Stories with Tag cost

• The cost of Go's panic and recover

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-01 08:19:11

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post explores the performance implications of Go's panic and recover mechanisms. It demonstrates through benchmarking that while the cost of a single panic/recover pair isn't exorbitant, frequent use, particularly nested recovery, can introduce significant overhead, especially when compared to error handling using if statements and explicit returns. The author highlights the observed costs in terms of both execution time and increased binary size, particularly when dealing with defer statements within the recovery block. Ultimately, the post cautions against overusing panic/recover for regular error handling, suggesting they are best suited for truly exceptional situations, advocating instead for more conventional Go error handling patterns.

  The blog post "The cost of Go's panic and recover" by Roberto Clapis explores the performance implications of using Go's error handling mechanisms, specifically panic and recover, compared to traditional error return values. Clapis begins by acknowledging that while panic and recover are powerful tools for exceptional situations and halting execution upon encountering unrecoverable errors, their usage comes with a non-negligible performance overhead.

  The author then details a series of benchmarks designed to quantify this overhead. These benchmarks compare the execution time of three distinct approaches to error handling: returning errors normally through the function's return value, using panic and recover to handle errors, and a hybrid approach that employs panic and recover but only within a specifically designated error handling function. The benchmarks cover various scenarios, including cases where errors are frequent and cases where they are rare.

  The results of the benchmarks demonstrate that handling errors using the standard return mechanism is significantly faster than using panic and recover. This performance disparity is attributed to the additional work the runtime must perform when a panic occurs, such as unwinding the stack and executing deferred functions. The difference becomes more pronounced as the frequency of errors increases.

  Interestingly, the benchmarks also reveal that using the hybrid approach, where panic and recover are confined within a dedicated error handling function, offers a compromise. This method, while still slower than standard error returns, performs considerably better than using panic and recover directly within the main execution flow. This suggests that strategically isolating panic and recover can mitigate some of their performance impact.

  Clapis concludes by emphasizing that while panic and recover have their place, especially for truly unrecoverable errors, developers should be mindful of their performance implications. For routine error handling, the standard error return mechanism remains the more efficient choice. The hybrid approach can be a viable alternative when a degree of both control and error propagation is required, offering a balance between performance and the convenience of stack unwinding provided by panic and recover. The author reinforces the idea that understanding the cost associated with each error handling strategy allows developers to make informed decisions based on the specific needs of their application.

  • Go
  • Golang
  • panic
  • recover
  • Error Handling
  • performance
  • cost
  • Benchmark
  • programming
  • Software Development
  • Exception Handling

  Summary of Comments ( 79 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43217209

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss the tradeoffs of Go's panic/recover mechanism. Some argue it's overused for non-fatal errors, leading to difficult debugging and unpredictable behavior. They suggest alternatives like error handling with multiple return values or the errors package for better control flow. Others defend panic/recover as a useful tool in specific situations, such as halting execution in truly unrecoverable states or within tightly controlled library functions where the expected behavior is clearly defined. The performance implications of panic/recover are also debated, with some claiming it's costly, while others maintain it's negligible compared to other operations. Several commenters highlight the importance of thoughtful error handling strategies in Go, regardless of whether panic/recover is employed.

  The Hacker News post "The cost of Go's panic and recover" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43217209) has generated a substantial discussion with several compelling comments exploring various facets of Go's error handling mechanisms.

  Several commenters discuss the performance implications of panic and recover, agreeing that while there's a cost associated, it's often negligible in real-world applications. One commenter points out that the cost is minimal compared to the overhead of other operations like network calls or disk I/O. Another clarifies that the benchmark presented in the article likely exaggerates the cost in typical scenarios, as it involves panicking and recovering in a tight loop, which is uncommon. They suggest that for most use cases, the performance impact is insignificant and shouldn't discourage the appropriate use of panic and recover.

  A recurring theme in the comments is the distinction between using panic and recover for exceptional situations versus routine error handling. Many agree that panic should be reserved for truly unrecoverable errors, where the program is in an inconsistent state and continued execution is unsafe. They caution against using panic for expected errors, advocating instead for Go's standard error handling pattern using multiple return values. One commenter emphasizes that panic is not a general-purpose error handling mechanism and should be used sparingly, while recover should be restricted to carefully defined boundaries, such as the top level of a request handler. Using panic and recover for flow control is generally discouraged.

  The discussion also touches upon the difficulties of reasoning about code that uses panic and recover extensively. One commenter highlights the non-local nature of panic and recover, making it harder to follow the control flow and understand the program's behavior. This complexity can lead to subtle bugs and make debugging more challenging. Another commenter suggests that using panic and recover can obscure the error handling logic, making it difficult to determine where errors are handled and what the intended behavior is.

  Finally, alternatives to panic and recover are discussed, including the use of error return values and the possibility of introducing checked exceptions to Go. While some commenters express interest in exploring alternative error handling approaches, others argue that Go's existing mechanisms are sufficient and that checked exceptions would introduce unnecessary complexity. The overall sentiment seems to be that Go's current error handling approach, when used correctly, is effective and that panic and recover have specific, limited roles to play in handling truly exceptional circumstances.

