Beta

×

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!

How Many Google Machines, Really?

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the measured-by-weight-not-by-volume dept.

The Internet 476

BoneThugND writes "I found this article on TNL.NET. It takes information from the S-1 Filing to reverse engineer how many machines Google has (hint: a lot more than 10,000). 'According to calculations by the IEE, in a paper about the Google cluster, a rack with 88 dual-CPU machines used to cost about $278,000. If you divide the $250 million figure from the S-1 filing by $278,000, you end up with a bit over 899 racks. Assuming that each rack holds 88 machines, you end up with 79,000 machines.'" An anonymous source claims over 100,000.

cancel ×

476 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

:o (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034251)

Whoah

FUCK NIGGERS HOOK NOSES AND CURRY MOTHER FUCKERS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034270)

white power!!

Nice Rack! (4, Funny)

turnstyle (588788) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034254)

No wonder I'm'a Googlin'

googling files.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034333)

How abt a file search on google? Does it will bring dooms day for software makers?

What is that as a percentage ... (3, Interesting)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034258)

* of servers in the world
* of servers in the USA
* of servers running Linux

Re:What is that as a percentage ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034348)

Well, let's count. I have two servers at home and 8 at work. They all run linux. Now, if everyone else in the world joins this thread, we can find out.

smack my first post (-1, Troll)

RumpRoast (635348) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034259)

all up-ons and upside yo momma's nasty ass knuckle hair.

Hi! (FP) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034260)

That's a lot of CLUSTERZ!

I fail it.

$278k ?? (5, Insightful)

r_cerq (650776) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034261)

That's $3159 per machine, and those are today's prices... They weren't so low a couple of years ago...

Re:$278k ?? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034299)

You might be able to get machines slightly cheaper than retail if you, say, buy 79,000 of them.

Re:$278k ?? (4, Informative)

toddler99 (626625) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034404)

google doesn't buy pre-built machines they have been building costum machines from the very beginning. Although, with fab'n their own memory, i'm sure today they do a lot more. Google runs the cheapest most unreliable hardware you can find. It's in the software that they make up for the unreliable hardware. Though unreliable hardware is ok so long as you have staff to get the broken systems out and replaced with a new unreliable cheap ass system. When google started they used lego's to hold their costum built servers together

Re:$278k ?? (3, Flamebait)

hjf (703092) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034444)

so it means if you are smart enough, you don't need to have a $1,500,000 Sun server or that kind of shit. leave that for big corporations with lame-ass programmers.
imagine what google could do with that kind of shit

Re:$278k ?? (1)

Dave419 (776133) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034433)

I think this article should read Google should have 79,000 machines based on what they spent. In another /. posting about sparc, google was saying they were never going to buy high end servers again because they are alternatives where you balance quanity with quality and get the same reliability and performance for less money. I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but whoever inferred that tidbit of information made a bad assumption when they wrote that article, why wold google lie about how many servers they had or how much it cost?

Can you imagine (4, Funny)

Sadiq (103621) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034262)

Can you imagine a beowul.... oh.. wait..

Re:Can you imagine (-1, Troll)

mkavanagh (641055) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034356)

Fucking karma-whoring shit-sucking goat fucker.

Fuck karma.

MOD ME DOWN, I HATE THE FUCKING META MODERATION MESSAGES!

die anti caps filter..ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffff

Re:Can you imagine (5, Funny)

mkavanagh (641055) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034401)

can you imagine a beowulf cluster of karma in soviet russia whoring YOU, you insensitive cliched clod?

Re:Can you imagine (0, Troll)

mkavanagh (641055) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034417)

ahaha you moron..you can disable meta moderation and all that shit in your preferences

Re:Can you imagine (0, Offtopic)

mkavanagh (641055) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034445)

FIRST POST

Google, will you marry me? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034265)

1) google is so pretty and smart
2) google is worth so much money
3) google has a huge rack!!

Re:Google, will you marry me? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034386)

whoops, forgot to sign the letter!

Love,
Yahoo.

Re:Google, will you marry me? (3, Funny)

slickwillie (34689) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034428)

Of course you can't marry Google, but you might have a chance with Sergey [savedelete.com] .

IPO changes things (5, Interesting)

Have Blue (616) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034266)

There was an article recently about how Google constantly understates various statistics about itself to mislead potential competitors. This article also said that the SEC would not allow them to do this once they became a publically traded company.

