Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Migrates Internal Servers to 64-bit
daria42 writes "Microsoft says servers running the company's website and MSN Search and Messenger applications have been migrated to the 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003. 'Our MSN search engine is actually built on several thousand systems running the x64 version of Windows,' a spokesperson said. In addition, 'the entire Microsoft.com site has been migrated, and we serve 30 million unique visitors every day.' According to the company, the Messenger servers handle about 70 million users."
I almost can't believe what I'm seeing.... Maybe it's just a coincidence but I can't currently connect to MSN Messenger (Trillian crashes) AND I can't see www.microsoft.com or use Windows Update from here in the UK!
:)
I can't imagine that Microsoft.com could get slashdotted, so maybe they're having some severe teething issues.
This doesn't bode well for the future of 64bit Windows computing
So does this mean that it is likely that Microsoft are running AMD chips in their servers?
Soo, are they running on the Opteron or the new Xeon?
About time. We had a dual CPU 64-bit system back at school (between 1992-95) - some time during that time, the system was upgraded from quad 68030 to dual Risc4000 and later Risc4400 processors.
As usual Microsoft is ten years behind times.
It seems to be back now, but at the time I posted I couldn't see anything:
Tracing route to www.microsoft.com
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms neon.winchester.local [192.168.0.19]
(blah)
7 259 ms 264 ms 251 ms ten7-2.paix-osr-a.ntwk.msn.net [207.46.37.26]
8 484 ms 263 ms 371 ms ten8-3.bay-osr-a.ntwk.msn.net [64.4.63.74]
9 259 ms 267 ms 256 ms po2.bay-6nf-mcs-1b.ntwk.msn.net [64.4.62.138]
10 po2.bay-6nf-mcs-1b.ntwk.msn.net [64.4.62.138] reports: Destination net unreachable.
Apparently, the number of servers that run messenger went from 250 32-bit servers to 25 64-bit servers. Apparently it was due to a limit in the number of network connections in the 32-bit edition
What are the "network limits" of linux, BSD, etc BTW?
There's an idea for Google right there: a Google benchmark.
Stress-test your own systems with randomized queries Google (or MSN or Yahoo!) gets and see how well it stacks up against Google's (or MSN's or Yahoo!'s) hardware, rated with GMarks (or YMarks! or....you get the idea).
Actually Intel's implementation of the AMD64 instructions isn't exactly the same. Intel's implementation (EM64T) is based on an earlier version of the AMD64 instruction set.
Just as a piece of trivia: Intel did want to come up with its very own 64 bit extensions, but MS basically told it that it can't be arsed to support yet another different set of 64 bit instructions. So basically the choice Intel had was squarely (A) implement AMD's set that Microsoft supports, or (B) not have any 64 bit Windows support.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I wonder how MSN search compares to Google in terms of hardware versus load.
Pretty much of an apples/oranges problem there, though. Yes, a search is a search is a search... but there are very different things going on relative to MSN membership, Google AdSense ads, and so on. Very different back-end processes and business issues would completely eclipse, I suspect, discussions about the individual web servers' OS. IIS on Win2003 may not be every slashdotter's cup of tea, but it's not orders of magnitude different from other servers in its ability to serve up a page. It's all that other behind-the-scenes tomfoolerly that both sites are doing that are what really weigh them down and burn up the CPU cycles. It's the database architecture and plumbing that really makes this stuff fascinating (and mysterious, if you don't work there).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Guys, just wait until Itanium is ready... This is just a 64bit extention to a 32bit extention to a 16 bit architecture...
Opteron actually IS a 64-bit extension to the x86 hell. Same instruction set - they just extended it to 64 bit, they didn't changed anything. The success of the x86-64 architecture is being just a "extension", making very easy for compilers, software developers etc. to switch to the "new" architecture. They only added 8 registers more to the typical 8 - PPC and almost every 64-bit cpu from the past decade has 32, in a 20 years timeframe (we'll be running software in x86-64 compatible CPUs just for compatibility all that time just like happened with 32-bit x86) and they won't be enought - just like today 8 are too few
Same crap. Itanium may not be great, but at least it has been built from scratch to be a real 64-bit CPU, I'd get a real 64-bit CPU anytime. The shiny x86-64 still runs the 20-years-old 16-bit ms-dos, and it's not by chance. They are damn fast just because of internal changes, not because it really is a "real 64 bit CPU"
Wouldn't a move like this greatly help AMD's image?
