Google Prefers DRAM to Hard Disks

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?"

Comments

RAM vs. HDD

[hitchhacker]

If google has something like 10,000 linux PC's, I would definately think that using RAM and a ramdisk for the rootpartition would be cheaper than putting a hard drive in every PC. I would imagine that the hard drives would be the first to go if something failed.
Obviously, if they used DRAM for their HUGE central databases, it would not be a cheaper solution.
But, I'm talking out of my ass, because I don't know how their datacenter works.. anyone anyone?

-metric

DRAM

[Anonymous Coward]

The major advantage DRAM has over hard drives in Google is that when the machine reboots the memory will be cleared and then it will go scan pages again. No need to save what was in memory the previous time. Good idea for google bad idea for accounting software.

Just Think

[Waffle Iron]

Every piece of drivel that you spew forth and put on the web is going to be permanently enshrined in its own little piece of DRAM at Google (Probably including this stupid comment.). Each bit of each every word ever put on the web is destined to be endlessly and pointlessly refreshed every few milliseconds, expending its own miniscule amount of energy and waiting in vain for that one stray alpha particle to cause a soft error and finally put it out of its misery. It seems like something Andy Warhol would have predicted.

It makes sense

[Bob Smith 157]

Lots of other posters have mentioned pieces of the puzzle, so I risk being redundant here. But, it seems the whole equation goes something like this:

1. If each box only handles a part of the web, it is possible that most of the space on it's drive (or drives) are wasted anyway.
2. If disk latency means that cpus spend idle time, eliminating that latency means more throughput per box, hence fewer boxes. More money spent on DRAM, less money spent on CPU, power supplies, etc.
3. Even with same number of boxes, lower power draw, smaller and/or fewer UPS(s) required. With fewer boxes, even more reduction.
4. Which leads, of course, to lower A/C bills during the warm weather.
5. Fewer boxes, fewer pieces, whatever, means fewer things breaking. The impact of a single outage may be greater, but, from the cost standpoint, you need fewer man-hours to manage the outages, fewer spare-parts, etc.
6. Lower medical expenses from sysadmins going insane due to the noise from all those drives and the associated larger power supplies and extra cooling fans.

OK, that last item is a stretch, but how many sysadmins are more than a step from insanity anyway?