Re:IPO changes things (0, Insightful)

JPriest (547211) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034426)

I am sort of suprised at the 250 million IPO though. Obviousy the IPO is not the value of the entire company, but the little company I work for that I bet almost nobody here has heard of, is actually worth nearly 80 times Google's IPO. Amazing how such a small company can have such a large impact.

Imagine (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034268)

A beowulf cluster of ... oh, right.

Pretty Broad (1)

haydenth (588730) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034271)

From the Article: "Google is managing between 45,000 and 80,000 servers"

Last time I checked, there was a pretty big difference between 45,000 and 80,000 servers. I mean, 80,000 is almost twice 45,000.

Cheers,

--
tom

Re:Pretty Broad (4, Insightful)

avalys (221114) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034301)

Yes, but aside from dealing with hardware failures and other physical / logistical problems, there really isn't much of a difference between managing 45,000 computers and managing 80,000. They're both Really Big Numbers, and I'm sure whatever software they're using is scaleable enough to smoothly handle many more machines than that.

Re:Pretty Broad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034341)

any broad with a rack like that is going to be a pretty broad!

Imagine.... (-1, Redundant)

madaxe42 (690151) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034275)

Imagine a beowulf clu.... oh.

Why do we care? (4, Funny)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034276)

Seriously? What is the point of this article? What next? Linus found to prefer blue ink, over black ink?

Re:Why do we care? (1)

saden1 (581102) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034375)

Seems like quite a bit of guestmation was done and the over all hardware cost analysis was shady to say the least. I'd like to announce that the Milky Way galaxy has billions of stars.

Re:Why do we care? (5, Funny)

0xC0FFEE (763100) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034422)

Well, everybody knows that black ink is best for the job and that Linus prefers it.

Which brings up an interesting question... (1)

phrogeeb (621296) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034278)

For all the econ majors out there. What exactly does Google have to tell us now that it's an IPO?

Ok, its not an interesting question, Im just hoping for first post.

Re:Which brings up an interesting question... (3, Interesting)

gregwbrooks (512319) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034441)

Not a thing, in terms of the number of their servers, or internal data such as line-item hardware purchases.

This is how it should be, since knowing the size of Google's hardware capacity is a very, very strategic bit of information, and the kind of thing that would allow Yahoo/MSN/whoever to get a feel for how much capital would be necessary to duplicate or improve upon it.

Not unexpected... (4, Insightful)

avalys (221114) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034281)

I don't think this is that strange: after all, that 10,000 machines figure is several years old. It's only logical that Google has expanded their facilities since then.

At $699 per CPU (5, Funny)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034282)

SCO now knows how big an invoice to send Google! :-D

Re:At $699 per CPU (1)

dicepackage (526497) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034329)

If you charge by the CPU then it is $ 1398 US dollars per computer.

Re:At $699 per CPU (1)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034349)

and at 88 per rack, and 899 racks

1398*88*899=$110,598,576

i think sco might give them a discount of 600,000 and just ask for the $110,000,000 that they feel they deserve because they do own linux :)

Re:At $699 per CPU (1, Insightful)

kunudo (773239) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034336)

Doesn't google run it's own proprietary OS? Thought I read that somewhere...

Re:At $699 per CPU (1)

RavidgeMole (523271) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034394)

I know that they created their own custom clustering system, was this what you were thinking of?

Re:At $699 per CPU (4, Funny)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034403)

Yeah, but they stole it from SCO.

Re:At $699 per CPU (1)

irokitt (663593) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034374)

They already did. [forbes.com]

What a waste (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034283)

I'm sure a single IBM mainframe could do the same amount of work in half the amount of time and cost a fraction of what that Linux cluster cost.

I hang around too many old-timer mainframe geeks. MVS forever!!! and such.

Re:What a waste (5, Interesting)

phoxix (161744) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034377)

If you've ever read a white paper of Google's, you'd realize that they even tell people why they deal with massive clusters over mainframes: lower latency.

Sunny Dubey

Re:What a waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034391)

You wouldn't happen to be Denis Nicole by any chance? ;)

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~dan/ [soton.ac.uk]

More interested... (1)

WiKKeSH (543962) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034285)

I'd be more interested in the specs of those machines rather than the number of machines. Wonder if that will ever be revealed. :)

Re:More interested... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034300)

RTFA

Re:More interested... (1, Insightful)

WiKKeSH (543962) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034342)

That's all speculation.

