Let’s start by banning hateful people like Donald Trump from Twitter. Let them find and fund their own platforms for that willful ignorance. They know it’s hard to survive alone — look at 8chan — so maybe they are willing to play by the rules if we enforce them.
I use the host he mentioned - they have an API, and my average time to deploy a baremetal physical machine is under 60 seconds via API.
They don't really do custom specs, iirc part of the low pricing is because of how much useful automation they have. Sure, it's not cloud cloud, but if I have a personal side project that I need a few terabytes of ram for, there is no way I can afford AWS/GCP/etc.
The thing is that most baremetal hosts are exactly as the parent described - annoyingly slow, manual, etc.
Hetzner is a little gem here, where they have a large selection of pre-specced machines that are ready for automated deployment, and they also show you a pool of cheaper machines that were returned by other customers/terminated/cancelled and automatically wiped with varying specs that you can also automatically pick out via API (this includes random upgrades that the ex-customers added).
If you manage to fit in the square hole that their automation occupies, it's a great fit.
yeah it works if you only need to serve europe. and if you do not need a private network for your servers (for metal they cost a lot of money, even on hetzner, they have a cloud tough which has a network feature). also keep in mind once you try to scale hetzner, is quickly a bottleneck. > 100 servers per hour.
EDIT: oh and also server buying/renting/installing is probably the smallest problem when running your own metal/colo or renting servers.
a big use case for clouds is, data sharing between hosts via object storage/moveable disks, etc. which is non trivial on "bare metal/colo/renting" and that is just one use case.
There are certainly a lot of cons, yep. I feel like a lot of the arguments here are a bit apples and oranges, some people are getting really upset over it.
But sometimes, you just need a ton of bandwidth, compute, RAM, etc. and don't care about managed services.. I don't think there's a single major cloud provider that will give me a 2TB Intel DC SSD to use 100% of r/w for $20/m. And not being billed per-GB bandwidth is a massive relief for certain use cases.
I can KVM into it with a Lantronix Spider. I have dozens of them, and none of them have shown to be anything other than a physical machine; I can set up RAID myself, all the hardware data is passed through (there are no hypervisor layers in between).
I would be incredibly impressed if it was not baremetal.
I do have one dislike, which is how harshly they enforce mac addresses (so spinning up new VMs and bridging them into the network gets that mac blocked until you register it in the API or panel). And I guess the other dislike is that they're only in Europe, which is 200ms from me.
If the economy was hyper-inflating large institutions and corporations would be the first to trade their cash for other securities and assets like real estate.
The ICO market crashed and trading volume on crypto exchanges keeps dipping lower and lower and lower. Its main use-case has shifted back to currency after a failed bid as a security.
Can you refer me to the source of "crypto exchanges [volume] keeps dipping", please? I'm looking at BTC volume and it's not dipping at all. There was a sharp drop in Jan '17 when Chinese exchanges were forced to close. Other than that volume correlates to the price.
This is a relatively new change though, as in the last year/couple of months. So I wouldn't expect the IRS to have shifted it's treatment. Especially in the context of 2018 taxes.
I wish that the ceiling and walls were painted the same color. I feel like it would've been more valuable with contrived models instead of a real apartment.
> It might even throw the global economy into a deep recession and as a consequence kill a lot more people than the gulags are likely to.
This isn't the last gulag of the CCP. We would never know how many future atrocities were prevented with proper diplomatic and economic sanctions against them.
The comparisons by GFlops was more or less a lark. Especially the ones comparing energy efficiency with a supercomputer from the 90s. This 96 core rig produces 1 GFlop per Watt, compare that to an i9-9900k (250GFlop), z390 chipset and 1 stick of DDR4 (95W + 7W + 2.5W = 104.5W) which does ~2.3 GFlop per Watt.*
* this is back of napkin, real world results will vary
That page is embarrassingly wrong about how power management works in Intel CPUs. By default Intel CPUs will not allow their rolling average power consumption over a period of ~1 minute to exceed the specified TDP (95 W in this case). Once the limit is reached the CPU reduces its frequency to bring power consumption down. Intel optimizes their CPUs to achieve a good balance between efficiency and performance when operating at the TDP.
What you see in Anandtech's review is the result of motherboard firmware effectively disabling the power limit by setting it to a very high value. This is a common practice among enthusiast motherboards in order to boost scores in reviews. Unfortunately it also results in drastically lower power efficiency and lots of clueless people, including many tech writers, complaining about unrealistic TDP numbers.
> By default Intel CPUs will not allow their rolling average power consumption over a period of ~1 minute to exceed the specified TDP (95 W in this case).
From the page in question: "In this case, for the new 9th Generation Core processors, Intel has set the PL2 value to 210W. This is essentially the power required to hit the peak turbo on all cores, such as 4.7 GHz on the eight-core Core i9-9900K. So users can completely forget the 95W TDP when it comes to cooling. If a user wants those peak frequencies, it’s time to invest in something capable and serious."
95W is the required power to sustain the base clocks.
Also, calling AnandTech clueless... Are there any better hardware review sites? I would consider them a tier 1 site, with HardOCP and not a whole lot else...
The "new" sites seem to be up-and-coming Youtube channels.
Anandtech's quality has dropped since Anand Lal Shimpi left for Apple. Its still decent, but they're missing that Anand chip-level wizardry that they used to have. I still consider them a good website, just down a few notches.
The new sites with quality are Youtube-based. Its just where the eyeballs and money are right now.
GamerNexus is probably the best up-and-coming sites (they have a traditional webpage / blog, but also post a Youtube video regularly). And Buildzoid is one of the best if you want to discuss VRM-management on motherboards. These focus more on "builder" issues than chip-level engineering like Anand used to write about.
Like I said, the Anandtech article has a lot of inaccurate information in it. Unfortunately the quality of tech journalism has taken a dive the last few years as most of the good writers have been hired away by the very tech companies they used to cover.
See this article on Gamers Nexus for a much better summary of the power consumption situation for Intel CPUs
I would find it hilarious if this conversation somehow prompted it.
Anyways, AnandTech's position seems to be:
We test at stock, out-of-the-box motherboard settings, except for memory profiles. We do this for three reasons -
1. This is the experience almost all users will have.
2. This is what the benchmarks published by Intel reflect.
3. This is what damn near every other review site has done forever, and to do otherwise would make results less useful.
So that's why their power draw number was 170W and not 95W for the i9-9900k - motherboard vendors take Intel's recommended settings and laugh. But so does Intel for benchmarks.
