4 ms·

Data centers are one of the best demographics for adopting new architectures because more of the software can be custom-built towards a narrow application: Get

Data centers are one of the best demographics for adopting new architectures because more of the software can be custom-built towards a narrow application: Get a Linux stack to build, add some network I/O, add some virtualization, and you can do all sorts of things. Client apps have a much harder time making that jump because the environment is more holistic, the hardware more varied, and the need for "must-have" proprietary apps more imperative.

inkyoto 3y ago
> Data centers are one of the best demographics […] Hardly. Data centers are a dying breed, and their number has been rapidly dwindling in recent years. DC (and the mythical «on-prem» by extension) has effectively become a dirty word in contemporary times. The most brutal lift-and-shift approach (without discussing the merits of doing so) is most common: create a backup, spin up a cloud «VM», restore from the backup and turn the server in the DC off forever. No-one is going to even remotely consider a new hardware architecture, not even in the cloud. Moreover, since servers do not exist in a vacuum and either run business apps or do something at least remotely useful, that entails the software migration to adopt the new platform. And the adoption has to be force-pushed onto the app developers otherwise they won't bother, and for them to convert/migrate the app onto a new architecture, they need desktops/laptops that run on the new ISA, and no viable server and desktop hardware exists in June 2023 – it will come along later with «later» not having a clear definition. Talking open source is a moot point as most businesses out there run commercially procured business apps.
- intvocoder 3y ago
  This doesn’t seem to comport with Amazon’s experience, investment, and trajectory with Graviton, based on public reference customers and a few personal anecdotes. Ampere isn’t a slouch either…
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago
  AWS and Azure are datacenters too. You're paying a x10 markup to make accounting shenanigans easier, but the technology is exactly the same.
  - inkyoto 3y ago
    > AWS and Azure are datacenters too. They are, but they are not data centers in the traditional sense of the term. The GP was referring to the traditional data centers as far as I understand. > You're paying a x10 markup to make accounting shenanigans easier, Whilst cloud platforms do allow one to accrue an eye-watering cloud bill by virtue of shooting oneself with a double-barelled gun, the fault is always on the user and the «10x markup» is complete bonkers and is a fiction. As an isolated random example, API gateway in AWS serving 100 million requests 32 kB each with at least 99.95% SLA will cost US$100 a month. AWS EventBridge for the same 100 million monthly events with at least 99.99% availability will also cost US$100 a month. That is US$200 in total monthly for a couple of the most critical components of a modern data processing backbone that scales out nearly indefinitely, requires no maintenance nor manual supervision and is always patched up security wise and is shielded from DDoS attacks. Compared to the same SLA, scalability and opex costs in a traditional data centre, they are a steal. Again, we are talking about at least 99.95% and 99.99% SLA for each service. If one uses the cloud to spin up cloud VM's and databases that run 24x7 and result in an averags 10% monthly CPU utilisation, they are cooking the cloud wrong, they are wasting their own money and they are the only ones to blame the 10x markup that is a delusion caused by ignorance. > but the technology is exactly the same. The underlying technology might be the same, but is abstracted from the user who can no longer care about it, use a service and pay for the actual usage only. The platform optimises the resource utilisation and distribution automatically. That is the value proposition of the cloud today and not 15 years ago.
    - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
      > They are, but they are not data centers in the traditional sense of the term. They are, 100%, without a doubt, absolutely, data centers in the traditional sense of the term. > ...the «10x markup» is complete bonkers and is a fiction. Go compare prices of e.g. Hetzner or OVA and come back to me again with that "fiction". > 100 million monthly events That's only about 35 events per second. Hosting over at Hetzner will cost you maybe $25 a month. So yeah, the x10 markup is real.
      - 3y ago
- xarope 3y ago
  Data centers in general are NOT a dying breed, and it's more a case of rapidly growing, not dwindling. Perhaps you are referring to individual companies moving to the cloud, and colo type activity (albeit institutions with strict regulation may still require a backup colo) dwindling? However, the cloud resource providers are definitely growing (https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/data-center/worldwide#revenue https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/data-center/worldwide#r...), and there is a huge push for more power and heat efficient architecture, whether on the server/network/supporting infrastructure side.

