Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 359 posts

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#331

Post by [deleted] »

zaarn wrote: post #271
StreamBright wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you just downplay the amount of money you spend on developing your own solutions. What does a load balancer do on the same host anyway? Where is this 80x-100x coming from? It would be impossible to create a 100 times cheaper solution because it would mean there is no margin left for the hosting provider.

Loadbalancers are useful for more than balancing load, you can distribute traffic to the different endpoints on them. They're fairly good at it. 80x is on traffic costs alone, I've detailed that above; 80$ for 1TB of traffic on AWS, not including incoming traffic costs, 1$ for 1TB of traffic on Hetzner, incoming traffic is free. A 16core/64GB instance (m5.4xlarge) on AWS costs 360$ monthly, a tiny bit cheaper if you…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#332

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

danmaz74 wrote: post #330
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but I'm concerned with the initial provisioning of the OS on which docker runs. It's not nothing even if the apps run in docker.

In most cases, you can just provision the OS from a web interface. If you get a bigger machine where you need to configure the disks yourself, there is a pretty easy to use command line tool they built which does most of the work. The only part which I had to learn the hard way is configuring iptables to secure my servers against external attacks. Luckily, recent versions of docker make it easy to keep iptables confi…

Is there a command line tool to automate installing the OS?

Well what I would really like is to be able to deploy something like an "AMI" on these dedicated servers. Any ideas for how to get something close?

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#333

Post by Koshkin »

pjmlp wrote: post #312
Koshkin wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. (Except that "WSL" should be read as "Windows Substitute for Linux.")

I don't remember FreeBSD or illumos calling their syscall compatibility layer for Linux Substitute .

Nor were they called “services for Linux.”

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#334

Post by xnyan »

reikonomusha wrote: post #195
Meai wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are speaking from inside the walled garden here, from the outside the effort of porting to macOS is monumental. The naive way is: I have to buy hardware, learn new Apple specific languages, learn a new OS, learn a new IDE, be compliant with their app store policies, distribution etc. (which applies to Windows now too I suppose).

I suppose I’m an outlier then. I just use normal UNIX tools. No Xcode, no IDE’s, no proprietary toolchains. Maybe my programs are too boring. :) There are some portability quirks for sure, though.

If you don't mind me asking, if not developing for ios and need xcode for appstore access, why are you on mac?

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#335

Post by Symmetry »

bogomipz wrote: post #314
Symmetry wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When RISC was first introduced its big advantage was that by reducing the number of instructions it could handle the whole processor could be fit onto a single chip whereas CISC chips took multiple chips. In the modern day it takes a lot more transistors and power to decode 4 x86 instructions in one cycle than 4 RISC instructions because you know the RISC instruction are going to start on bytes 0, 4, 8, and 12 wherea…

Thanks for the thorough detailed reply, I really appreciate it. I failed to grasp one thing you mentioned which is: >"is actually an issue and that's part of why you don't see BIG.little approaches in x86 land and why atom did so poorly in the phone market." Is BIG an acronym here? I had trouble understanding that sentence. Cheers.

I was reproducing an ARM marketing term incorrectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE

Basically, the idea is that you have a number of small, low power cores together with a few larger, faster, but less efficient cores. Intel hasn't made anything doing that. Intel also tried to get x86 chips into phones but it didn't work out for them.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#336

Post by pritambaral »

StreamBright wrote: post #230
ori_b wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Especially for RDS? Run your own servers, instead of paying Amazon to do your system administration. At small sizes, Amazon is a cheap sysadmin. At scale, paying them as sysadmins is expensive.

I just moved one of the largest (5+PB) data warehouses of Europe to AWS and we saved 35% of a huge (1M+ / year) budget while increased reliability, availability and security. I am not sure why people think that AWS is expensive. Running on a traditional hosting was a nightmare with constant downtimes because of issues outside of our control. Cooling, networking, security you name it. AWS makes these non-existent or v…

You seem to be talking about EC2, or at least services available with EC2. You parent was talking about RDS and sysadmins who manage Postgres on RDS.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#337

Post by pjmlp »

Koshkin wrote: post #333
pjmlp wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't remember FreeBSD or illumos calling their syscall compatibility layer for Linux Substitute .

Nor were they called “services for Linux.”

Nor are they called now, rather Subsystem.

I don't care what names marketing departments come up with.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#338

Post by askafriend »

pjmlp wrote: post #237
askafriend wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple sold 217 MILLION iPhones in just 2017 alone. That's a number that doesn't include iPad, Apple Watch, HomePod, or Macs - all of which have custom Apple silicon in them. I think you're severely underestimating Apple here.

There are lots of countries around the world where common people hardly get to see an Apple device on the wild.

That has nothing at all to do with the original point, or even my point.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#339

Post by aoeusnth1 »

Koshkin wrote: post #301
reikonomusha wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose I’m an outlier then. I just use normal UNIX tools. No Xcode, no IDE’s, no proprietary toolchains. Maybe my programs are too boring. :) There are some portability quirks for sure, though.

Why not Linux, then? Why pay "the Apple tax"?

(not the OP). I develop linux services on a Mac, connected remotely to a linux workstation. My company pays the Apple tax, and the hardware is nicer. Plus, my friends use iMessage.

I tried using a company Linux device only to find that its graphics drivers weren't supported, the 4k scaling didn't work nicely without spending ~30 minutes looking up how to do it the hard way, and it didn't play nicely when connected to a normal 1080 monitor. I returned the device after (thankfully) it failed.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#340

Post by m_mueller »

gpderetta wrote: post #321
pitaj wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TSMC's 7nm and Intel's 14nm are about the same in actual dimensions on silicon IIRC. The names for the processes are mostly fluff.

AFAIK, supposedly TMSC 7nm and Intel 10nm are about equivalent, but with 10nm being in a limbo, TMSC is ahead now.

That’s also how I understand it, which seems to be supported by perf/watt numbers of Apple’s 2018 chips.
Post reply on HN