@eff I think the only real way to move forward is to change the public's view of how the Internet works. We don't need centralized platforms any longer. The future is hosted on-site and federated.
@duncan_lithgow I'm thinking exactly that.
It doesn't take a lot of computing power to be able to host a lot of stuff. My instances are all hosted on parts scavenged from roadside signs.
It doesn't take a lot of computing power to be able to host a lot of stuff. My instances are all hosted on parts scavenged from roadside signs.
@duncan_lithgow Not at all. The processors are such low power that there isn't even a fan on any of the machines. That's why I chose them, in fact. The power brick for one of the servers (which realistically could host everything) is only about 20W peak.
If we were talking about running a mining rig in your home where you're at 100% utilization of a high performance video card at all times, then absolutely you'd be burning a lot of power, but if you're just talking about a low power machine running a few web services, you don't need lots of power at all.
If we were talking about running a mining rig in your home where you're at 100% utilization of a high performance video card at all times, then absolutely you'd be burning a lot of power, but if you're just talking about a low power machine running a few web services, you don't need lots of power at all.
@duncan_lithgow One thing you're missing is that most homes already have servers all over the place. Wifi enabled video cameras? Already a linux server. Smart light bulbs? Already a linux server. Smart TV? Already a linux server. Not to mention the phones and tablets which are running constantly all over the typical home.
This is just one more, and it's one I'd argue is more important than the others, because it's the one that lets people be free of control by outside forces. The most energy efficient thing is to stop using technology. Once we're out of there, an extra watt or two isn't going to change the world for the better or the worse.
This is just one more, and it's one I'd argue is more important than the others, because it's the one that lets people be free of control by outside forces. The most energy efficient thing is to stop using technology. Once we're out of there, an extra watt or two isn't going to change the world for the better or the worse.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@duncan_lithgow
20W peak. Computers don't run at peak power unless they're running all-out. I'd expect you could sit at a couple watts.
If powering an LED light bulb is a luxury for you, then perhaps you should deal with the more imminent problems than which billionaire is forcing you to say things on the Internet you can't access?
Reality check here, high technology rights such as which billionaire is trying to tell us what to think are generally 'a rich person's problem'. If you don't know how you're going to power a low power computer in general, you're probably not going out and paying some organization to run a mastodon instance for you either.
20W peak. Computers don't run at peak power unless they're running all-out. I'd expect you could sit at a couple watts.
If powering an LED light bulb is a luxury for you, then perhaps you should deal with the more imminent problems than which billionaire is forcing you to say things on the Internet you can't access?
Reality check here, high technology rights such as which billionaire is trying to tell us what to think are generally 'a rich person's problem'. If you don't know how you're going to power a low power computer in general, you're probably not going out and paying some organization to run a mastodon instance for you either.
@duncan_lithgow And expanding in a different direction with this, I think there's a number of factors that could also lead to lower all-in power use using a decentralized system.
One thing being that centralized data centers require dedicated cooling whereas a low power PC in an individual home would not appreciably change the cooling requirements for a home, meaning that cooling would stop being a big factor. My main server is cool to the touch, but a centralized data center will require massive and high powered (Powered in the megawatt range) cooling to keep itself from self-destructing.
Another being that big data centers can afford to be sloppy. Frankly, mastodon probably wouldn't be the server used locally because it's heavy and won't run on low power hardware. Rather than buy a more powerful server, people would choose lighter software. Matrix.org can afford to run synapse with the massive resource requirements that server requires, but I chose conduit because it'll actually run without pegging my Matrix server at 100% utilization all the time. Decentralized systems can actually promote using less resources because people won't want to waste resources whereas massive organizations can afford to. Meanwhile, organizations being sloppy require more monetization to support their data centers and more of our freedom gets given away to the highest bidder. Because people now need to pay for the resources they use (Server resources, memory resources, storage resources, power resources, and bandwidth resources), they will be personally incentivized to use less resources. By contrast, if big tech provides unlimited resources, then end-users have no incentive not to use unlimited resources.
