Slashdot Mirror


Google's Secret Plans For All That Dark Fiber?

beat.net writes "Robert X. Cringely details the plan for all the dark fiber Google has been buying up: "The probable answer lies in one of Google's underground parking garages in Mountain View. There, in a secret area off-limits even to regular GoogleFolk, is a shipping container. But it isn't just any shipping container. This shipping container is a prototype data center. Google hired a pair of very bright industrial designers to figure out how to cram the greatest number of CPUs, the most storage, memory and power support into a 20- or 40-foot box. We're talking about 5000 Opteron processors and 3.5 petabytes of disk storage that can be dropped-off overnight by a tractor-trailer rig. The idea is to plant one of these puppies anywhere Google owns access to fiber, basically turning the entire Internet into a giant processing and storage grid. While Google could put these containers anywhere, it makes the most sense to place them at Internet peering points, of which there are about 300 worldwide.""

107 of 534 comments (clear)

  1. Google is Skynet? by k00110 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Maybe Google will end up becoming the first sentient AI, if storing and finding association patterns between data is the essence of conscious thinking. The amount of information that Google has at its disposal is staggering, and poised to continue its growth with the introduction of Google Mail. What makes Google more than an extra-big database is the software that sits under that database, and its ability to continue scaling up. Jason Kottke has a great post on the big-picture trajectory of Google's technical efforts, and hits an essential point by noting that Google's focus has always been about what people are doing - searching, talking, shopping, and soon, emailing. Google's focus is human activity and the relationships between trillions of interactions. When I think about that , and then think about how much the daily use of the web has come to rely on Google, my joke about the system becoming sentient, by intent or by accident, seems a little less funny. " source : http://www.holycola.net/archives/000423.html

    1. Re:Google is Skynet? by SilverspurG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was my thought, too. I'm all in favor of Google as the search engine but the capability that a network of these things would give to a single corporation which owns them outright makes me more than a little uneasy. For no particular reason other than the sheer "dayum. Is there anything you can't do if you have that at your disposal?"

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Google is Skynet? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't forget Crzmblski's Limit.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Google is Skynet? by b100dian · · Score: 2, Funny

      computer executed binary code is ALREADY sentient. Just think when it gets mad and crashes.
      The same with proggies, OSes or InterNetworks, because each one are based on another.
      If I find a metropolitan gateway falling because of a software error that the main developer is unable to spot, i think "erm... ok", but if there are 5000 Opterons to trace registers and code-machine into, I would say: BECAUSE HE WANTS or he DOESNT.
      See?

      It's already sentient! :p

      --
      gtkaml.org
    4. Re:Google is Skynet? by rpresser · · Score: 5, Funny
      Don't forget Crzmblski's Limit.


      I hadn't heard of Crzmblski's Limit, so naturally I went to Google to find out what it was ... to my surprise, Google has already removed all references to it. So it must be fantastically important, so important that Google must hide it from the world... now I'm *really* scared.
    5. Re:Google is Skynet? by AgBullet · · Score: 3, Funny

      One day we will all log on to GoogleNet and do what we're told.

    6. Re:Google is Skynet? by binarybum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yep, I just entered the posting area to post a comment "skynet anyone?" but your posting confirmed that this was not such an obscure idea.

          all the buzzwords like "dark fiber" "secret underground garages" and "dropped off overnight" and even "peering points" make this sound like a recipe for a very red future.

      --
      ôó
    7. Re:Google is Skynet? by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think it has something to do with the readability of variable names in Hungarian Notation... The memorability of the name decreases as the square of the variable's importance.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    8. Re:Google is Skynet? by bataras · · Score: 3, Funny

      Skynet? No I rather think it sounds and looks more like WOPR.

      How about a nice game of chess?