;)
If its good enough for Microsoft, its good enough for us, right boss?
Never been much into stocks, but right about now something tells me to buy.
Candle burns its brightest in the dark
Does any one know the approximate licence costs if this was paid for the 'thousands' of servers they use? If google 'paid' this cost would they still be in business? I'll bet it's a scary number ;-(
The only thing that doesn't run Windows in the MSN datacenters is Hotmail, and some of the Vicinity stuff.
Microsoft.com IS on 64-bit, I built a good portion of them myself.
...for a company to "eat it's own dog food". Unfortunately in the case of MS, its software truly IS a "dog's breakfast".
It does seem to me that the performance (or lack thereof) of MSN Messenger and related properties points to teething pains in the upgrade process. It happens quite often that you cannot sign in to Messenger or hotmail for brief periods and on some occasions you get punted. From what I have seen the problem is quite intermittent--can't sign in? Wait 15 minutes. It doesn't seem to be related to ISPs either--two people in the same area of the city with the same ISP will report different results.
Maybe it is just my experience, but I have found the problems are more likely associated with the sign-in process. I've only tried this once but it DID happen: Girlfriend couldn't sign into MSN from her place on cable internet. I COULD sign into MSN at my place (ADSL which surprisingly works faster than her cable most of the time). Though it might be a problem with the cable ISP, so tried to sign in under HER account at MY place. It did NOT work using HER account on either machine from two different ISPs, BUT...MY sign-in worked form BOTH places.
If someone has ready access to different machines on different connections and has problems signing into MSN, you might wat to try ths out and see if it was a fluke or if it really IS a problem linked to the user. My theory is that some of the problems are related to MS systems relying on a some kind of distributed database of user credentials, and that in the process of "improving" things with 64-bit systems that sections of this database drop out from time to time.
It's all great and wonderful that MS wants to stay cutting edge and maintain capacity to handle their huge demand, but how they seem to go about it really irritates me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! It's like their upgrades are often a massive, disruptive undertaking. Can they not roll this stuff out more gradually--like over a couple of years instead of a few problem-plagued weeks and months?
The frustrating part is that even paying users are subjected to some of these problems--so much for getting what you pay for. Even my free Yahoo account seems to be more reliable these days.
Razorback 2, the eDonkey2000 server, handles over 1,000,000 sockets. That makes the kernel take 5GBs of RAM, and the server itself 7GBs (of couse needs 64 bit arch).
Windows 2000/XP and perhaps 2003 is crippled by its limited non-paged pool where the TCP stack places its structures. In XP, I think the limit was 256MBs, but on my 512MB machine, it won't grow higher than 128MBs. At 5KB per socket (the same as in Linux above), that's 25,000 sockets. Max I've ever tested was 5,000 and non-paged pool was already 80MBs though.
I've heard they reworked some stuff in WS2003, and of couse 64 bit editions have much higher limits.
... it's because there doesn't seem to be any decent anti-virus software for 64 bit Microsoft Windows?
I sure as hell wouldn't put a Microsoft Windows machine live without any... not and expect it to last very long.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
It's the database architecture and plumbing that really makes this stuff fascinating (and mysterious, if you don't work there).
There's an interesting video on Channel9 interviewing Omar Shahine that describes Hotmail internal architecture. Yup, Channel9 is a Microsoft sponsored site, and Omar is a lead program manager on a Hotmail team. He has a great blog that shows a love for devices; you'll find him talking about the iPod, Treo, PSP, etc. Channel9 also has a ton of videos on everything ranging from C# to recruiting at Microsoft.