The LHC was completed in 08. That chip was sold from 06 to 12. This means basically half the pc’s they bought ~15 years ago are still meeting their needs.
Honestly, this is the way it should be. The only reason most enterprises upgrade their computers is because Microslop, and all the other proprietary software they’ve allowed themselves to grow dependent on, require it; not because a 20 year old computer isn’t snappy on Debian, or isn’t powerful enough for email, docs, and browsing. The LHC requires supercomputers and server farms for primary operations. These pc’s are basically just thin clients to access those resources.
There are still a shocking amount of Windows XP and 7 systems in production, because the software stack doesn’t need to be updated. If those systems had been deployed on linux 20 years ago, they would still be fully capable of receiving security updates.
Yeah, and that’s generally fine if it isn’t critical infra that could be targeted by bad actors, and they don’t have wifi or uncontrolled interfaces. The risk and damage of someone pulling apart an ATM to get at a USB port is negligible.
The main problem with it is the longer things don’t get upgraded the less people know how to fix or service them, which adds extra friction and cost to change anything with each passing year. After 10-20 years of zero updates, major projects are required because the OS and software stack need a complete overhaul to make even the smallest software change, and the software becomes a major bottleneck to organizational change or operations.
The only reason most enterprises upgrade their computers is because Microslop
Honestly - not true. It’s compliance. Compliance says you need to be insured, insurance says you need to have vendor support, vendor says sorry, your old shit is out of support.
Keep in mind that they’re talking about hardware control systems and not compute nodes. On these machines, the savings would probably not be too big (no/few consolidation gains). It also sounds like the decision was less about the upgrade cost and more about avoiding failure risks.
I also ran the numbers for fun. They estimated the cost to be 5.4MCHF for 2200 machines. Assuming 0.2CHF/kWh, they would need to save 140W per machine for 10 years to offset the upgrade cost. So, yes, it could indeed offset a good part of the upgrade cost over time.
The LHC was completed in 08. That chip was sold from 06 to 12. This means basically half the pc’s they bought ~15 years ago are still meeting their needs.
Honestly, this is the way it should be. The only reason most enterprises upgrade their computers is because Microslop, and all the other proprietary software they’ve allowed themselves to grow dependent on, require it; not because a 20 year old computer isn’t snappy on Debian, or isn’t powerful enough for email, docs, and browsing. The LHC requires supercomputers and server farms for primary operations. These pc’s are basically just thin clients to access those resources.
There are still a shocking amount of Windows XP and 7 systems in production, because the software stack doesn’t need to be updated. If those systems had been deployed on linux 20 years ago, they would still be fully capable of receiving security updates.
I work manufacturing, any computer that isn’t connected to the internet doesn’t get upgraded. Windows XP on PLC touchscreens.
Yeah, maybe your CISO should read a book about Stuxnet lol
I’m not sure he can read :( Or fix a landline phone connection, apparently.
Yeah, and that’s generally fine if it isn’t critical infra that could be targeted by bad actors, and they don’t have wifi or uncontrolled interfaces. The risk and damage of someone pulling apart an ATM to get at a USB port is negligible.
The main problem with it is the longer things don’t get upgraded the less people know how to fix or service them, which adds extra friction and cost to change anything with each passing year. After 10-20 years of zero updates, major projects are required because the OS and software stack need a complete overhaul to make even the smallest software change, and the software becomes a major bottleneck to organizational change or operations.
You are saying that to someone who recently bought a Lenovo T420 with a new battery pack, installed Debian with Xfce. An amazing work horse.
Honestly - not true. It’s compliance. Compliance says you need to be insured, insurance says you need to have vendor support, vendor says sorry, your old shit is out of support.
Good job, now remind us who the os vendor was again…?
The older CPUs are incredibly inefficient
They would probably cover a good amount of the upgrade cost in just power savings
We use measurement systems where the data aquisition runs absolutely fine on an IBM AT.
Keep in mind that they’re talking about hardware control systems and not compute nodes. On these machines, the savings would probably not be too big (no/few consolidation gains). It also sounds like the decision was less about the upgrade cost and more about avoiding failure risks.
I also ran the numbers for fun. They estimated the cost to be 5.4MCHF for 2200 machines. Assuming 0.2CHF/kWh, they would need to save 140W per machine for 10 years to offset the upgrade cost. So, yes, it could indeed offset a good part of the upgrade cost over time.