    9. Re:Google is Skynet? by Heembo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even with all this power going into one company, why is there still this cultural "feel good" sensation about google? Microsoft has this brutal, evil reputation, and Google, who is a contender to surpass Microsoft's power in the industry has this "happy, feel-good" vibe. It's as if Google is just about to come up with an advanced nuclear weapon system and is telling everyone "don't worry, it's scarry powerful, but we dont DO evil here!"

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    10. Re:Google is Skynet? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that's exactly what they're doing. Minus the nuke. I hope.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    11. Re:Google is Skynet? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft has DEMONSTRATED they don't give a shit about anything but money - not advancing technology, not about customers, nothing but money.

      Google at least APPEARS to be trying to improve technology FOR its customers.

      Whether they will be successful at that, and how they will use that in the future is an open question.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    12. Re:Google is Skynet? by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Funny
      What happens when said institution becomes self-aware? Can it demand the right to vote? Does it get to do hiring, and firing?


      More importantly, who on Slashdot will be the first to welcome it as their new overlord?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    13. Re:Google is Skynet? by unitron · · Score: 2, Funny
      Obligatory bad pun.

      "I don't remember who did the original experiment, but there was someone (or a group?) who rang a bell everytime they served food to an animal."

      Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  2. Imagine by squoozer · · Score: 5, Funny

    a Beowulf cluster of these puppies...

    ...Oh, we don't really need to Google seem to be building one.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  3. Nice work of fiction by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Has anyone given any thought to how many of these peering points have excess power capacity for 5000 Opterons? Hmmmmm?

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Nice work of fiction by syukton · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sure google has. It's not like you can't have another truck towing a generator following the truck towing the portable datacenter.

      I used to work at a datacenter and we had a generator small enough that you could fit 12 of them in a shipping container, and the genny was enough to run a 500 machine datacenter for three days without refueling. The portable datacenter may well have a generator included.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    2. Re:Nice work of fiction by ottffssent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I'm curious how Cringeley thinks Google can get the hardware at the prices he quotes in the article. I'm sure he's given it some thought, but unless they're getting hardware at below-cost prices, I don't see how it can be done. The CPUs cost about $50 each to make, so that's $250k for chips. Then you need a few petabytes of disk. I don't know what the manufacturing cost is for disks, but I'd guess about $50 there too. Say $50 for a 500GB drive. That's a few thousand drives to reach the several petabytes, and there goes the rest of his half-million dollars. You still need motherboards, RAM, power supplies, chassis, racks, switches, etc.

      I'm not saying he's wrong, but I'd be curious to hear where I've gone astray in my figuring.

      Not to mention, of course, the enormous electrical requirements this thing would have, as you've commented. If we round the CPU's power consumption up to account for all the support machinery, and figure 100W per CPU, this neat little semi-load is going to want half a megawatt, plus cooling. Just the disk array will chew through 50kW or so. Even from a power plant's perspective, that's a pretty hefty chunk of juice.

    3. Re:Nice work of fiction by VojakSvejk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At peak performance, one Opteron will draw (conservatively) 1 Amp, and use (more conservatively) 100 Watts. Double it to include the disks, etc, and we're probably still conservative at 200 W * 5000 CPUs = 1 Megawatt, which basically all gets converted to heat, all in a box that size. Surface area of the box?
          40 * 40 * 40 feet -> 104 Watts/sqft out...

    4. Re:Nice work of fiction by Slim+Backwater · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's it! The opterons produce heat, which boils water which runs the turbines to generate electricity to power the opterons! My god man! It's the Google perpetual motion machine!

  4. Stealing by Radicode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a nice idea but that thing must need some serious amount of power to run. Add the massive cooling system needed to keep the box runnning without melting. If they intend to just "drop" it anywhere... they have to think about security. You don't want some geek with a saw to steal your 3.5 PB array! Omni

    1. Re:Stealing by mikael · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Stealing by LionKimbro · · Score: 5, Funny

      Security?! I'd be more afraid for the geek's security, than the cube's.

