Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Prefers DRAM to Hard Disks

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the speed-versus-spin dept.

KP writes: "I came across this interview with Google's CEO. A very interesting read." It's interesting in part becase that CEO (Eric Schmidt) claims that for Google's purposes, "it costs less money and it is more efficient to use DRAM as storage as opposed to hard disks." "I still cannot figure out how he says storing data on DRAM is cheaper than storing it on hard-disks. Maybe, if you buy in bulk?"

3 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cost v Speed by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    JohnHegarty scribbled

    I am sure the google archive is only a few 100gb


    Err. No.

    I maintain a tiny search engine (some 5000 sites), with the data cached locally, just like Google. It takes ~250Gb of disk space for that miniscule cache. The one at Google must be of the order of a few hundred Terabytes, not Gigabytes.

    On that basis, I echo the original query about how it can be economical to use RAM...

    Simon
    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  2. Fewer servers needed by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I still cannot figure out how he says storing data on DRAM is cheaper than storing it on hard-disks. Maybe, if you buy in bulk?
    Google's Eric Schmidt probably means that fewer replicated servers are needed. If we take his stat of 200,000x speedup at face value, then you would need 200,000 times as many hard-drive-based servers as DRAM-based servers. There are many other factors involved such as communication delays and scalability, but you get the idea.

    This just shows how limited the lifespan is of 32-bit 4GB architecture, especially for servers.

  3. Re:Cost v Speed by leuk_he · · Score: 5, Interesting

    this makes more sence then:
    PC World: What are Google's biggest challenges?
    Schmidt: Managing the growth. Our servers are overloaded. There is a DRAM shortage. We're building more computers. We are adding more-sophisticated products to the advertising side of Google. Our problems at the moment are growth problems.

    If you have computers where 4 GB is not very much memory, but use the amount we use on out HD for memory i would have a dram shortage too.

    And i bet they store only the most frequest used part of the index in memory.

    Did you notice when you access the google cache this very slow compared to a search? Even if that cache was accessed frequently (because it references a /.ed site)