3 ms·

I'm not gonna downvote you. But to your point about the hardware market, a mid range server CPU of today will be about as fast as an entry model CPU next year.

I'm not gonna downvote you. But to your point about the hardware market, a mid range server CPU of today will be about as fast as an entry model CPU next year. Actual performance wise, your old server can probably keep up with a newer but slightly lower end server just fine. Obsolete !== useless. I'm the kind of person who would rather take the 3y server and recomission it as a lower priority service than just do a 1:1 replacement. "Old" computers aren't as useless as they used to be. Computing power has advanced to the point where computation is arbitrary. For all intents, in most sectors, you can scale your compute capacity as high as your budget allows and you won't hit any performance barriers ever. There will always be more compute. It is a commodity now. My stance is this; sure the new server is faster than the old one, but you know what's even faster? Dividing the existing workload between both of them.

moondev 3y ago
> a mid range server CPU of today will be about as fast as an entry model CPU next year What about the core count and memory capacity
- anotherhue 3y ago
  https://www.amazon.com/Dell-PowerEdge-R630-Rackmount-Warranty/dp/B07PR12CTL/ https://www.amazon.com/Dell-PowerEdge-R630-Rackmount-Warrant...
foofie 3y ago
> sure the new server is faster than the old one, but you know what's even faster? Dividing the existing workload between both of them. How do you factor reliability into your analysis? I mean, the reason companies ditch their 3yo server is that their service life is nearing it's end, and odds are they will fail in the upcoming year or so. Meanwhile, increased compute capacity means companies can use a single brand new server to replace multiple old ones, not to mention cheaper operational costs.