      Knowing Google, I would think that these shipping container computer things would be covered with sensing devices. It's probably scanning the face, gait, apparent weight, and shoe size of anyone that gets near it, and googling for their name, their address, their family and children, employer, and all other relations. As it prepares to activate the lightning sprocket, it's probably composing emails, editing video footage, and notifying the newspapers of an impending obituary.

      I'd sooner touch the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord your God, than touch one of these here Google Skynet Singularity Machines.

    3. Re:Stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm just sitting here imagining a scenario where I steal hardware out of this box I get home and go to google.com to see my picture on the home page at google.com with a caption "have you seen this person?", "we are tracking you" .. scary thought... on the other hand for my 15 minutes of fame .. hmmm ..

  5. When will sinister phase two begin? by polv0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like Google may be ready to go starbucks.

    1. Re:When will sinister phase two begin? by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like Google may be ready to go starbucks.

      As it turns out, the same news source has recently revealed Google's "phase two" plans.

      Cheers,
      IT

      --

      Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

  6. HEY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If most Google employees don't know about the storage container, how does THIS guy know about it???

    1. Re:HEY! by PCeye · · Score: 5, Funny

      He probably googled it.

    2. Re:HEY! by CarbonJackson · · Score: 3, Funny

      My guess is that bored google employess feed him this shit on "double super secret background" just to see if it makes it to print.

      --

      MikeAtIF*ckStuffedAnimalsDotCom
  7. 5000 Opterons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While Google could put these containers anywhere, it makes the most sense to place them at Internet peering points


    5000 Opterons? It makes sense to put those near power plants / ice bergs. That's at least 500 kW of heat dissipation.

    1. Re:5000 Opterons by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sounds like Buffalo NY. Close to the Niagara hydro plants and surely cold enough.

  8. Mommy Mommy... by crazypip666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I know what I want for Christmas this year.

  9. aren't they all? by mustafap · · Score: 4, Funny

    >Google hired a pair of very bright industrial designers

    I haven't yet met one that didn't think they were very bright. Industrial Designers invent stuff that takes 'ordinary' engineers years to throw away and build something else that will fly. No danger of anything happening here folks :o)

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    1. Re:aren't they all? by korea · · Score: 2, Informative

      An industrial engineer is not an industrial designer. An industrial engineer studies optimization, systems, stochastic processes, manufacturing strategies, etc. Industrial designers are the ones you guys are minimalizing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_Engineerin g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design So I guess the danger is still there folks :| Honestly, industrial and mechanical engineering are the only engineering majors that are remotely related to the historical definition of the field. Easy on the hubris, ladies.

      --

      --

      "pain is weakness leaving the body."
  10. Missing something here... by w9ofa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't understand how a few boxes full of Opterons automatically means taking over the Internet.

    In my opinion, Google has penetrated the American market with its services as much as it can. It is probably looking to other places in the world to prop up its cash flow. You know, like a business, rather than a collection of world-domination-bent nerds?

    1. Re:Missing something here... by l33t+'O' · · Score: 2, Funny

      i'm definitely missing smthng 2. all doesn't seem probable in de near future.. & wat spoils de whole thing is dat de guy (author) is just 1 of those MS-bashers out 2 say smthng 2 prove dat he hates MS. wat makes him think he knows the tech (hardware&software) capabilities of MS, Yahoo!, Sun & IBM. unless he's n insider of 1 of those, which i definitely think he isnt! it just spoils de 'surprise' 4 him 2 b so biased... if it's true then big-up 2 Google 4 INNOVATION, which is wat this industry needs. :D

  11. Re:Stop Google!! by kc32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course we want another Microsoft. We need something that can compete with MS.

  12. Cooling 5000 Opterons? by tomalpha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If an Opteron produces say, on average, 50W heat output (I know this isn't accurate, but just as an example), 5000 Opterons would produce 250kW of heat. That would require an air conditioning unit larger than the building used to house the container.

