January 27, 2016 at 8:00 am
djackson 22568 (1/27/2016)
Jeff Moden (1/27/2016)
Henry B. Stinson (1/27/2016)
This has gotten way off topic and has become a rant on something not even related to SQL Server.Heh... they're just talking about a different kind of "light". 😀 And rants are good. It helps prevent murder. 😛
Well then to bring it back, I have issues with some languages due to their inefficiency and how much electricity that wastes.
🙂
It is quite interesting to see the different IL that the C# and VB.NET compilers generate from equivalent language constructs. I know which compiler I trust more. (Yes, csc is better than vbc in my opinion.)
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 27, 2016 at 8:18 am
Gary Varga (1/27/2016)
djackson 22568 (1/27/2016)
Jeff Moden (1/27/2016)
Henry B. Stinson (1/27/2016)
This has gotten way off topic and has become a rant on something not even related to SQL Server.Heh... they're just talking about a different kind of "light". 😀 And rants are good. It helps prevent murder. 😛
Well then to bring it back, I have issues with some languages due to their inefficiency and how much electricity that wastes.
🙂
It is quite interesting to see the different IL that the C# and VB.NET compilers generate from equivalent language constructs. I know which compiler I trust more. (Yes, csc is better than vbc in my opinion.)
I seem to recall reading comments from people that don't respect C/C++, it is nice to see someone who supports a derivative of those languages.
Personally, while I use VBScript at times, my preference has always been C++ (any flavor) over VB. As I move away from Windows I am looking forward to learning other technologies.
Dave
January 27, 2016 at 8:36 am
djackson 22568 (1/27/2016)
Gary Varga (1/27/2016)
djackson 22568 (1/27/2016)
Jeff Moden (1/27/2016)
Henry B. Stinson (1/27/2016)
This has gotten way off topic and has become a rant on something not even related to SQL Server.Heh... they're just talking about a different kind of "light". 😀 And rants are good. It helps prevent murder. 😛
Well then to bring it back, I have issues with some languages due to their inefficiency and how much electricity that wastes.
🙂
It is quite interesting to see the different IL that the C# and VB.NET compilers generate from equivalent language constructs. I know which compiler I trust more. (Yes, csc is better than vbc in my opinion.)
I seem to recall reading comments from people that don't respect C/C++, it is nice to see someone who supports a derivative of those languages.
Personally, while I use VBScript at times, my preference has always been C++ (any flavor) over VB. As I move away from Windows I am looking forward to learning other technologies.
I am a bit biased as I used to be first and foremost a C++ developer (for about a decade professionally, a number of years in education before that), however, there was some obvious waste generated by VBC. A shame as, in theory, the VB community should have a compiler as good. But they don't (or didn't then).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 27, 2016 at 8:39 am
I was just re-reading the comments and thinking that I failed to spark the conversation I hoped to have (a semi regular failing of mine!). I don't argue with the idea that there is waste and inefficiency everywhere. Nor is the answer to "just" enable power management (though I think we set everything to max by rote more than reason). We do imperfect work in imperfect environments - that's ok.
What I'm interested in is culture. Job one is to provide the capability/performance and we usually do that, often by brute force (at all levels). Before, during, and after we then have the opportunity to seek elegance. Tuning queries, consolidating or upgrading servers, enabling compression to use space more effectively where it doesn't compromise performance needs. I hate the idea that because people "waste" disk space with email or CPU with badly written queries that we use that to justify not making an effort to save. I wish I could say that more elegantly. My point is to not to target you/us as villains or lazy, surely we are neither! If I back all the way up, it was thinking that paying "per" in the cloud world makes cost visible in a way that many of don't have today and that has implications and possibilities. I look at the work being done in data centers to save money and it intrigues me. When/how might we also take on that kind of effort/ownership? Or what stops us from doing so?
I hope I've offended no one, definitely not my intent. I appreciate you taking time to read my editorial and comment on it, and comment again!
January 27, 2016 at 8:53 am
There is enough of a "do more with less" attitude at most places, regardless of business needs, that sometimes I feel that some of these choices are hidden from the business to avoid further, and excessive, cost cutting.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 27, 2016 at 8:57 am
Gary, I can see that, on both sides. I've seen a lot of hardware massively over provisioned, sometimes out of fear of not ordering enough, sometimes because it was a way to get more pushed through a very right budget. Just charge it to Project Special!
January 27, 2016 at 11:32 am
Andy Warren (1/27/2016)
Gary, I can see that, on both sides. I've seen a lot of hardware massively over provisioned, sometimes out of fear of not ordering enough, sometimes because it was a way to get more pushed through a very right budget. Just charge it to Project Special!
Pragmatic solution to an unnecessary problem, perhaps?
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
February 17, 2016 at 4:57 pm
It's hard enough as it is to get things fixed when there isn't a cost directly associated.
September 6, 2019 at 11:42 am
Well I would be happy if we could turn off and on some lights but with our CSP (not a big name) we are at different levels of turning off lights:
VM level backups definitely slow down anything even more that wants to write against that one vmdk for everything and you can't have more controllers or something. Now that would be something you eventually could work around if your CSP was willing to set backup schedules for systems individually BUT there is only one backup window and that's for all customers. And the CSP wouldn't be able to tell us when exactly we'll be in line for VM backups (yes, we have SQL Server Backups) AND he might decide as done two weeks ago to change that window without notification so we literally are looking for a window to get our DWH Jobs done at all somewhen during the day - again.
But know what the best part about that CSP is? I can literally make my VM unresponsible because they are oversubscribing by more than double what VMware recommends for hosts running SQL Server VMs (instead of 4:1 we have rather something around 10:1) since my things are rather efficient and actually do push on the CPU during loads but as we know there is Nothing really to worry about when your taskmanager simply freezes a few times for a second or something, just that your stuff still isn't getting done any faster not due to provisioned hardware but the slices shared from it.
But when I had my own test environment around I would definitely have all unneeded hosts shut down via SCVMM. Still leaves a few machines running idle but these were lower power Desktop PC repurposed anyways so it would leave me with around 30 - 40 w during nights idle. Right now I've decided to go with a NVidia AGX Xavier SBC (30w) for one video stream processing project instead of something in a 1U formfactor with an Tesla GPU (150+w exkl. all other parts), I really do like to be efficient and if I should exceed processing capabilities of one unit, adding another one will still save huge amounts of power.
September 6, 2019 at 1:33 pm
I like the idea of paying for CPU/Disk/Memory as needed, but I wonder how it would work if we all did it. Where I work currently, there is a background of processing that happens every day, but a huge spike at month end when bank statements, portfolio valuations and the like are produced. Ideally, we would pay for the equivalent of a fairly low-spec server most of the time and then pay for something massive and whizzy for a couple of days per month. How would that work for the cloud provider if a large number of customers also need to ramp up over the same couple of days?
September 6, 2019 at 2:40 pm
Chris, it seems like as long as they get your business they make the economics work, perhaps due in large part to the inefficient use. We don't buy demand for 30 mins too often, we get it for a couple days or the last week of the quarter and we don't use it 100%. They are selling CPU cycles and value add cycles, at the scale they run even minor optimizations give them an edge.
Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 40 (of 40 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply