×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Envisions 10 Million Servers

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the up-scale dept.

Google 169

miller60 writes "Google never says how many servers are running in its data centers. But a recent presentation by a Google engineer shows that the company is preparing to manage as many as 10 million servers in the future. At this month's ACM conference on large-scale computing, Google's Jeff Dean said he's working on a storage and computation system called Spanner, which will automatically allocate resources across data centers, and be designed for a scale of 1 million to 10 million machines. One goal: to dynamically shift workloads to capture cheaper bandwidth and power. Dean's presentation (PDF) is online."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

169 comments

Pretty soon... (5, Insightful)

El_Smack (267329) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812467)

Pretty soon, Google will BE the Internet.

Re:Pretty soon... (3, Funny)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812561)

Pretty soon, Google will BE the Internet.

At least, we aren't going to have to go through the pains of upgrading to IPv6 in that case... 2^32 covers 10 million like bull covers a rabbit...

Re:Pretty soon... (4, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812569)

That's the plan, I thought:
1. Cache all websites
2. Cache all users
3. Disconnect the meat beings

Oop, said too much!

Re:Pretty soon... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814177)

You mean "Oop, sa$^%~#@$NO CARRIER"

obligatory lower case content so that the filter won't barf.

In the far apocolyptic future (4, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812923)

Google is starting to sound more and more like one of those advanced societies where everything is automated, but everybody forgets how everything works.

For reference, see: Logan's Run, STTNG: When the Bough Breaks, etc.

Re:In the far apocolyptic future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813101)

Maybe you should start with something a little earlier, like Asimov's "Bridle and Saddle."

Re:In the far apocolyptic future (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813323)

I can't remember the title of the story, but it was portrayed on Twilight Zone. In the story the military (of the future) was screwed because their computers were failing and no one knew how to fix them. They could not figure out how to target the missiles. The janitor was the saviour, because he alone knew how to do math using pen and paper. I wish I could remember more. I found it a very thought provoking story. What happens as we let more and more automatics into our lives? Do I really need to know how to kill and skin a beast for food...just in case...or accept that if I survive the first cataclysm I'll die, not being able to get food.

Hold, the blender just told me my drink is ready, do I have to get up now?

Re:In the far apocolyptic future (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813993)

Yes, the classic version of that story ends with the military designing suicide-missiles, crewed by human beings. The rationale being that new computers (for guidance) are very complex and cost a lot to make, but a human being with a pencil and paper is a very low-cost solution. The story ends with the commanders envisioning a new arms-race, where the determining factor is no longer resources but rather how quickly new missile-drivers can be taught math.

I just wish I could remember what book that's from.

Re:In the far apocolyptic future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29814369)

Check Asimov, I saw that in a book of short stories called "Robot Dreams 2" or something...

Re:In the far apocolyptic future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29814663)

I saw both the episode (it was the remake) and read the book (I think it was Asimov's or some Russian writer)

Re:In the far apocolyptic future (2, Informative)

cranq (61540) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814991)

The short story is "The Feeling of Power" by Asimov.

Re:In the far apocolyptic future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813503)

Or the Stargate SG-1 episode "Tin Man".

Re:In the far apocolyptic future (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814791)

The Machine Stops is a good short story... Or you could just watch wall.e... which has the same theme.

Re:Pretty soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812927)

They just make pages on their own services that look a lot like the internet.

Soon, nobody will notice and they will prefer the look of Google's pages even when they look at an authentic one.

Re:Pretty soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812937)

...and they've chosen an appropriate name: Spanner is the German word for a voyeur or peeping Tom.

Re:Pretty soon... (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813049)

--Pretty soon, Google will BE the Internet.--

They already own the internet. And...just one guy owns it all. He lives under what used to be called area 51 in secret and collects alien technology. I think the last time they found something it said DALEK. No one knows what it means and it doesn't work anyhow.

Re:Pretty soon... (2, Interesting)

merreborn (853723) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813285)

Pretty soon, Google will BE the Internet.