    1. Re:Cooling 5000 Opterons? by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      why does everyone have to stick to the old school tried and true method of computer room cooling, in which you HAVE TO cool down the hot air. how about this... suck outside air from one end of the container, filter it, cool it if needed, and then exhaust it out the other end. It makes absolutely no sense to cool hot air when you might have an unlimited supply just outside your door. In many climates your total cooling bill is going to be a small fraction of what it was in the old school scenario.

    2. Re:Cooling 5000 Opterons? by hta · · Score: 5, Funny

      1W = the amount of power required to heat 1g of water 1 degree celsius in 1 second (1 J/sec).
      1 cup of coffee: 0.2 litres (200g) heated from 10 to 100 degrees celsius (90 degrees) = 18 KJ.
      250 KW: 14 cups of coffee per second.

      The answer to "where do we put these puppies"?
      Next to Starbucks.

    3. Re:Cooling 5000 Opterons? by dmadole · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If an Opteron produces say, on average, 50W heat output (I know this isn't accurate, but just as an example), 5000 Opterons would produce 250kW of heat. That would require an air conditioning unit larger than the building used to house the container.

      Hardly -- a kWh is 3413 BTUs and 12,000 BTUs is a refrigerating ton. So they would need about 71 tons of cooling (the name of the unit is derived from the cooling capacity of a ton of ice per day). They make chillers into the hundreds of tons of capacity.

      Here is some information on a 75 ton chiller. That's smaller than the shipping container it would be cooling -- a normal shipping container is 40 feet long and about 8 foot square cross-section.

      In fact, if there's any truth to this story at all, I bet they fit all the computer gear in the first 22 feet of the container and the chiller in the last 18 feet.

    4. Re:Cooling 5000 Opterons? by Detritus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Humidity control.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:Cooling 5000 Opterons? by kavau · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice example; unfortunately you're off by a factor of 4. The specific heat of water is 4.186 Joule/gram Kelvin. Hence to heat 1 cup of coffee by 90 degrees you need about 75 kJ = 75 kilowatt-seconds. Your cooling unit would need only about 3.3 cups/second.

  13. Why not wirelessly replace the internet? by catmistake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they were planing on building 300+ of these things, why not have built-in broadband wificasting ability... and just replace the internet without having to lay all that expensive cable?

  14. Um, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The idea is to plant one of these puppies anywhere Google owns access to fiber, basically turning the entire Internet into a giant processing and storage grid.

    Er, they plug a bunch of servers into the Internet and suddenly it's the Internet that's doing the processing and storage, not the servers? Sounds magical. Maybe I can plug my Playstation into the Internet and turn the entire Internet into a giant game.

    1. Re:Um, what? by rtaylor · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... and turn the entire Internet into a giant game.

      You mean it isn't already a giant game?

      --
      Rod Taylor
  15. Great by Kickboy12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Great Article. It just shows how quickly Google is becoming a global enterprise right under the nose of all the other huge companies such as Microsoft.

    1. Re:Great by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, excuse me? Google IS a huge company. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is David vs. Goliath. This is one Goliath fighting for another Goliath's territory.

      Don't think that if somehow Google makes MS a lesser force that suddenly the sun is going to come out from the clouds and everyone is going to live happily ever after... Too many people on slashdot already have this attitude and it's an unfortunate one, at best.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Great by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people seem to think that being a huge necessarily makes a company evil, or the enemy. But I don't dislike Microsoft because they are a big company. I dislike them because they do dirty tricks to hold technology back; to ensure that their goddamn awful technology succeeds over more promising technology. Google hasn't as yet done that. They've got to where they are now through the excellence of their technology. And they will get my respect for as long as they are like that, no matter how large they get.

  16. Nothing to worry about folks... by thewils · · Score: 5, Funny

    >>We're talking about 5000 Opteron processors and 3.5 petabytes of disk storage

    They're just getting ready to run Windows Vista when it comes out.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  17. Re:Why? by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Network latency. You get a faster response from a server in your own locale than on the other side of the world. And if you're doing network applications that are intended to compete with traditional local applications, then you need low latency.

