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

Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

scholar.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 177 posts

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#141

Post by proactivesvcs »

imgabe wrote: post #47

On the Microsoft page[1] about this change they say > Storage of this “dark” data takes up space on servers and results in increased electricity consumption, generating 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 alone. Where "dark" data is data that is unused. However they link to this World Economic Forum Page [2] which says > In 2020, digitisation was purported to generate 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.…

From what I understand, some of the academic data must be stored for some years after publishing.

This isn't dark data. It must be kept, so it is being used.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#142

Post by tallanvor »

aragilar wrote: post #134
tallanvor wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it more misleading to claim that this is just due to environmental reasons? The first link you provide actually says the first reason is due to security (you wouldn't believe how often student accounts are compromised and/or used for sharing pirated content). The second reason is the environment, and the 3rd, reason, even though they don't say it outright, is cost, and I'm guessing that's the real reason. But g…

Sorry, what? 100TB is stingy as! At my institution, there's approximately 50000 students and staff, if 100TB is all they get, that's only 2GB each (and that's not just for email, that's for all storage)!

Without knowing how much they're paying, how can we say if that's stingy or not? If a school gets 100TB storage for free, I'd hardly call that stingy.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#143

Post by renegat0x0 »

Having a NAS drive that keeps all of your data also not entirely environment friendly.

There was a trend of ripping all movies from BlueRays to Plex.

If someone is environment friendly I think we should go back, huh.

Storing BlueRays do not require any energy.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#144

Post by atahanacar »

alpaca128 wrote: post #107
atahanacar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real e-waste is buying a new phone so often that your house is flooded with old chargers.

Android update support is still just around 2-4 years and countless other devices come with their own charger as well, while chargers last much longer and usually just become obsolete (no fast charging etc)

Exactly. It is in companies' best interest to keep the device support as short as possible as a way of planned obsolescence, so they can somehow convince consumers (especially the rich western ones) they need a new phone every year (or two). In truth, for the majority of the users, a flagship should last for at least 5. It's not like what we do on phones get computationally more expensive, except the bloat and lack of optimization (both the OS and apps, due to unnecessarily fast processors).

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#145

Post by toyg »

Dalewyn wrote: post #133
lnxg33k1 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was not to limit the actions of average people, my point is to inform that cloud services have locked out people due to algorithms errors, have had data loss, have changed the ToS, etc. And average people should take their decisions being informed data cloud storage is volatile and can / has disappeared

Those horror stories by far do not apply to most people. Like all horror stories, the negative incidents leave far stronger impressions than the far more numerous positive or mundane experiences nobody talks about. Also, I'm going to reply to this claim here since it was edited in after I already replied: >Filesystems et cetera, are not rocket science, File systems are absolutely rocket science. It's been well over 3…

Er, filesystems as a paradigm are more like 50+ years old, if not even older.

Tbh, it's an office-based metaphor created by and for office admins. The general public just doesn't relate. Maybe if they'd called directories "wardrobes" or "drawers"...

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#146

Post by robertlagrant »

flanked-evergl wrote: post #131
robertlagrant wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point you're making? MSFT don't care about the environment because they're choosing reducing storage energy usage over famine and war?

They are choosing cost reduction. If this increased cost, they would not have done it. So the primary driver is not the environmental benefits, it's the cost. I think what bothers me more is that people are so easily deceived by this. Again, cost-cutting is great, especially when it can be done with no impact to consumers and employees, because those are humans I care about. In this case, it is at the expense of cons…

I agree the reason given is marketing, but that's 2024 for you.

I think that only approving of environmental things if they cost you is a bit perverse, though. This is lower-hanging fruit. Why not take it?

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#148

Post by Grimblewald »

sandworm101 wrote: post #110

So will mircosoft pledge to reduce the size of windows updates? Pledge to reduce the bloat that is a fresh windows install? Will they place any limits in the size of Xbox updates?

well, Xbox updates for example don't work automatically anymore. In fact they've disabled most things that would have encouraged a user to leave their Xbox in 'fast boot' mode, instead switching it to fully shutdown.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#149

Post by flanked-evergl »

robertlagrant wrote: post #146
flanked-evergl wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are choosing cost reduction. If this increased cost, they would not have done it. So the primary driver is not the environmental benefits, it's the cost. I think what bothers me more is that people are so easily deceived by this. Again, cost-cutting is great, especially when it can be done with no impact to consumers and employees, because those are humans I care about. In this case, it is at the expense of cons…

I agree the reason given is marketing, but that's 2024 for you. I think that only approving of environmental things if they cost you is a bit perverse, though. This is lower-hanging fruit. Why not take it?

Would this not amount to being happy about all cost reductions at the expense of a customer? Say I get less laundry detergent for the same price, should I be happy for the opportunity to wash my clothes less often to not pay more money to the manufacturer, as it is a lower hanging fruit?

To MSFT there is no lower hanging fruit to more revenue than reducing what they give a customer while charging the same amount of money, so no I'm not particularly impressed that MSFT is stiffing their customers. I'm also not impressed that MSFT manages to do that while also getting cheers because they figured out the right words to say to get people on their side. To me, that is deeply unethical behaviour.

Re: Microsoft limits institutional cloud storage space for environmental reasons

#150

Post by philistine »

esskay wrote: post #66
imgabe wrote: post #47

On the Microsoft page[1] about this change they say > Storage of this “dark” data takes up space on servers and results in increased electricity consumption, generating 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 alone. Where "dark" data is data that is unused. However they link to this World Economic Forum Page [2] which says > In 2020, digitisation was purported to generate 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions.…

I wonder why they've not instead pushed people towards a 'real' cold storage service like AWS Glacier. IIRC that uses a mixture of DVD/Bluray automation and for deep storage uses LTO tape drives. Solves most of the energy usage issues.

Do you have sources on that? Discussions here in the past have indicated that Glacier uses unpowered drives, not tape or disks.
Post reply on HN