They already are [wired.com]:

Credit Suisse made headlines this summer when it estimated that YouTube was binging on bandwidth, losing Google a half a billion dollars in 2009 as it streams 75 billion videos. But a new report from Arbor Networks suggests that Google's traffic is approaching 10 percent of the net's traffic, and that it's got so much fiber optic cable, it is simply trading traffic, with no payment involved, with the net's largest ISPs

This is a BATTLE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813453)

This is a battle. On one side, we have 10 million servers. On the other side, we have 9000 penises. It will be brutal.

Re:This is a BATTLE. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29814769)

In the middle is Oprah, who will devour all of the 10^6 servers and >9k penii, who will then proceed to consume the moon and wander the galaxy with some dork on a surfboard.

Re:Pretty soon... (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813495)

Yes, they're a big player on the internet, but it's entirely possible to get along without using any of their services. Their existence is not critical...not even close.

From 1 to 10 million machines? (2, Interesting)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812477)

That's a lot of machines to try and shift bandwidth and power costs around the place.

But what if the plan is to spread out to hundreds of places? Then the total number doesn't look that high if there's only 1% of servers actually doing anything.

fastest site on the internet gets faster? (1)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812479)

cool I guess... what do they do with their old machines?

Re:fastest site on the internet gets faster? (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812505)

They grind them up and feed them to new servers and then serve you zombie content with those.

10,000,001th server booting in 3...2...1... (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812517)

The sound you just heard was the collapse of the global Google enterprise network.

Seriously, you should architect for way more than you need during the life of that architecture, and plan on re-architecting as needed to grow to some upper bound beyond which you will never need.

Google will be fine if they only plan on actually building 5M servers before raising their architecture limit.

Re:10,000,001th server booting in 3...2...1... (1)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812767)

I think the assumption is that Google still has less than 1 million servers (Google it, most people think they have 1/2 million right now), so this is architecting for more than they need.

Maybe, maybe not (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812843)

If they do not have a plan in place to grow beyond 10M before they reach the 5M mark, they are asking for trouble.

If they really plan on not reaching the 5M mark, or they plan on looking into ways to pass 10M while there is still plenty of time to do so, then they are doing the right thing.

Re:10,000,001th server booting in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812807)

You know architect is a noun don't you?

Re:10,000,001th server booting in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813193)

Quick, somebody call google, they're doing things wrong! Some random guy on the internet said so, it must be true! Those idiots at google don't know anything!

Re:10,000,001th server booting in 3...2...1... (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813853)

Ah, yes, the exuberant naivety of youth in college, where all problems can be solved through theoretical solutions requiring an infinite amount of time and money.

Here's how it works in real life:
* All solutions require that the cost to implement the solution is less than the cost of not implementing it. That's if people are competent, and don't require the solution to cost nothing.
* The time that people spend working on the solution is time not spent on other things. If everything goes well, time is scheduled according to what is the most critical or provides the most ROI. If it doesn't, expect to work on the solution while having to still work on everything else.
* If everything goes well, the adequate solution is substituted for the perfect solution. If something goes wrong, the solution that's implemented will actually compound the problem.

Here's the reality in a nutshell: Google doesn't create an architecture for 20 million servers because it expects that it will only need 10 million. The time that would have to be spent creating an architecture for 20 million servers is time that isn't spent building the architecture for 10 million. And the only thing worse than hitting the architectural limit of 10 million later is not having an architecture for 10 million when you hit your current limit.

Disposal? (3, Interesting)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812571)

I'd be interested to know how google disposes of all of their servers. Anybody have insight on this? If these are cheap, throw away servers, I'd be interested in what their expected lifetime is and what is done with them when they are refreshed with newer hardware.

Re:Disposal? (2, Funny)

Tynin (634655) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812691)

They use Tigerdirect as a front company to push their failing and half broken computers and peripherals back out onto the market. (tongue-in-cheek)

Re:Disposal? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812797)

Tongue or not, I consider it as a serious jab against TigerDirect. TigerDirect is quite reliable: I buy all my stuff on it and I never had a problem. In turn it was recommended to me by a technician who fixes computer hardware.

Re:Disposal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812847)

you poor poor fool!

Re:Disposal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812943)

in 1997 my company bought 5 machines from tigerdirect.
One wouldn't boot, two crashed within minutes of boot.