  18. Same applies to Skype by intmainvoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Makes sense for google to decentralise their server farms and be able to provide direct access to their services - one of the biggest risks to their continuted success would have to be the breakdown of the "open" internet, though peering failures or closing off (or imposing higher tolls on) private networks.

    Skype is in the same situation - they've been able to support so many users simply because their bandwidth is only used to setup the initial connection between the two parties, after that it's the telcos who are supporting and providing the infrastructure for the service that threatens them most. Now that Skype can make real money from its pay services, look for them to do something simliar to Google, to ensure the availability of their service.

  19. Can't buy latency... by Fzz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cringley may be a fool, but he's almost right on this one. There's a saying in networking that you can't buy latency. The speed of light is just too low for Google's AJAX applications to take over the world - for many apps you can never get the latency low enough if you use only a few datacenters. So, the shipping container is irrelevant to the important part of this story. The key is that for Google to succeed in making online services as effective as desktop applications, they have to get the latency down. And there's only one way to do that, which is to move the servers close to the customers. To do that, they need a lot of data centers, and they need a lot of bandwidth between them, because when you connect they need to move your data to the nearest data center to you. So, they really do need to have a way to provide data centers quickly and easily to places all over the world. But Cringely doesn't seem to have realized why this is the only way Google can succeed in the long run. It appears you can buy latency after all if you spend enough. - Fzz

    1. Re:Can't buy latency... by this+great+guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The speed of light is just too low for Google's AJAX applications to take over the world.

      No, you are wrong. Even if Google had only 2 datacenters on the surface of the Earth located at 2 antipodal points, a path from any location to one of the datacenters would always be shorter than 10010 km (mean Earth's circumference divided by 4) and it would take 33 ms for the light to cover this distance. So the RTT would be 66 ms, which is sufficient for Ajax applications.

      Though the speed of light contributes a little to the latency between hosts on the Internet, it is primarily caused by the number of hops (routers) between them. So if latency is your problem, you create multiple datacenters mostly to reduce the number of hops, not to reduce the distance that signals have to cover.

    2. Re:Can't buy latency... by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, they send trunks of servers to near you to reduce the latency, and when you need more responsive systems, they send servers to your building, and if you need to reduce the latency even more, they send the servers to your desk.

      Yes, I see where it goes, very inovative. But ignore the rant, I don't want to stay on the way of a nice buzzword.

  20. Salt by mpeg4codec · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the man who brought us the mathematically impossible 6.5 mile 802.11 link with a passive repeater. The repeater that he never showed to anybody. He also shows us an idealistic world of a community cable and telephone company that nobody's ever seemed to find evidence of.

    Saying that, when it comes to technology at least, he is speculative is something of an understatement. Take what he says with an extremely large grain of salt.

  21. Akamai by Urusai · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google cutting in on Akamai's territory here?

    http://www.akamai.com/

    Half the big boy websites I visit seem to run through these guys. They seem to provide fat throughput for mega sites, apparently hosted in a distributed geographical fashion. I could just be imagining these things, though, because I really don't have a clue.

    1. Re:Akamai by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to work at an ISP, and we had Akamai boxes.

      Actually, the three Akamai's we had are still running right on top of the server I administrate there.

      I too was never quite clear on what they did, but my understanding is that they provide local cached copies of oft-visisted webpages. Even Google--last I knew, that is.

      So it's more like, instead of having to access Apple servers every time I type "Apple.com", I'll actually be accessing the local version hosted at my ISP on their Akamai box.

      In a way, Google already provides this with Google cache. So it really wouldn't be a big step for them to do it real time.

      --Petey

  22. Re:Google is Skynet? So is Wikipedia now Google? by hackwrench · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Many of the things I used to go to Google for, I go to Wikipedia instead. Now there is a category for which I go to Wikipedia for and a category I go to Google for. Actually they were distinct before, but the category of things I go to Wikipedia for, I fancied Web Directories might be useful for except that they weren't very robust and got out of date.