inkyoto 3y ago

> Data centers are one of the best demographics […] Hardly. Data centers are a dying breed, and their number has been rapidly dwindling in recent years. DC (and the mythical «on-prem» by extension) has effectively become a dirty word in contemporary times. The most brutal lift-and-shift approach (without discussing the merits of doing so) is most common: create a backup, spin up a cloud «VM», restore from the backup and turn the server in the DC off forever. No-one is going to even remotely consider a new hardware architecture, not even in the cloud. Moreover, since servers do not exist in a vacuum and either run business apps or do something at least remotely useful, that entails the software migration to adopt the new platform. And the adoption has to be force-pushed onto the app developers otherwise they won't bother, and for them to convert/migrate the app onto a new architecture, they need desktops/laptops that run on the new ISA, and no viable server and desktop hardware exists in June 2023 – it will come along later with «later» not having a clear definition. Talking open source is a moot point as most businesses out there run commercially procured business apps.

intvocoder 3y ago
This doesn’t seem to comport with Amazon’s experience, investment, and trajectory with Graviton, based on public reference customers and a few personal anecdotes. Ampere isn’t a slouch either…
otabdeveloper4 3y ago
AWS and Azure are datacenters too. You're paying a x10 markup to make accounting shenanigans easier, but the technology is exactly the same.
- inkyoto 3y ago
  > AWS and Azure are datacenters too. They are, but they are not data centers in the traditional sense of the term. The GP was referring to the traditional data centers as far as I understand. > You're paying a x10 markup to make accounting shenanigans easier, Whilst cloud platforms do allow one to accrue an eye-watering cloud bill by virtue of shooting oneself with a double-barelled gun, the fault is always on the user and the «10x markup» is complete bonkers and is a fiction. As an isolated random example, API gateway in AWS serving 100 million requests 32 kB each with at least 99.95% SLA will cost US$100 a month. AWS EventBridge for the same 100 million monthly events with at least 99.99% availability will also cost US$100 a month. That is US$200 in total monthly for a couple of the most critical components of a modern data processing backbone that scales out nearly indefinitely, requires no maintenance nor manual supervision and is always patched up security wise and is shielded from DDoS attacks. Compared to the same SLA, scalability and opex costs in a traditional data centre, they are a steal. Again, we are talking about at least 99.95% and 99.99% SLA for each service. If one uses the cloud to spin up cloud VM's and databases that run 24x7 and result in an averags 10% monthly CPU utilisation, they are cooking the cloud wrong, they are wasting their own money and they are the only ones to blame the 10x markup that is a delusion caused by ignorance. > but the technology is exactly the same. The underlying technology might be the same, but is abstracted from the user who can no longer care about it, use a service and pay for the actual usage only. The platform optimises the resource utilisation and distribution automatically. That is the value proposition of the cloud today and not 15 years ago.
  - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
    > They are, but they are not data centers in the traditional sense of the term. They are, 100%, without a doubt, absolutely, data centers in the traditional sense of the term. > ...the «10x markup» is complete bonkers and is a fiction. Go compare prices of e.g. Hetzner or OVA and come back to me again with that "fiction". > 100 million monthly events That's only about 35 events per second. Hosting over at Hetzner will cost you maybe $25 a month. So yeah, the x10 markup is real.
    - 3y ago
xarope 3y ago
Data centers in general are NOT a dying breed, and it's more a case of rapidly growing, not dwindling. Perhaps you are referring to individual companies moving to the cloud, and colo type activity (albeit institutions with strict regulation may still require a backup colo) dwindling? However, the cloud resource providers are definitely growing (https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/data-center/worldwide#revenue https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/data-center/worldwide#r...), and there is a huge push for more power and heat efficient architecture, whether on the server/network/supporting infrastructure side.