We returned all three, and got two back that worked.
We returned the one that didn't work from the second batch and got one that worked.

So, three round trips for five working machines.
If that doesn't count as crap I don't know what does

Re:Disposal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813171)

So, three round trips for five working machines.
If that doesn't count as crap I don't know what does

Your percentages are comparable to Xbox 360 defect rates, AND THEY ARE HAPPY.

Re:Disposal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813923)

If you are looking for cheap products, then TigerDirect is just fine, but the majority of technicians that might recommend it to a customer would never use it for themselves. Why? because its crap. Then again, sometimes they are the only place you can find it other than Ebay, which is worse imo.

10 Million Servers To Serve The Planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812677)

10 Million Servers to serve a World Population (whom not even all have Internet connections) of roughly 6.792 billion... It's Insane...

Re:10 Million Servers To Serve The Planet (2, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812921)

640 servers ought to be enough for anybody.

Seriously though, even if everyone did have an internet connection, that's 679 people per server.

I've seen 679 open httpd processes bring the best servers to their knees.

Not to mention 679 simultaneous database connections, especially as most of them are serving SELECT '%pr0n%' FROM results ORDER BY pagerank ASC LIMIT N,20

Even with a 2TB hard disk, that's only 3GB storage per person.

I think for Google to "be the cloud", they'll need a tad more than 10 million servers.

Re:10 Million Servers To Serve The Planet (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814527)

Methinks your numbers are a bit unrealistic. Yeah, because everybody just sits and hits google all day long...

Me? I probably throw about 10-20 searches per day their way, taking probably less than 1 or 2 seconds of system CPU time total. With numbers like these, handling 679 people per server or even 6,790 people per server would be a piece of cake. At this exact moment, I have about 2,000 active sessions being managed in a *very* database/processor intensive web-based application being smoothly handled by 3 logic and 3 database servers. A single hit typically causes anywhere from 5 to 25 database hits, many of these being very large joins with 10 or more tables at a time with combined inner, outer, and virtual table joins, million of records, and billions of cartesian record combinations.

All servers are white box 1U rack-mount systems with 8 GB of ECC RAM and 8 cores apiece, by no stretch a particularly large amount of hardware.

To Data Mine Social Networks: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812731)

for the C.I.A. [slashdot.org].

The Uber-Google-App.

Yours In Uglegorsk,
K. Trout

The NSA has Google beat... (3, Interesting)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813183)

The NSA already has Google beat. [nybooks.com]

At a million square feet, the mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt Lake City combined.

...

Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be nearly the size of the Alamodome.

Now, if only the NSA released their specs in terms of Libraries of Congress....

Re:The NSA has Google beat... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813537)

NSA is also completing work on another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be nearly the size of the Alamodome.

Are they going to call it "Multivac"?

Re:The NSA has Google beat... (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813577)

Emphasis mine (parent's emphasis discarded)

At a million square feet, the mammoth $2 billion structure will be one-third larger than the US Capitol and will use the same amount of energy as every house in Salt Lake City combined.

Stupid non-standard unit. According to the official Salt Lake City Energy Blueprint, SLC has an annual electricity usage of 3.3 billion kWh, of which 17% is residential. This works out to 64 MW, or about 6 POOTs (Power Output of Togo), which is the accepted standard non-standard unit for power in this order of magnitude.

Lacking adequate space and power at its city-sized Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is also completing work on another data archive, this one in San Antonio, Texas, which will be nearly the size of the Alamodome.

Assuming that they are referring to area, and not volume -- the Alamodome is about 40,000 square meters... the standard non-standard unit for area of this magnitude is American football fields (NOT random stadia) including endzones, which is 5351 square meters -- thus this data archive will be approximately 7+ football fields.

Now, if only the NSA released their specs in terms of Libraries of Congress....

Yes, it would be interesting to know how much data they will be storing in this facility.

But, sheesh, I understand not wanting to use standard units as they may just confuse the scientifically illiterate... but if the NSA or some other source is going to use non-standard units, they should at least use standard non-standard units like POOTs or football fields.

why don't you log in, Kilgore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813189)

you dirty fucking commie.