Obligatory comment (0, Offtopic)

SILIZIUMM (241333) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034290)

Of course, someone *will* say the obligatory "imagine a beowulf..." comment in this thread.

Re:Obligatory jackass (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034314)

that's already happened. jackass.

next time pay attention.

jackass.

And this isn't even all... (1)

scifience (674659) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034292)

Think of how many racks filled with nothing but data storage they must have. This only counts the actual dual-processor machines, so there is bound to be tons of computer stuff that isn't even counted.

Assumptions? (4, Interesting)

waytoomuchcoffee (263275) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034293)

According to calculations by the IEE, in a paper about the Google cluster, a rack with 88 dual-CPU machines used to cost about $278,000

Um, don't you think if you were buying 899 racks you might actually, you know, negotiate for a better price?

This isn't the only assumption in your analysis, and the problems with them will be compounded. What's the point of this, really?

Re:Assumptions? (5, Funny)

digitac (24581) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034328)

That's right, they probably got in on the "Buy 899 Get 1 Free" Sale. So in reality they have a nice even 900 racks. Makes much more sense that way.

Re:Assumptions? (4, Insightful)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034353)

i thought of this too, but then i thought that they probably bought them 5/10/20 at a time as they grew.

Re:Assumptions? (1)

heliocentric (74613) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034360)

But I see no information about how quickly all of their machines can calculate an infinite loop. Perhaps we can work backwards then with this information (when known) to dervie the number of systems.

Cheap hardware (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034294)

I was always under the impression that Google used a lot of "cheap" hardware. Meaning, they only used IDE and non-rackmount machines.

So, they probably don't used "racks" but if they were, that means they could only get about 12-15 desktop machines (single proc) per rack. That's a whole lot less than 42 - 1U rackmounts to fill the rack.

Re:Cheap hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034424)

You are right, actually. Google is nothing more than 20-30 really old desktop computers running Redhat 5.2. And the Google impementation is just Perl (Perl 4 no less), Apache and Mysql.

Re:Cheap hardware (2, Funny)

flxkid (171985) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034451)

Right, 12-15 per rack...they're smart enough to develop an amazing search engine, but not to understand proccessing power density issues...

Maybe just me... (4, Insightful)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034295)

Might just be me, but damn, don't you think this has raised the interested of our three letter entities? i mean, damn that is just some serious computing and indexing power on cheap, "disposable" hardware...with a filesystem that can keep track of that many machines? If i headed one of such entities, i'd sure want to know more about it!

Re:Maybe just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034406)

Filesystem?

Are you kidding?

It's called a "database".

Sheesh. I think the 3 letter agencies you mention have all heard of a "database" before.

Come on! Does it really matter? (2, Insightful)

diegomontoya (712934) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034296)

My guess is just as your guess which would be:

your guess + 1 = my guess.

We already know they have enough servers to saturate a T1000 line so might as well stop here and talk about something more constructive.

wait (4, Insightful)

Docrates (148350) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034302)

Remember there's a little thing called "volume discount"...

It's gotta be more than that.

Did you factor in screws and cable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034304)

That can add 40% to the cost of a cluster.

Re: Did you factor in screws and cable? (1)

Patrik_AKA_RedX (624423) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034437)

How do you mean scre<CRASH!>

All that power (5, Funny)

Chucklz (695313) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034307)

With all those TFlops, no wonder Google converts units so quickly.

"my god .... (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034312)

... it's full of stars"

Re:"my god .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034392)

Wow.

That's the gayest thing I've read on Slashdot all day.

Congratulations.

Really? (5, Funny)

irikar (751706) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034317)

You mean the PigeonRank [google.com] (tm) technology is a hoax?

How detailed is the SEC filing? (1)

jgaynor (205453) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034318)

Does the SEC filing mention whether theses are datacenter boxes or employee workstations? Beyond that, do they take into account storage array costs, telco equipment, etc? Not that I don't love speculating about the awe that is the google datacenter, but an SEC filing seems like a fairly inaccurate, roundabout way to make an assumption about cluster nodes . . .

The things you could do with that... (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034321)

With that much computer power at their disposal they could do some cool things - maybe some sort of distributive computing thingie or big database of some kind. Of course they would have to network all those systems togther - that could be expensive. Imagine how much a 80,000 seat license for lantastic would cost!

