). The 2021 13' MacBook M1 is a better machine environmentally by all account: manufacturing it polluted less than the 2016 machine (168kg CO2 vs 386kg), and it is more energy efficient (13 kg / CO2 per year). Still, you would need a whooping 33.6 years for the use of the more energy efficient laptop to cover the CO2 from manufacturing it. And that's using global carbon data, if you live in a low carbon grid country, it could take a century to recover the greenhouse gas emitted during manufacturing of the new laptop. (Not saying I would not still buy a M1 over keeping the slow Mac Intel but please don't claim your are helping the environment when doing so). Source: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13inchMBP_wRetinaDisplay_PER_Oct2016.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13i... https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-inch_MacBookPro_PER_Nov2020.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/notebooks/13-...

horsawlarway 4y ago
> Replacing really obsolete machines used as servers by RPI does certainly makes sense power-wise (as long as you don't need storage) You do need storage, but you need it for all of them anyways. I certainly won't trust the original spinning disk HDD that comes with hand me down machines with anything more than an OS image. Everything else goes on the NAS. > However, I agree with with the OP comment that computer should not be replaced simply because newer, more energy efficient alternatives exist: at least not for anything made after 2010. This - this is where the answer is to measure it. Sometimes the result will surprise you quite a bit. Most machines made after 2010 will be fine, but trust me, it's really worth plugging it into a watt meter and making sure. Turns out all sorts of things adjust power draw, and one of the least maintained parts of old machines is the PSU - usually it's filled with dust/dirt, and as long as the machine still runs no one has paid it any mind in the last 10 years. > Not saying I would not still buy a M1 over keeping the slow Mac Intel but please don't claim your are helping the environment when doing so Who the fuck is talking about replacing an intel macbook with an m1? I'm talking about getting old tower machines from office/school closeouts or as hand-me-downs and repurposing them. An intel mac (even a 2010-2013 era one) is still worth WAY more than an RPI (~$200 vs $40), and laptops in general use a very different power curve (batteries matter - who knew...?). Not to mention you can't even run a decent OS on the modern intel macs after 2016... (although at least Asahi is making progress these days) so trust me - I'm hardly suggesting a macbook update (I would strongly suggest purchasing from a different company, though - but that's a different conversation related to a different set of morals).
- lelag 4y ago
  My post was mainly answering to the OP comment and your follow-up. > It still makes sense to use a decade-old computer. >> I don't really think it does, at least not some of them. I totally agree with you regarding the homelab topic (although personally, I started using low-powered refurbished x64 thin-clients (using about 10W) in place of a RPI cluster, mainly to get real sata ports on them.) My point is that, environmentally, continuing to use a 10y computer rather than buying a new one is generally a sound advice (assuming it does still what you want it to do). Since I didn't have data for a 10y old computer, I used what I could find: the 2016 vs the 2021 Macbooks Lifecycle assessments from Apple. The same point would probably stand between a 2010 computer and a 2023 computer. Even if the old one is less energy efficient, the 150 to 300kg+ of CO2 you save not building a new device goes a long way. And instead of consumer devices or RPi, if you are talking about datacenter-class servers, then you save even more CO2 by prolonging your device life since a new server's manufacturing footprint is more like 1500 - 3000 kg CO2eq.

by lelag 4y ago

horsawlarway 4y ago

> Replacing really obsolete machines used as servers by RPI does certainly makes sense power-wise (as long as you don't need storage) You do need storage, but you need it for all of them anyways. I certainly won't trust the original spinning disk HDD that comes with hand me down machines with anything more than an OS image. Everything else goes on the NAS. > However, I agree with with the OP comment that computer should not be replaced simply because newer, more energy efficient alternatives exist: at least not for anything made after 2010. This - this is where the answer is to measure it. Sometimes the result will surprise you quite a bit. Most machines made after 2010 will be fine, but trust me, it's really worth plugging it into a watt meter and making sure. Turns out all sorts of things adjust power draw, and one of the least maintained parts of old machines is the PSU - usually it's filled with dust/dirt, and as long as the machine still runs no one has paid it any mind in the last 10 years. > Not saying I would not still buy a M1 over keeping the slow Mac Intel but please don't claim your are helping the environment when doing so Who the fuck is talking about replacing an intel macbook with an m1? I'm talking about getting old tower machines from office/school closeouts or as hand-me-downs and repurposing them. An intel mac (even a 2010-2013 era one) is still worth WAY more than an RPI (~$200 vs $40), and laptops in general use a very different power curve (batteries matter - who knew...?). Not to mention you can't even run a decent OS on the modern intel macs after 2016... (although at least Asahi is making progress these days) so trust me - I'm hardly suggesting a macbook update (I would strongly suggest purchasing from a different company, though - but that's a different conversation related to a different set of morals).

lelag 4y ago
My post was mainly answering to the OP comment and your follow-up. > It still makes sense to use a decade-old computer. >> I don't really think it does, at least not some of them. I totally agree with you regarding the homelab topic (although personally, I started using low-powered refurbished x64 thin-clients (using about 10W) in place of a RPI cluster, mainly to get real sata ports on them.) My point is that, environmentally, continuing to use a 10y computer rather than buying a new one is generally a sound advice (assuming it does still what you want it to do). Since I didn't have data for a 10y old computer, I used what I could find: the 2016 vs the 2021 Macbooks Lifecycle assessments from Apple. The same point would probably stand between a 2010 computer and a 2023 computer. Even if the old one is less energy efficient, the 150 to 300kg+ of CO2 you save not building a new device goes a long way. And instead of consumer devices or RPi, if you are talking about datacenter-class servers, then you save even more CO2 by prolonging your device life since a new server's manufacturing footprint is more like 1500 - 3000 kg CO2eq.