Economics of Cloud Computing (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812753)

Hopefully this puts to rest the delusion that there is some economic benefit of higher processor utilization in cloud computing schemes.

Re:Economics of Cloud Computing (2, Interesting)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813165)

Hopefully this puts to rest the delusion that there is some economic benefit of higher processor utilization in cloud computing schemes.

Interesting... Google is setting up a cloud to dynamically address resource utilization in order to (presumably) save money, which naturally demonstrates that the notion that cloud computing offers economic benefit is delusional?

Care to show your work? I don't suppose it's just, "I hate buzzwords like 'cloud computing', therefore I hate the idea of cloud computing, therefore cloud computing doesn't work, Q.E.D.", is it?

Re:Economics of Cloud Computing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813393)

I think his implication is that it's delusional for a small company to attempt to "move to the cloud". Only large corporations with vast resources can make it economical. Or something.

Re:Economics of Cloud Computing (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814171)

Apparently neither you nor the mods can read. Try again.

This scheme will likely end up with *lower* processor utilization than they have currently. Processors are cheap. That's the reason Google has hundreds of thousands of them already.

Re:Economics of Cloud Computing (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814543)

Processors in general are NOT cheap. Google's processors (and their "servers") ARE cheap. They're outdated, used, refurbished, and in general, broke ass shit.

But they're cheap. And that is ALL google cares about. Slap a bunch of them together for load and redundancy. It's slightly better than buying modern hardware, and you get to avoid having your name used by HP/SUN/IBM/etc.'s marketing departments ("GOOGLE uses our servers. GOOGLE!").

Google doesn't have some state-of-the-art data center - it has the world's biggest shoestring operation going on. And it is a bitch to set up and manage at the top level. But each individual "server" is basically a gear in a clock. Completely dumb, completely replaceable, no need to ever deal with it individually until you need to replace it.

And guess what - it works.

Re:Economics of Cloud Computing (1)

PylonHead (61401) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814875)

You're not wrong about each server being a cog in the machine, but:

Google doesn't have some state-of-the-art data center

Google has a ton of state of the art data centers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwPSFpLX8I [youtube.com]

I was reading about one in Brussels that even has its own water treatment facility for the coolant systems.

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812811)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Re:Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813003)

Hey, You Forgot:
FUCKING YOURE NIGETTE:
The second a white male sticks his dick inside a nigette's mouth or pussy, he will come ferociously for about three times in a row.
FUCKING YOURE NIGGER:
No white female can handle a 9 inch (or longer) dick, so forget it.

new ad campaign? (3, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812891)

They should put that on their website,... before long it'll be: "Google: Billions and Billions of Servers." Of course, McDonald's just might have a problem with that,...

Re:new ad campaign? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29815189)

It won't work without Carl Sagan's pronunciation of billions and billions.

sad sigh

Who cares!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29812973)

Where's the story on the Jesus Mouse for fucks sake!

10 Million? (2, Interesting)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812991)

How many servers does this thing need to become self-aware?

The Internet isn't that big. (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29812993)

The entire content of the Internet fits in a 20x8x8 box [archive.org] operated by the Internet Archive. Cuil, which searches as much of the Web as Google, has one relatively modest data center. About half the system does the crawl and builds the index; the other half answers queries. So Google's main search engine function doesn't really require that much capacity by current standards. Of course, Google has a huge number of query servers front-ending the main index, which is of course replicated.

Why does Google need so much server capacity? YouTube? Command completion? GMail spam filtering? Ad serving?

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813231)

Does Cuil still exist??

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813265)

* Non-public stuff - GMail, calendars, etc, have to be stored too
* Indexing - Google doesn't just archive the web, it maintains a fulltext index of it
* Fault-tolerance - When a few minutes of downtime will make the news, your redundant servers need redundant servers
* Load balancing - I would imagine Google does CDN-style stuff to cache content closer to end-users

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814767)

Load balancing - I would imagine Google does CDN-style stuff to cache content closer to end-users

So Google supports Canadian-style socialism?
Just keep them away from my health care!