• Is It Lunacy to Put a Data Center on the Moon?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-26 20:20:39

  Verbose tl;dr

  Storing data on the moon is being explored as a potential safeguard against terrestrial disasters. While the concept faces significant challenges, including extreme temperature fluctuations, radiation exposure, and high launch costs, proponents argue that lunar lava tubes offer a naturally stable and shielded environment. This would protect valuable data from both natural and human-caused calamities on Earth. The idea is still in its early stages, with researchers investigating communication systems, power sources, and robotics needed for construction and maintenance of such a facility. Though ambitious, a lunar data center could provide a truly off-site backup for humanity's crucial information.

  The article "Is It Lunacy to Put a Data Center on the Moon?" from IEEE Spectrum delves into the intriguing, albeit seemingly outlandish, proposition of establishing data centers on the lunar surface. While acknowledging the inherent complexities and exorbitant costs associated with such an undertaking, the piece explores the potential benefits and the nascent technological advancements that could make this ambitious vision a reality.

  The primary motivation behind this lunar data center concept stems from concerns about the vulnerability of terrestrial data centers to various threats, including natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and solar flares, as well as human-induced catastrophes such as cyberattacks and even nuclear war. The Moon, being geographically isolated from Earth, offers a potentially secure and stable environment, safeguarding crucial data from these terrestrial risks.

  The article meticulously outlines the substantial challenges involved in constructing and operating a lunar data center. These include the logistical hurdles of transporting materials and equipment to the Moon, the harsh lunar environment characterized by extreme temperature fluctuations, radiation exposure, and the absence of atmosphere, and the need for reliable power generation on the lunar surface. Specifically, the extreme temperature swings between lunar day and night pose a significant threat to the sensitive electronic equipment within a data center, necessitating robust thermal management solutions. The article discusses potential mitigation strategies, such as locating the data center in permanently shadowed lunar craters near the poles, which offer consistently low temperatures, or leveraging lunar regolith for insulation and thermal regulation.

  Furthermore, the piece examines the potential power sources for a lunar data center, highlighting solar power as a viable option, particularly in areas with near-continuous sunlight. The challenges associated with solar energy on the Moon, such as the lunar night, are also addressed, potentially necessitating energy storage solutions or supplemental power generation methods.

  Beyond the physical construction and operational challenges, the article also touches upon the complexities of data transmission between the Moon and Earth, acknowledging the latency introduced by the vast distance. While this latency might not be suitable for all applications, the article suggests that lunar data centers could be ideal for archiving and long-term data storage, as well as serving as a backup for critical terrestrial data.

  Ultimately, the article concludes that while a lunar data center is not an immediate reality, it is a concept worth exploring further. The potential benefits in terms of data security and resilience, coupled with ongoing advancements in space exploration and related technologies, suggest that a lunar data center may not be as fantastical as it initially appears. The authors emphasize the need for continued research and development to address the significant engineering challenges and economic considerations, but leave open the possibility that lunar data storage might become a practical solution in the future. The article doesn't explicitly advocate for the immediate construction of a lunar data center, but rather presents a balanced perspective on the potential advantages, challenges, and future possibilities of this ambitious concept.

  • Data Centers
  • Moon
  • lunar infrastructure
  • Space Exploration
  • off-world data storage
  • data preservation
  • Disaster Recovery
  • latency
  • radiation
  • thermal management
  • power generation
  • cost
  • feasibility
  • engineering challenges
  • extraterrestrial computing

  Summary of Comments ( 9 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43187759

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely discuss the impracticalities and questionable benefits of a moon-based data center. Several highlight the extreme cost and complexity of building and maintaining such a facility, citing issues like radiation, temperature fluctuations, and the difficulty of repairs. Some question the latency advantages given the distance, suggesting it wouldn't be suitable for real-time applications. Others propose alternative solutions like hardened earth-based data centers or orbiting servers. A few explore potential niche use cases like archival storage or scientific data processing, but the prevailing sentiment is skepticism toward the idea's overall feasibility and value.

  The Hacker News post "Is It Lunacy to Put a Data Center on the Moon?" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a mix of skepticism, cautious optimism, and explorations of potential use cases. Many commenters questioned the practicality and cost-effectiveness of such a venture, particularly highlighting the challenges of latency, maintenance, and the harsh lunar environment.

  One compelling line of discussion revolved around the specific types of data that would benefit from being stored on the moon. Several users suggested that the moon could serve as a backup location for crucial data, safeguarding it from terrestrial disasters or geopolitical instability. The concept of a "lunar ark" for human knowledge and culture was also mentioned, with proponents arguing that the moon's relative isolation could protect valuable information in the long term. However, counterarguments emphasized the difficulty and expense of retrieving data from the moon in case of emergency.

  Another significant theme in the comments was the technological feasibility of building and maintaining a lunar data center. Concerns were raised about the effects of radiation, extreme temperature fluctuations, and micrometeoroid impacts on hardware. The logistics of transporting equipment and personnel to the moon were also discussed, with commenters pointing out the high costs and potential risks involved. Some users suggested that robotic construction and maintenance could mitigate some of these challenges, but others remained skeptical about the reliability of such systems in such a hostile environment.

  The discussion also touched upon the potential environmental impact of a lunar data center, with concerns raised about the energy requirements and the potential for pollution. The ethical implications of commercializing the moon were also briefly mentioned.

  While some commenters expressed enthusiasm for the potential scientific and technological advancements associated with a lunar data center, the overall sentiment seemed to be one of cautious pragmatism. Many users questioned the immediate need for such a facility, arguing that the current challenges and costs outweigh the potential benefits. However, the discussion also highlighted the potential long-term value of a lunar data archive for preserving human knowledge and culture, suggesting that the idea may be worth exploring further in the future.