StatsCan proves it: FreeBSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034324)

In groundbreaking news, the central Canadian statistical agency based in Orangefork, Saskatchewan has finally published the results of a 5-year study investigating the deterioting state of the FreeBSD community.

Sponsored by the Association of Novell Users in Montreal and the Liberal Party of Canada, this intensive study encompassed 14 users in 3 provinces, using a total of 23 hours of interviews, phone conversations, and instant messaging. A background in computers was not necessary in order to participate in the provess.
75% of the users declared that the impact of FreeBSD in their lives has been reduced in the last 12 months or has been non-existent. 20% were undecided, while 5% confused the term with "freebasing" and were reluctant to speak about it unless her probation officer was present.

Speaking in anonymity, Frank Dreschel from University of Stoufville who resides at 67 Woodgate Drive, feels that the results are no surprising. "You know, I always felt that FreeBSD was forced upon me by my predecessor. It is especially sad considering that my job has nothing to do with information technology at all, since I'm part of the housekeeping staff. Perhaps you should talk to some of the engineering students?"

Which is nice.

This is actually useful (2, Interesting)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034325)

because with ~80,000 machines, they can easily put a few hard drives in each, and give everyone 1gb of gmail space... I didn't think it was possible.

where do you go to buy 80,000 hard drives?

Re:This is actually useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034347)

The internet. Obviously. Check what Froogle says. [google.com]

I know, I know! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034383)

>where do you go to buy 80,000 hard drives?

You call IBM.

I heard they have a large amount of 75GXP drives ready to rock'n'roll[0]!

(fineprint)[0] Raid-1 capable interface not included.

Re:This is actually useful (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034414)

where do you go to buy 80,000 hard drives?

at walmart.

88 machines per rack? hardly. (3, Interesting)

cyclop5 (715837) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034330)

In your standard 42U cabinet, you're talking a half-U per server. Umm.. not happening. Let's just say I happen to know they use 2U servers, for a total of 21 per cabinet. Custom jobs - just the "floor pan" (i.e. no sides, or top for the case), system board, power supply, and I think a single (or possibly dual) hard drive (I didn't want to be too nosy staring into someone else's colo space). Oh, and network. And rumor has it, they're putting in close to 200 cabinets in just this location alone.

Re:88 machines per rack? hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034362)

I think they're using computers where the length of them allow them to put one in the front of the rack, and another in the back. (hence getting 2u of space from a 1u vertical area)

Re:88 machines per rack? hardly. (1)

natet (158905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034382)

I was just about to say something similar. It is possible to purchase racks that are 44U, so I was thinking it was far more likely that the number quoted was 88 CPU's, not 88 dual CPU boxes. In addition, You would have to fit some network equipment in that figure somewhere. I wonder if this guy knows what he is talking about...

Re:88 machines per rack? hardly. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034389)

In your standard 42U cabinet, you're talking a half-U per server. Umm.. not happening.

IBM has a blade center that can hold 84 2-way blades in a 42U cabinet.

Re:88 machines per rack? hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034407)

there using custom chassis. theres nothing standard about what google does with there colo setups at all

Re:88 machines per rack? hardly. (4, Informative)

PenguinOpus (556138) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034413)

Racksaver was selling dual-machine 1U racks for several years and I owned a few of them. Think deep, not tall. Racksaver seems to have renamed itself Verari and only has dual-Opteron in a 1U now. Most dense configs seem to be blade-based these days. Verari advertises 132 processors in a single rack, but I suspect they are not king in this area.

If Google is innovating in this area, it could either be on price or in density.

Re:88 machines per rack? hardly. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034454)

I think someone confused CPU for computer.

I also thought Google just used white-box type computers.

Re:88 machines per rack? hardly. (1)

njcoder (657816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034458)

Have a look at www.rackabelsystems.com [rackablesystems.com] . They use a lot of these. They can fit two servers in a 1u space, back to back.

Power (3, Funny)

ManFromAnotherPlace (740650) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034354)

This many computers must use quite a bit of power and they probbably also need some serious airconditioning. I sure wouldn't want to receive their electricity bill by mistake. :)

Google hosting (4, Interesting)

titaniam (635291) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034355)

I wonder if google will start up a web-hosting business? I bet you can't beat their uptime guarantees. They could provide sql, cgi, etc, and build in multi-machine redundancy for your data just like they do for theirs. It'll be the google server platform, just one more step to replacing Microsoft as the evil monopoly.

