u/nexusband on Reddit

  • 0 Posts
  • 116 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle











  • Full support from Proxmox isn’t cheap, compared to even the new prices on VMware, if you look at the per processor cost that small businesses often have.

    You’re joking, right? VSphere is AT LEAST 1400 per year for the base license, that hasn’t even got any support tickets - one Ticket is at least 300, 5 tickets is around 1200. Proxmox Full support starts at 340 Euros - with 3 Support tickets included. Then there’s also the fact, that Proxmox doesn’t have core limitations - meaning, you need at least two VSphere licenses for a 64-Core EPYC CPU. Oh, you want advanced networking or storage services? That’s even more.

    As I said - it depends on processor count. I know a number of small businesses that will be paying $5k/year for VMware, not much more than Proxmox top tier (which is what they would want). Proxmox is about $1500 per processor, so would be $3k-$6k/year for these businesses. That’s a trivial difference when you look at VMware already being installed and running, no transition costs, no risk of migration. You’d burn up a few $k difference with a single issue.

    WTF? You can’t even compare the 5k/year for VMware, just beacuse of the the single fact, that proxmox has UNLIMITED support tickets in the top tier. Not only that - it’s 1,1k per processor without any core limit - VSphere still has that ridiculous 32-Core Limit. In many cases, VMware also has support times up to 24 hours - proxmox has max. 2 hours

    Frankly, as much as VMware annoys the shit out of me, I couldn’t recommend migrating to Proxmox for those businesses, today. At best I’d recommend planning a transition when they need to upgrade servers, and do it early as a parallel install to give transition time for the business.

    SMB doesn’t have the luxury of test labs for this stuff - they don’t have the cash flow/finance room to justify it.

    If they don’t, they don’t have the cash or finance room to justify their IT, period. For most SMBs, IT has become the utter lifeline for everything they do, that’s basically like when you are a machine shop without power. Meaning, the company is dead in the water for a serious period of time.







  • It is in Sweden, Finland, California, Italy and now Germany. (Although in a different form, called HVO, which is Diesel from garbage (even plastic) and needs roughly 1,5 kWh per Liter)

    The “waste” is irrelevant, if it’s made from power that could not have been used anyway, because it was made in a remote part of the world. We’re still a long, long way away from a global power grid. That power would have to be converted anyway - and we do have all the infrastructure ready to go for that liquid stuff.


  • If you’re going to include the environmental impacts of the one-time lithium extraction (which are usually exaggerated anyway), you must also include the decades of environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction.

    And that’s where your argument falls flat, because we are not talking about the past, we’re talking about the future and making it a better one. EVs are a part of that future, but not “the only” thing in that future.

    You don’t get to count just the cost of burning the fuel either. You must include the of searching for new deposits, setting up extraction infrastructure, infrastructure for logistics for shipping all the raw then refined goods, and possibly even the costs and geopolitical impacts of war for securing petroleum interests globally.

    You missed the point completely.

    In fairness, I would also include the cost for electricity generation as a cost for BEVs for an apples-to-apples comparison. Electricity generation (transmission and distribution) will vary widely but we have these metrics for the USA at least. In extreme cases, there are BEVs charged with rooftop solar, which would SERIOUSLY undermine your argument about ICE vehicles being a better ecological choice.

    No - they wouldn’t, for the simple fact, that zero co2 stays zero co2. They can be on par with a small battery, but everything above 60 kWh needs more than 15 tonnes of co2 to be even produced, making the rucksack impossible to get rid off. A current Golf needs around 9t of Co2 to be produced, a current ID.3 needs 14t

    So if both cars are “fueld” with energy that has zero co2 emissions, the ID.3 keeps it’s 5 tonnes deficit.


  • Even then: ICE cars with synthetic, co2 neutral fuel are even better, than new EVs. And then there’s the argument, that a hunk of aluminium with pistons is “cheaper” (in terms of ecological impact) than lithium. Because the EV also needs aluminium, the production of aluminium is going to go down the route of co2 neutral anyway. So a mix of both things and especially EVs with smaller batteries makes a lot more sense…(which has also been proven with various studies, but who gives two flying things about that these days)