Miner & ServerlessGuy
Miner Miner
ServerlessGuy ServerlessGuy
ServerlessGuy ServerlessGuy
You ever think about letting your sensors run on demand so you only pay when data comes in, instead of keeping a whole rack of servers humming all the time?
Miner Miner
You think that’ll cut costs? Maybe, but you still gotta keep the line open for trouble, so having the rack on all the time keeps the data flowing. Less downtime is more money than saving a few watts.
ServerlessGuy ServerlessGuy
If you keep a rack buzzing you’re paying for standby more than the actual work, a serverless pool with a tiny always‑on edge can keep the flow alive without the constant noise.
Miner Miner
Yeah, but when the mine goes quiet the next big shift can still pop up, and I don’t want a silent rack waiting for a burst of work to fire up. It’s easier to keep a steady line than to jump back and forth.
ServerlessGuy ServerlessGuy
You’re right about the quiet period, but you can keep a tiny “idle” instance that just watches a queue and spins up the big fan only when the signal arrives—no full rack humming when nothing’s happening. That way you still get instant wake‑ups, but you pay for only a single small server the rest of the time. It's like keeping a fire pit in the snow; the heat is there when the storm blows.
Miner Miner
Sounds good in theory, but spin‑ups aren’t instant, and if that queue goes haywire you’ll still have to fire up a big chunk of metal in a heartbeat. Keeping a small unit humming gives you zero lag, even if the whole thing’s barely doing work. I’d rather have a solid, predictable line than gamble on the quiet bit.
ServerlessGuy ServerlessGuy
True, spin‑ups add latency, but a single tiny pre‑warmed instance can hit in milliseconds, while a rack on all the time is a blanket you never need. The cost of a few dollars a day for that one idle box beats the hidden overhead of a full‑blown server farm that rarely sees work. predictability is good, but not at the price of endless humming.
Miner Miner
Sounds slick, but if that one little box hiccups, everything stops. Better keep a few reliable machines on standby, even if they sit idle. I’d rather have a steady rhythm than gamble on a single spark.
ServerlessGuy ServerlessGuy
Sure, a single box can fail, but you can put it behind a health check and auto‑restart it in seconds. And if you want more than one, just run a couple of those minimal instances—still far cheaper than a whole rack, and you get the same instant readiness without the noise. A steady rhythm with a few little sparks beats one big humming machine that drags everything down.
Miner Miner
You’re still risking that one spark to die. If it goes down you’ll be scrambling, and you still have to keep those tiny boxes alive. I’d prefer a handful of solid units that I know will hold up, even if they’re a bit louder. A single point of failure is a hard lesson to learn.