4 ms·

This is a terrible waste. Wiping all storage would take a day at best; this hardware is still worth $10-50k. They could donate it. Then again, they’re migrat

by sneak 1y ago

This is a terrible waste. Wiping all storage would take a day at best; this hardware is still worth $10-50k. They could donate it. Then again, they’re migrating to Azure and the whole thing ran for years on SQL Server; being good at tech was never these ex-MS guys’ strong suit. This kind of forklifting is expected from this specific type of corporate droid, it’s how they’ve always done it. Entire industries run just like this, and it’s terrible and stupid.

dangus 1y ago
Nobody likes to hear it but hardware just doesn’t last that long. Even if you reuse the hardware by selling it off to homelab types or donating it, it’ll get faulty in a few very short years. It’s already been running 24/7 for a long time. It’ll also be far less energy efficient in operation compared to newer hardware generations. I also don’t really see what your beef with SO is for using SQL Server. Are you suggesting that companies do a major refactor every time their software stack goes out of style? There really isn’t anything wrong with SQL Server nor is there anything wrong with SO at a technical level. You might be upset that entire industries run on imperfect tech stacks but value isn’t driven by tech stack choice. I’m not going to buy a sandwich from a different restaurant because they are using better tech than the restaurant with bad food.
- wahern 1y ago
  > Nobody likes to hear it but hardware just doesn’t last that long. My experience completely contradicts this, both at work and otherwise. The typical longevity of servers has always astounded me. Though my current biggish server (not including routers, etc) is a Zen 1 on 14nm built pre-pandemic; I've read 12nm and smaller might be more susceptible to degradation. RAM feature size has remained fairly constant, but I wouldn't be surprised if SSD MLC longevity has degraded. The real issue, IMO, is that when you have a small set of servers any hardware issues become a bigger hassle. It's precisely because you can go years with a rack of servers humming along that when there is an issue, it feels quite intrusive and annoying.
  - dangus 1y ago
    Using a 6-7 year old system as an example of impressive longevity isn’t particularly convincing. You’re at the back end of their useful lifespan just like I mentioned.
- sneak 1y ago
  How long it lasts is irrelevant. I didn’t cite lifespan, I cited their present market value. $50k is $50k.
  - dangus 1y ago
    Is that the present market value after deducting the time it takes to prepare, store, and ship them for sale?
- lesser-shadow 1y ago
  >Nobody likes to hear it but hardware just doesn’t last that long. Authorized corporate resellers beg to differ. >It’ll also be far less energy efficient in operation compared to newer hardware generations. I'd love spending thousands of dollars for new server racks for my homelab just because every other company decided to destroy their server racks instead of reselling them when they eventually upgrade their datacenter. >》food analogy《 Imagine being so fat you look at computers and see food.

by sneak 1y ago

dangus 1y ago

Nobody likes to hear it but hardware just doesn’t last that long. Even if you reuse the hardware by selling it off to homelab types or donating it, it’ll get faulty in a few very short years. It’s already been running 24/7 for a long time. It’ll also be far less energy efficient in operation compared to newer hardware generations. I also don’t really see what your beef with SO is for using SQL Server. Are you suggesting that companies do a major refactor every time their software stack goes out of style? There really isn’t anything wrong with SQL Server nor is there anything wrong with SO at a technical level. You might be upset that entire industries run on imperfect tech stacks but value isn’t driven by tech stack choice. I’m not going to buy a sandwich from a different restaurant because they are using better tech than the restaurant with bad food.

wahern 1y ago
> Nobody likes to hear it but hardware just doesn’t last that long. My experience completely contradicts this, both at work and otherwise. The typical longevity of servers has always astounded me. Though my current biggish server (not including routers, etc) is a Zen 1 on 14nm built pre-pandemic; I've read 12nm and smaller might be more susceptible to degradation. RAM feature size has remained fairly constant, but I wouldn't be surprised if SSD MLC longevity has degraded. The real issue, IMO, is that when you have a small set of servers any hardware issues become a bigger hassle. It's precisely because you can go years with a rack of servers humming along that when there is an issue, it feels quite intrusive and annoying.
- dangus 1y ago
  Using a 6-7 year old system as an example of impressive longevity isn’t particularly convincing. You’re at the back end of their useful lifespan just like I mentioned.
sneak 1y ago
How long it lasts is irrelevant. I didn’t cite lifespan, I cited their present market value. $50k is $50k.
- dangus 1y ago
  Is that the present market value after deducting the time it takes to prepare, store, and ship them for sale?
lesser-shadow 1y ago
>Nobody likes to hear it but hardware just doesn’t last that long. Authorized corporate resellers beg to differ. >It’ll also be far less energy efficient in operation compared to newer hardware generations. I'd love spending thousands of dollars for new server racks for my homelab just because every other company decided to destroy their server racks instead of reselling them when they eventually upgrade their datacenter. >》food analogy《 Imagine being so fat you look at computers and see food.