  23. So when does this become self-aware? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Funny


    Now all we have to do is wait for some Google employee to play a Sony CD on this and these will become spam relays.

    Perfect.

  24. The Alternative Re:Google is Skynet? by hackwrench · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The alternative is everybody running their own stations in a massive wireless mesh network.

    1. Re:The Alternative Re:Google is Skynet? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

      One word: latency.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:The Alternative Re:Google is Skynet? by Directrix1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I second this. I am just waiting for the moment when the technology becomes available. Its the way the internet was really intended to be run. Screw ISPs. The internet needs decentralised wireless peering.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    3. Re:The Alternative Re:Google is Skynet? by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are too many dead zones between major cities .

      Great distances of rural farmland .

      http://www.locustworld.com/ is a awesome idea, and they have done some
      great things, but there are many places off the coast where distances
      between cities is greater than the range of WiFi unless u use the ballon trick .

      But long shots in the midwest are going to have to route via
      conventional telecom unless we setup telecommunications WiFi ballons .

      www.21stcenturyairships.com

      Someone has to pay for them ... At least they are cheaper than satellites and fly
      high enough to avoid all wind .

      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    4. Re:The Alternative Re:Google is Skynet? by nettdata · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've seen something almost as stupid.

      Went to an Oracle "development shop" (or so they said), where they called me in because they thought they had an Oracle tuning issue. Turns out that their entire office of 65 people were plugged into a series of daisy-chained LinkSys 10MB hubs, and they were all accessing this Oracle DB with some rather high traffic requests.

      I went in and did some investigation, and it was the first time I've EVER seen the actual network connection time out like that.

      I raised this to their attention, and mentioned that they should probably go get some mid-range 100MB switches to replace that stuff, and they wouldn't accept my findings. They dismissed them as being wrong, and sent me packing.

      I talked to another friend of mine a few weeks later, and it seems that he was also called in as an outside contractor to figure it out... and he came up with the same findings. And they did the same thing... dismissed the findings and sent him on his way.

      They just couldn't or wouldn't believe that it was a network issue. I never really figured out why it was so hard for them to even entertain the thought.

      What a gong show.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
  25. Psy-war by Deinesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More than anything else, this seems to be a from of psycological warfare. Can you imagine the feelings of Bill G or Steve B when they read that article?

    I mean if you are at Microsoft or Yahoo, where would you throw your money at? Office/Excel/Gamil like AJAX apps, this new 300 Uber Server threat or the next thing some bored reporter comes up with?

    I don't know if this is report true or not, but I do know that Google is running a very effective psy-war campaign against their competitors.

  26. Hardware limits by psavo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google's growth was in part made possible by heaps of commodity hardware. Hardware that was originally meant for standard lusers, cheap and unreliable. They built their systems for it and tolerate that. They change lots of haddrives in their datacenters and god knows what else.

    What I'm trying to say is that for each of those googlecubes they need staff that regularly changes whatever hardware fails. With 3.5 Petabytes of storage and 5K processors it means that something will fail every single day that beast is powered. All that crammed inside 20/40 feet space (WTF does that mean?) means that heat will kill even more hardware.

    So, yeah it should be possible, but not very likely.

    --
    fucktard is a tenderhearted description
    1. Re:Hardware limits by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With 3.5 petabyte storage and 5K processors, plus some smart software, taking offline one CPU or two harddrives will have hardly any impact. And when performance of given container drops by 3% (that is 150 nodes have already failed and are offline) they send someone to replace them. Or even not then, just a single truck running around the country replacing broken nodes during each visit.
      Just like painting the Golden Gate bridge. There's a small crew of painters assigned to that work. It takes them 4 years to paint the whole bridge, but when they finish at one end, the other already requires repainting, so they start over. The bridge is never 100% "brand new" painted, but it remains in acceptable state at all times.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  27. Obviously... by iced_773 · · Score: 5, Interesting


    ...the puppy's on fire.