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (2, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813469)

The entire content of the Internet fits in a 20x8x8 box operated by the Internet Archive.

The internet archive's dirty little secret is that it doesn't, in fact, store the entire enternet, as I found out trying to find Yello There a few years ago. There is only one page of Niel's site left, and that's the one I linked from the Springfield Fragfest. The Fragfest is there, but not all of it. I'd hazard a guess you won't find mcgrew.info or holy-bible.us there, either.

That's not to dismiss or demean what they have accomplished; it is certainly impressive. But it by no means stores the whole internet.

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813791)

I'd hazard a guess you won't find mcgrew.info or holy-bible.us there, either.

  • holy-bible.us [archive.org] In archive, 2006-2008.
  • mcgrew.info [mcgrew.info] blocked by current "robots.txt" file. The Archive treats "robots.txt" files as retroactive; if the current "robots.txt" won't allow archiving, then the Archive won't display old archived copies. The data is still in the Archive, but not publicly visible.

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814195)

Hmm, someone else must have registered mcgrew.info after I let it lapse, because I didn't have a robots.txt file there. It does sound like they're more successful than they were a few years ago. Archive.otg is great, you can find a LOT of good music there, as well as a trove of other stuff.

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813585)

Why does Google need so much server capacity?

archive.org is not search engine. Their search keywords are URLs. archive.org does not store all internet. Just part of it, which allows archival.

In google search keywords are words and urls are only results. Google's databases are bigger. They also offer more services.

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813629)

[sigh] Search is a fraction of Google's business and data flow. People really need to stop thinking of Google as a search company. It isn't one, and hasn't been in a very long time.
 
 

Why does Google need so much server capacity? YouTube? Command completion? GMail spam filtering? Ad serving?

YouTube, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Earth, Blogger, Google Voice, Orkut, Adsense, Adwords, Google Reader, Feedburner, Google Calendar, Google Docs, Google Groups, Google Directory, Google Wave, Google Talk, Picasa, Panoramio, Sketchup 3D Warehouse, iGoogle (Google Homepage), Google Notebook, Google Sites (Jotspot), Knol...
 
Google is a very busy brand indeed.
 
I started to make links out of all those, but I'd have been here an hour. Just google them yourself.

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29814335)

Orkut - pfft [alexa.com]
Google Notebook - dead
Google Sites (Jotspot) - useless
Knol - dead

Just sayin'. You did miss Books, Translate, News, and Code, which are pretty big.

Re:The Internet isn't that big. (1)

nsebban (513339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813765)

Google Analytics, for instance, probable use a few thousands servers. Adsense as well. And they have many computing-heavy services. And they tend to parralelize everything that can be.

Google's back-office obviously relies on a lot more servers than their front-end does.

Thats a small scale (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813711)

From 1,000,000 to 10,000,000?

Are the minimum requirements for this system seriously 1 millions servers?

That doesn't seem to scale well. Should be able to at least scale down to 10 machines so I can run it at home ;-)

It's a start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29813895)

But they won't really live up to their name till they have a googolplex [wikipedia.org].

Long road to becoming real (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 4 years ago | (#29813971)

10million... that's cool, but still a far ways from Google becoming anything real:
Keep working Google... you still have (10^100 - 10^7) = 10^93 servers to add before becoming a physical entity (Google Universe edition?).

How do they do it ? Thru AD and MMC ?? (0, Troll)

Hymer (856453) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814247)

I simply can't imagine how they can manage so many computers without Microsofts Active Directory.

Google's new goal - OSPH? (1)

dyfet (154716) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814551)

One Server Per Human?

Hmm...amusingly Google was down while trying to do some research for this post!

Imaginoff (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 4 years ago | (#29814633)

"Google Envisions 10 Million Servers" => Well, I just imagined a beowulf cluster of those server farms. Your move, Google! And none of that infinity plus one stuff.

Real progress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29815185)

Google - the company that is actually out doing the things M$ has been TALKING about doing for a couple of decades. Doing it cheaper, better, faster, more securely, and in a more open way.

People can talk about the evil of Google (Massive, Borg-like, etc), but given a choice, I'd choose Google over M$ every day and twice on Sunday.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...