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?"

2 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. RAM vs. HDD by hitchhacker · · Score: 2, Redundant

    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

  2. Just Think by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1, Redundant

    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.