    How are they going to cool these things?

    1. Re:Obviously... by rolandog · · Score: 5, Funny

      With dark energy... duh!

  28. "Google Desktop" delivered via FreeNX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With 300 data centers hosted at the important Internet peering points, and only 2-3 hops away from each user, Google will be easily able to offer a personal "Google Desktop" to each person, driven by FreeNX remote GUI technology (remember, NX can make X11, VNC and RDP run a multiple speeds with fractions of the bandwidth needed as compared to the protocols run natively).

    Google will manage everything for its users: software upgrades, backups, search and organisation of personal data and files. Just like ISPs 20 years ago offered a monthly rate of 20 $US to connect to the internet (giving away a 2400 b/sec modem for a reduced price), Google could ask for a 20 $US fee (and give away a Google Thin Client embedded into a georgeous 17'' LCD screen that includes a EJ45 jack) to take care of people's computers.

    I for one would sign in immediately.

    So, Cringely is wrong. No need for AJAX office. It will all work with traditional GUI desktop programs, over an NX link that does not consume more than 40 kBits/sec for office productivity work.

    So, Cringely is also right. The operating system doesn't matter to Google.

  29. additionally... by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even assuming the power and heat requirements of cramming that many opterons into that small a space could be dealt with, there's another, larger problem:

    It's not fucking 1997 any more.

    "Peering points" -- big, open-access traffic exchange handoffs like the old MAE-East and MAE-West used to be a big deal back in the late 90s, when OC-12 circuits were still rare and hideously expensive beasts, and Gigabit Ethernet was still a gleam in some 3Com engineer's eye.

    In 2005, they simply don't matter. The big players (level3, MCI/Verizon, Qwest, SBC, etc) all exchange traffic over private fiber interconnects, and everyone else buys transit from the big guys directly or ponies up for a switch port at Equinox, PAIX/Switch&Data or some other 'carrier neutral' colocation center. Dropping a datacenter-in-a-box onto MAE-east or any of its surviving ilk would buy Google precisely nothing.

    (And nevermind the fact that google is documented to own thousands upon thousands of unused square feet of datacenter space already: they went on a very well-thought-out buying spree in 2000-2001 when all the dot-com datacenter companies were going out of business, and are very well provisioned for the forseeable future as a result.)

    Now, a much more interesting application of the "Google node in a shipping container" idea can be summed up in one simple word: China. Why wait for the local market to develop the infrastructure you need when you can just drop a box down and then run fiber to it? I'm still dubious though...

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

    1. Re:additionally... by NoTheory · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now, a much more interesting application of the "Google node in a shipping container" idea can be summed up in one simple word: China. Why wait for the local market to develop the infrastructure you need when you can just drop a box down and then run fiber to it? I'm still dubious though...

      Nice thought, but it's not going to happen. And the reason why is that China is extremely wary of companies like Google. The Chinese government is about one thing, and that one thing is control. They're a-okay if you want to run a business in their territory, so long as you knuckle under when they want you to. Google's policies are not concordant with Chinese policy, nor is google willing to subjugate itself to Chinese policy. As a result i find your hypothetical (while good thinking) extremely unlikely. On top of all of that, there is an issue of pride involved in this. As everyone keeps pointing out, it's possible that the internet will some day be Google. China doesn't want this because they don't want their chunk of internet to be run and administered by an american company.

      That's not to say that there aren't plenty of unfibered places where such boxes could be deployed. Hopefully attempts to bring Africa into the modern world will allow for projects such as this. India may also be another idea (i'm not entirely aware of what the fiber map of India looks like, nor how well it's connected across the country, but if their connectivity is as varied as poverty and starvation, there's a lot of room to expand still).

