7 ms·
> But the overhead would have to come down dramatically for it to ever beat simply doing the compute in-house and incurring the overhead of managing a physical
by cyberax 3y ago
> But the overhead would have to come down dramatically for it to ever beat simply doing the compute in-house and incurring the overhead of managing a physical rack.
A physical rack needs several physical people to look after it. Imagine it going down in the middle of the night while your sysadmin is on a vacation on Hawaii.
And cloud computing is also not expensive. If you don't have a large load, a t4g.micro instance on AWS costs 0.5 cents per hour ($1.2 per day, $438 per year). It will run most small workloads just fine, and you can easily scale it up with a couple of clicks.
- dumbo-octopus 3y agoZKP's are a large load, so this hypothetical is invalid. Also ZKPs require you to already have some amount of in house compute on an in house rack, or else who are you even protecting your data from? So the question is do you provision slightly more compute into the rack you're already managing, or incur orders of magnitude more CPU time expense and a complete refactoring of your business logic to use ZKP's in order to... have slightly fewer servers in your rack? The benefits are hard to even comprehend.