Well the distributors stamp the top of the server with a sticker that says it's safely operable for 2 years, so no one is going to insure it for more, of course. Might be European thing, though; good think for enthusiasts is that it's common to contact a company and join their next 2 years buyout and acquire cheap hardware.
I've never seen this 2 year thing in Europe. There are plenty of companies that stick to their servers for over 5 years. Some servers stay there even for more than a decade because they deliver a service using software that is no longer developed or supported, and there's no replacement for it in the company. So they keep them there, chugging along.
But with x86 being basically commodity and virtualization being used everywhere this is less of an issue in most cases. It means your VMs can mostly run on whatever metal you throw under them and that x86 metal can just be propped up to keep working for many, many years.
I consult in verticals where uptime really matters. It's not unusual though, but yes, I know that companies do this. They usually don't care about insurance/hardware SLA though. Old hardware needs to be emulated.
Oh I'm sure some companies do it. Whatever it is you can be certain someone is doing it :). But it's nowhere near being a rule in Europe.
And TBH replacing servers after 2 years because you're worried about uptime feels like a horrible overreaction and self harming at the same time. Servers that are meant to provide 99.999% uptime (so 5 nines or above, or maximum 6min downtime per year) are built to run for far longer than 2 years. And they must be supported by the manufacturer of the system and the manufacturer of every sub-component for longer than that.
So unless I'm missing something I really can't see the benefit of such upgrade cycles.
> And TBH replacing servers after 2 years because you're worried about uptime feels like a horrible overreaction and self harming at the same time.
I agree. Such a tactic, in the face of modern high-availability systems design (including the notion of servers being "cattle not pets"), seems actively harmful, other than, perhaps, introducing a something akin to Netflix's "chaos monkey" into the system.
I could understand pre-emptive replacement of non-hot-swappable components, but only if they're known to degrade over time [1] and only if the server is already otherwise out of service. Even then, I'd consider 3 years the minimum.
> Servers that are meant to provide 99.999% uptime (so 5 nines or above, or maximum 6min downtime per year) are built to run for far longer than 2 years.
This kind of design sounds like it's from a different "world" (mainframes) or era (proprietary, even if x86-based, Unix hardware of the 90s), not commodity x86 servers.
[1] so, maybe RAM, which has increasing CEs with age/usage, though UEs appear to be skewed toward early RAM life and therefore the bad apples are eliminated early. non-pluggable PSUs. fans. very old internal-only HDDs.
I'm just wondering if "those systems" include any present-day x86 servers. If not, then it's safe to say they're a red herring, since this whole discussion is based on an article about, specifically, Intel CPUs.
I now see that the content is behind a paywall but the title is still visible. It's a statistic for 2017/2018:
> Share of servers with four or more hours of unplanned downtime due to hardware flaws worldwide in 2017/2018, by hardware platform
Systems like IBM's System Z had 0 servers with more than 4 hours unplanned downtime over this period. At the other end Cisco and Fujitsu x86 servers had ~16% of servers experiencing 4 or more hours of unplanned downtime over the period.
We can infer that the vast majority of the x86 machines will be Intel considering AMD's market share in the server space.
P.S. The article is about Intel's ME flaws and patches so probably our whole discussion branched off in the wrong direction :).
> P.S. The article is about Intel's ME flaws and patches so probably our whole discussion branched off in the wrong direction :).
Maybe that's why I was confused? I thought we were talking about commodity, x86 servers all along, particularly the GGP about "where uptime really matters" and other comments by the same person about warranty lengths (which seemed irrelevant, other than being indicative of commodity hardware).
Of course, that commenter's very terse remarks, combining "safety", "uptime", and "insurance" (and, later, billions in damages) into an environment where commodity (or not?) x86 servers are proactively replaced started me off in a state of confusion, like there was some very major assumption about the system design that I (and everyone else here, too, it seems) was missing.
Servers are "safely" operable until they die. The failure mode is that the machine stops operating. If your system has redundancy built in it keeps working possibly at reduced capacity. If not it stops. If its essential that service not be interrupted you build in redundancy and ensure that it fails in a safe way if it does.
I'm not sure where safety or insurance comes into this discussion at all.
People upgrade sooner because they stand to gain more than the upgrade costs not because its not safe to operate.
Yes. I guess that you're trying to point at us increasing the early failure rate, right? We're insured against that. We can't insure ourselves against the right part of the curve.
