zlacker

>>babelf+(OP)
Surprising reference to The Goal [1], which Mr. Beast "used to make everyone read ..." and still recommends. The Goal is a business novel about optimizing manufacturing processes for throughput and responsiveness rather than "efficiency" and is filled with counter-intuitive insights. Presenting it as a novel means you get to see characters grapple with these insights and fail to commit before truly understanding them. Excellent stuff, along the lines of The Phoenix Project [2], with which I assume many here are already familiar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel) [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17255186-the-phoenix-pro...

>>Zanni+H8
Theory of Constraints is fascinating because, as MrBeast points out here, it seems extremely obvious. I've had numerous interactions on this site where a person dismisses an insight from ToC as "obvious" and then 2 sentences later promulgates the exact type of intuition that ToC disproves.

>>llamai+ka
Yeah, this is the brilliance of the novel format. Someone presents an insight, and it can see obvious in isolation but then seems obviously wrong in context. "Of course we should favor throughput over efficiency" is obvious until you realize it means, for example, allowing idle time on incredibly expensive machines to favor responsiveness, which just seems wasteful.

In the novel, you get to see the characters bang their heads against these "paradoxes" again and again until it sinks in.

>>Zanni+Yb
>is obvious until you realize it means, for example, allowing idle time on incredibly expensive machines to favor responsiveness, which just seems wasteful.

Weird how things that seem to make sense in one context seem to make no sense in another context. If you told me a factory runs their widget making machine at 70% capacity in case someone comes along with an order for a different widget or twice as many widgets, at first glance think that's a bad idea. If your customers can keep your widget machine 100% full, using only part of the machine for the chance that something new will come along seems wasteful. And through cultural osmosis the idea of not letting your hardware sit idle is exactly the sort of thing that feels right.

And yet, we do this all the time in IT. If you instead of a widget machine told me that you run your web server at 100% capacity all the time, I'd tell you that's also a terrible idea. If you're running at 100% capacity and have no spare headroom, you can't serve more users if one of them sends more requests than normal. Even though intuitively we know that a machine sitting idle is a "waste" of compute power, we also know that we need capacity in reserve because demand isn't constant. No one sizes (or should size) their servers for 100% utilization. Even when you have something like a container cluster, you don't target your containers to 100% utilization, if for no other reason than you need headroom while the extra containers spin up. Odd that without thinking that through, I wouldn't have applied the same idea to manufacturing machinery.

>>tpmone+Dk
I see the parallel you're drawing but even the core idea is I think different enough to be worse dissecting.

In manufacturing, you keep spare capacity to allow for more lucrative orders to come in. If you don't expect any, you run at 100%. For instance when Apple pays TSMC all the money in the world to produce the next iPhone chip, they won't be running that line at 70%, the full capacity is reserved.

Or if you're a bakery, you won't keep two or three cake cooking spots just on case someone comes in witb an extraordinary order, you won't make enough on that to cover the lost opportunity.

We run our servers at 70% or even 50% capacity because we don't have control on what that capacity will be used for, as external events happen all the time. A manufacturers receiving a spike of extra orders can just refuse them and go on with their day. Our servers getting hit with 10x the demand requires efforts and measures to protect the servers and current traffic.

Factories want to optimize for efficiency, server farms want to pay for more reactivity, that's the nature of the business.

>>makeit+Xp
I think even for a company like TSMC these ideas are important to understand.

To give you an example TSMC might have a factory with 10 expensive EUV lithography tools, each capable of processing 100 wafers per hour. Then they have 4 ovens, each able to bake batches of 500 wafers per hour.

TSMC could improve efficiency by reducing the number of ovens, because they are running only at 50% capacity. But compared to the cost of the EUV tools, the ovens are very cheap. They need to be able to produce at full capacity, even when some ovens breakdown, because stopping the EUV tools because you don't have enough ovens would be much more expensive then operating with spare capacity.