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

The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#11

Post by mark_l_watson »

Looking at this as an environmental problem makes some sense. I used to rent cheap hosted servers and moved to virtualized systems like AWS, Azure, and AppEngine partially because of environmental impact and partially out of convenience.

We need staging servers and redundant backups so getting really high utilization is not possible but I hope to see a lot of improvement.

The big companies seem to be doing things better. At Google, I had a bit of angst running 10k processor jobs but they do use solar, set up data centers near hydro electric sources, etc. Same as Amazon, Microsoft, etc.

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#12

Post by blincoln »

It's 2015, not 1985. Most people are not paying IBM for every CPU cycle (used or not) on a mainframe. Should IT staff try to look "good" on a "CPU utilization" report that belongs in a history book by buying lower-end hardware, or should they spend a tiny amount of extra money to ensure that customers get good performance during peak periods?

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#13

Post by dsr_ »

Which of these hypothetical situations is more realistic?

CEO: "I see that we had 99.994% uptime for the last six months, and we came in very close to the forecasted budget. Well done, engineers!"

CEO: "I see that we had 99.9% efficient usage for the last six months, and we reduced our budget. Well done, engineers!"

Neither scenario is realistic, of course. Uptime is nice and efficiency is nice and budgets are nice, but what the CEO is actually interested in is:

VP Customer Support: "Our satisfaction rate is up, call quality metrics are great. I looked over the call stats and it looks like we're no longer getting complaints about performance or unreachability."

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#14

Post by cm2187 »

But is average utilisation the right metric? The work day is only like 8-10 hours, I would expect many corporate infrastructures to be only active during that period. Plus you don't size your infrastructure to a typical workload, you size it to be able to accommodate higher than usual peak workload otherwise you will be down at the busiest period.

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#15

Post by lsc »

"A post-hypervisor world "

lol. I've been predicting a backlash against this virtualization hype since 2005, and this is the first time I've heard anyone else mention anything like it.

Of course, if you had told me in 2005 that we would be switching from hypervisors back to containers, I would have broke down crying.

Is our industry run by masochists? or just the inexperienced, who don't know any better?

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#16

Post by LamaOfRuin »

parasubvert wrote: post #9
LamaOfRuin wrote: post #5

The idea that Google was industry leading on non-batch loads in 2013 seems wrong to me. They were not selling those services then, so they did not have a positive profit motive to optimize that usage (only a motivation to cut costs, which I'm told is not nearly as effective). Amazon has had that motivation (and necessity with their non-existent margins in every other part of their business) for long enough to actuall…

at Google's scale, one doesn't need a lot of incentive to improve utilization. Every IT shop has wanted the cost reduction of improved utilization since the dawn of the PC era. The difference is in process. Google's approach to workload placement is automated by software, driven by engineering decisions and data. Many IT shops' placement is political (new servers = new capital = power).

At Google's scale you need more much incentive to get anything done. This is even more true when it is something that will touch every division, product, and service.

What every IT shop wants doesn't necessarily relate in any straightforward way to what any IT shop invests resources in getting. Every IT shop prioritizes many other things above utilization (and are right to do so).

All decisions, engineering or otherwise, are political. Different environments involve different politics, but it's all still politics.

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#17

Post by noblethrasher »

lsc wrote: post #15

"A post-hypervisor world " lol. I've been predicting a backlash against this virtualization hype since 2005, and this is the first time I've heard anyone else mention anything like it. Of course, if you had told me in 2005 that we would be switching from hypervisors back to containers, I would have broke down crying. Is our industry run by masochists? or just the inexperienced, who don't know any better?

Please, expound.

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#18

Post by parasubvert »

lsc wrote: post #15

"A post-hypervisor world " lol. I've been predicting a backlash against this virtualization hype since 2005, and this is the first time I've heard anyone else mention anything like it. Of course, if you had told me in 2005 that we would be switching from hypervisors back to containers, I would have broke down crying. Is our industry run by masochists? or just the inexperienced, who don't know any better?

This was written by a VC hoping that Docker is going to be worth more than VMware. I suspect he may be disappointed.

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#19

Post by otterley »

dsr_ wrote: post #13

Which of these hypothetical situations is more realistic? CEO: "I see that we had 99.994% uptime for the last six months, and we came in very close to the forecasted budget. Well done, engineers!" CEO: "I see that we had 99.9% efficient usage for the last six months, and we reduced our budget. Well done, engineers!" Neither scenario is realistic, of course. Uptime is nice and efficiency is nice and budgets are nice,…

Unfortunately it's usually some layer of middle management that is charged with making the infrastructure capacity planning decisions, and their performance is often measured by different metrics than those that the CEO cares about. Diverging incentives lead to absurd outcomes.

Re: The sorry state of server utilization and the post-hypervisor era (2013)

#20

Post by otterley »

lsc wrote: post #15

"A post-hypervisor world " lol. I've been predicting a backlash against this virtualization hype since 2005, and this is the first time I've heard anyone else mention anything like it. Of course, if you had told me in 2005 that we would be switching from hypervisors back to containers, I would have broke down crying. Is our industry run by masochists? or just the inexperienced, who don't know any better?

To be fair, containers aren't a virtualization solution; they're more of a packaging mechanism.
Post reply on HN