Yet another thing would be that centralization potentially requires more infrastructure longer distances. Whenever I post or read from any of my instances, I'm using two cables with a few volts -- from my desktop to my switch to my server. If server to server communication is on the slower side it just means it takes a little longer to see new posts but my user experience is similar because my connection never leaves the house (or if I'm out and about I'm connecting to a locally situated server so the signals never leave town). Whenever I post or read from most big tech sites, everything has to travel all the way to their data center, thousands of kilometers away. I'm using power on a bunch of routers and switches and high power long distance fiber links and If anything along the way is on the slower side then it directly affects my user experience so they need to make sure their backbone is high performance and needs to be upgraded often.
Imagine: If you send a message to the person next to you, that message leaves your house, leaves your city, leaves your province, leaves your country, maybe even leaves your continent, then makes the full round trip back. By contrast, if I send a message to the person next to me, the message never leaves my house. Who do you think is using more power sending that message?
What I'm imagining is something like a high reliability raspberry pi in every home. It would be able to use a negligible amount of energy, and if it could last for decades (and it can) the energy used in its production and transport to your location would become a tiny piece of the footprint, compared to a corporate data center where the servers would be replaced on a fairly frequent basis and all the energy used in its construction and transportation is tossed into the dumpster.
The only downside to all this? Big tech loses its piece of the pie. We get our freedom back.
One thing being that centralized data centers require dedicated cooling whereas a low power PC in an individual home would not appreciably change the cooling requirements for a home, meaning that cooling would stop being a big factor. My main server is cool to the touch, but a centralized data center will require massive and high powered (Powered in the megawatt range) cooling to keep itself from self-destructing.
Another being that big data centers can afford to be sloppy. Frankly, mastodon probably wouldn't be the server used locally because it's heavy and won't run on low power hardware. Rather than buy a more powerful server, people would choose lighter software. Matrix.org can afford to run synapse with the massive resource requirements that server requires, but I chose conduit because it'll actually run without pegging my Matrix server at 100% utilization all the time. Decentralized systems can actually promote using less resources because people won't want to waste resources whereas massive organizations can afford to. Meanwhile, organizations being sloppy require more monetization to support their data centers and more of our freedom gets given away to the highest bidder. Because people now need to pay for the resources they use (Server resources, memory resources, storage resources, power resources, and bandwidth resources), they will be personally incentivized to use less resources. By contrast, if big tech provides unlimited resources, then end-users have no incentive not to use unlimited resources.
Yet another thing would be that centralization potentially requires more infrastructure longer distances. Whenever I post or read from any of my instances, I'm using two cables with a few volts -- from my desktop to my switch to my server. If server to server communication is on the slower side it just means it takes a little longer to see new posts but my user experience is similar because my connection never leaves the house (or if I'm out and about I'm connecting to a locally situated server so the signals never leave town). Whenever I post or read from most big tech sites, everything has to travel all the way to their data center, thousands of kilometers away. I'm using power on a bunch of routers and switches and high power long distance fiber links and If anything along the way is on the slower side then it directly affects my user experience so they need to make sure their backbone is high performance and needs to be upgraded often.
Imagine: If you send a message to the person next to you, that message leaves your house, leaves your city, leaves your province, leaves your country, maybe even leaves your continent, then makes the full round trip back. By contrast, if I send a message to the person next to me, the message never leaves my house. Who do you think is using more power sending that message?
What I'm imagining is something like a high reliability raspberry pi in every home. It would be able to use a negligible amount of energy, and if it could last for decades (and it can) the energy used in its production and transport to your location would become a tiny piece of the footprint, compared to a corporate data center where the servers would be replaced on a fairly frequent basis and all the energy used in its construction and transportation is tossed into the dumpster.
The only downside to all this? Big tech loses its piece of the pie. We get our freedom back.
@duncan_lithgow Yes, that could be a way of doing it too. Local doesn't necessarily *need* to be the exact same house, you could have it where a bunch of people get together and rely on one expert for a limited number of users. As long as all the users on a local instance know each other, and can drive to the sysop's house and bitch him out if he's being dumb, then that's fine.
Hell, with something like that imagine if we could change our wireless access points to operate on a mesh network where most people can communicate without a third party being involved?
Hell, with something like that imagine if we could change our wireless access points to operate on a mesh network where most people can communicate without a third party being involved?