7 ms·

All this really means is that, if you have an HP server that you let the service contract on lapse, you're going to ditch that hardware sooner. Whether or not

by kabdib 13y ago

All this really means is that, if you have an HP server that you let the service contract on lapse, you're going to ditch that hardware sooner. Whether or not you buy another HP server is an interesting question. Dunno; this is kind of a dick move on HP's part, and not a great sign.

javajosh 13y ago
This assumes that people will continue to "upgrade" their hardware at roughly the same rate they do today. My sense is that 10+ years ago we leveled-off on the order of (1GHz, 10GB RAM, 1T, 1Gbps, 100W, 1 core). (Sure, the last 10 years has given us a small factor improvement across the board, a bit more with power and disk, but it's not really a game-changer). HP probably believes that people will be sticking with older hardware much longer, which means they can't subsidize the ongoing work of software updates with new equipment purchases any more. Or I could be completely wrong and HP is trying to boil the frog in the same way banks do with their fee structures. Either way, it doesn't seem like a smart move in the absence of a compelling "if we buy server boxes, they better be HP" story.
- rch 13y ago
  > HP probably believes that people will be sticking with older hardware much longer I really hope this is the case, and that a sustainable update model means I can reasonably expect multi-decade lifetimes for utility grade systems. My main concerns would be lock-in, and process changes that artificially create a need for continuous updates.
  - lsc 13y ago
    The lack of BIOS upgrades is very rarely what kills a box. I have seen many boxes still in production that are more than a decade old. a good friend has a 10 CPU sun enterprise server from the first dot-com; He conned some poor ISP in davis into hosting it for him for $50/month. I'm certain that he is causing their power bill to go up more than $50 every month. That's the thing, though, today, I could give him 1/10th of a server that uses 1/10th the power, and he'd have more compute resources. That's the primary thing that kills old servers; It's not that they die (They become less reliable, but if it's good stuff and it's treated well, it's still 'good enough' for people willing to use "the cloud") What kills old servers is that newer servers use dramatically less power per unit of work done.
    - rch 13y ago
      I'm looking into ways of using that waste heat. It's a feature :)
      - lsc 13y ago
        I've had many discussions about how to monetize old hardware; a favorite idea is to set up some sort of "distributed grid computing" service in cold climates, where the servers are all older, but they run in buildings that would otherwise be electrically heated, making power costs zero. (I mean, there are lots of problems with the idea; it's not getting past the purest of fantasy stage, but it was fun to think about.)
- kabdib 13y ago
  Newer servers are dramatically more power efficient, and since power is a continual cost, replacing them on a regular cycle is a pretty easy decision. The newer stuff tends to be denser and easier to manage, which further reduces rack space and meatware cost.

by kabdib 13y ago

javajosh 13y ago

This assumes that people will continue to "upgrade" their hardware at roughly the same rate they do today. My sense is that 10+ years ago we leveled-off on the order of (1GHz, 10GB RAM, 1T, 1Gbps, 100W, 1 core). (Sure, the last 10 years has given us a small factor improvement across the board, a bit more with power and disk, but it's not really a game-changer). HP probably believes that people will be sticking with older hardware much longer, which means they can't subsidize the ongoing work of software updates with new equipment purchases any more. Or I could be completely wrong and HP is trying to boil the frog in the same way banks do with their fee structures. Either way, it doesn't seem like a smart move in the absence of a compelling "if we buy server boxes, they better be HP" story.

rch 13y ago
> HP probably believes that people will be sticking with older hardware much longer I really hope this is the case, and that a sustainable update model means I can reasonably expect multi-decade lifetimes for utility grade systems. My main concerns would be lock-in, and process changes that artificially create a need for continuous updates.
- lsc 13y ago
  The lack of BIOS upgrades is very rarely what kills a box. I have seen many boxes still in production that are more than a decade old. a good friend has a 10 CPU sun enterprise server from the first dot-com; He conned some poor ISP in davis into hosting it for him for $50/month. I'm certain that he is causing their power bill to go up more than $50 every month. That's the thing, though, today, I could give him 1/10th of a server that uses 1/10th the power, and he'd have more compute resources. That's the primary thing that kills old servers; It's not that they die (They become less reliable, but if it's good stuff and it's treated well, it's still 'good enough' for people willing to use "the cloud") What kills old servers is that newer servers use dramatically less power per unit of work done.
  - rch 13y ago
    I'm looking into ways of using that waste heat. It's a feature :)
    - lsc 13y ago
      I've had many discussions about how to monetize old hardware; a favorite idea is to set up some sort of "distributed grid computing" service in cold climates, where the servers are all older, but they run in buildings that would otherwise be electrically heated, making power costs zero. (I mean, there are lots of problems with the idea; it's not getting past the purest of fantasy stage, but it was fun to think about.)
kabdib 13y ago
Newer servers are dramatically more power efficient, and since power is a continual cost, replacing them on a regular cycle is a pretty easy decision. The newer stuff tends to be denser and easier to manage, which further reduces rack space and meatware cost.