Google employee? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034359)

Surely there must be some Google tech out there reading this.. Just post AC and tell us.

Someone call the FBI (4, Funny)

Durandal64 (658649) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034364)

The number of machines Google uses is considered a trade secret. By attempting to determine how many machines they have, you're in violation of the DMCA. I'm calling the FBI.

Too late for that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034452)

I was going to start my own Google clone, and after I figured out how to crawl the web, index it, and cache it, and how to do the keyword-based advertising, and after I wrote the programs for it, which were actually pretty standard things out of the academic literature, the only thing left I needed to know was the exact number of machines they have. Now I have a much smaller search-space for that number. Bwa-ha-ha!

Hmmm....Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034365)

ows SCO over $90million USD assuming that all of those machines run Linux, which they probably do.

uh.... (1)

TheCabal (215908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034367)

100% of the money isn't devoted towards servers and rackspace. There's operational costs, network infrastructure, bandwidth, software costs, maintenance contracts, spare parts... it ain't all just hardware.

I have seen the light (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9034371)

working at abovenet google has pulled there machines in and out of our data centers many a times. its incredible the way they have there shit is setup.

they fit about 100 or so 1u's on each side of the rack, there double sided cabinets that look like refrigerators. there seperated in the center by noname brand switches and they have castor wheels on the bottoms of them. google can at the drop of a dime roll there machines out of a datacenter onto there 16 wheeler, move, unload and plug into a new data center in less than a days time.

Makes Perfect Since (2, Insightful)

peterdaly (123554) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034376)

Since the 10k server number was first floated, I believe google has added quite a few, meaning 6 to 10 whole new datacenters around the world.

It would only make sense that the server count would now be in the ballpart of what is mentioned here.

Google hasn't been standing still, and I've heard the "Google has 10k servers" for 1-2 years now.

-Pete

Auxiliary costs? (1)

zCyl (14362) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034379)

Does it include additional costs like maintenance costs, administrator salary, electricity, etc.

At an estimated 300W per machine and 7 cents a KWH, that's $14M just for the electricity to run those machines, not including air conditioning for that many machines. So is the figure quoted JUST for the computing hardware?

you're forgetting one thing. (1)

cnb (146606) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034385)

a cluster costs more then just machines

Ask (1)

RoadkillBunny (662203) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034395)

Couldn't we just ask google?

15 Megawatts (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034405)

...assuming 200W per server, which is probably low, but probably compensates for 79,000 being most likely an overestimate. However, that doesn't even begin to account for the energy used to keep the stuff cool.

Anyone know how many trees per second that would be? Conversion to clubbed-baby-seals-per-sec optional.

Heat (5, Informative)

gspr (602968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034415)

A Pentium 4 dissipates around 85 W of heat. I don't know what the Xeon does, but let's be kind and say 50 W (wild guess). Using the article's "low end" estimate, that brings us to 4.7 MW!
I hope they have good ventilation...

SCO (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034421)

Since it is known that Google has the largest installed base of Linux and now they are about to go IPO in the billions, I wonder why SCO has not gone after them? Apparently, it is not use of Linux that makes SCO persue a company.

The interesting thing is, that if SCO really has MS backing and MS is pulling strings, then I would think that MS would want SCO to persue google to tie them up for awhile.

hardcore (5, Funny)

mooosenix (773281) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034431)

After many scientific and time consuming experiments, we have found the number of servers to be.........

42.

What? (1)

Jozer99 (693146) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034446)

How are they fitting 88 dual cpu computers in a rack? Last I checked, racks were between 42U and 46U. That is 42-46 1U computers. I have seen 1/2 U computers, but never dual cpu 1/2U computers. I can see 88 processors per rack, but not 172 processors per rack. Plus, when you have such a high density of computers, you need lots of power and cooling. Most racks have UPSes and cooling fans that take up rack space.

Hm? Did we forget everything we've been told? (1)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 10 years ago | (#9034449)

In every other Google article I've read, they say that they use old slow PCs in mini to mid tower cases. You can fit about... 12-16 machines in a rack if they're not rackmount cases. Not 88.

In any case, all this calculation is a bit over speculatory and pointless.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>