      --
      There are lives at stake here!
    2. Re:additionally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      IT NOT FUCKING 2001 which means when people say "peering points" they are not talking so much as MAE-West, but more so the Equinix's and PAIX's (S&D), for instance the Westin in Seattle, or 11 Great Oaks (equinix), or 529 Bryant (PAIX or S&D (it will always be PAIX to me)) 111 8th in NY, or 60 Hudson in NY.

      So spare us your oh so late lecture from 2001, we all know that peering point are not just MAE-WEST or EAST, you did right???

    3. Re:additionally... by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know that, you know that, but it's very obvious from the article that Cringely has no clue whatsoever. He still thinks that peering points are some weird rarified animal where only telcos with enormously expensive routers can play, when the reality is that anyone with $3000/month to spend can host their equipment "near the core."

      (And I find the idea of Google parking a tractor trailer with their hypothetical container-box node on the street next to 111 8th ave particularly amusing. Nevermind heat dissipation issues: can they afford the parking tickets?)

      --

      News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  30. Re:article doesn't explain network by ottffssent · · Score: 5, Informative

    > what's the point of putting network latency between all those shipping containers?

    To remove the network latency between them and you.

    They're not being used "for computing" in the sense you're envisioning. For one thing, 5000 Opterons is enough to tackle pretty much any problem you'd care to throw at it, so there's no need to talk to anyone else. For another thing, they wouldn't be doing big computations, they'd be doing massive numbers of small ones. Think Gmail. 3.5PB is enough to store an awful lot of email, and a few thousand Opterons can run rather a lot of simultaneous HTTP connections from people accessing the mail. Add in a fast network link (for talking to all those many people accessing the mail, and for replicating everything offsite), and you're set.

    Cringeley's penchant for sensationalism aside, it's pretty clear that Google's got the expertise and the mindset to deal with problems that start with "if we had 10,000 fast CPUs, 10,000 hard disks, and 10,000 GB of RAM...". Google's rapidly expanding, and has been ever since they started. Back when Google fit in a closet, a new server constituted a big expansion. I'm not surprised that these days their unit of expansion is a tractor trailer with a few dozen racks in it. And if you've got something that packages up that nicely, it only makes sense to pepper the globe with capacity.

  31. Not $500,000 by Pyretic28 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually this article came in on my rss reader yesterday, I did some quick back on the envelope counting, and I'm not sure you can get a container for $500.000. I read before that Google used to have racks with wheels under them, completely full with 1U servers and fully cabled. They only had to plug in power and network and they were all set. When the datacenter went bankrupt, they just wheeled the racks off to another location. So assuming that they are only using the containers for shipping:

    One 20Ft container is:

    * Length (20Ft)
    * Width (8Ft)
    * Height (8.5Ft)

    That means you can get about 12 * 19" racks in, using 4 rows, about 64U high. That means a total of 3072 servers, using dual socket, dual core opterons, that's 12288 cores. Each server with 8 memory sockets + 4 disks, that's 24,576GB of RAM (1G sticks) and 6,144,000GB of Storage (500G disks). With some guestimate figures on current prices, I'd say one of those container would be worth about $12,500,000.

    But then again, from a quick Google, they have about $3 billion in cash, and that's a lot of containers....

    PS: I'm european using metrics mostly, so they're might be a small conversion problem here and there ;)

  32. Your numbers are off... by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Informative

    A 40 ft shipping container has a surface area of something more like:

    (40 * 8) * 4 + (8 * 8) * 2 ==

    1408 sq. ft.

    which, for 1 megawatt, is more like 710 watts/ sq. ft.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  33. When Google owns all our data access... by kronocide · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...will we still love them? I get a feeling Microsoft's monopoly will look like a minor bother compared to Google's omnipresence one day. Google, the Evil Empire?

  34. Sounds like Cringely saw a Petabox by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Internet Archive's Petabox. is a petabyte of storage in a shipping container. Each rack holds 100 terabytes, and power consumption is 6 KW per rack. Capricorn builds them for the Internet Archive.

    Sounds like Google is trying that out.

    There's nothing that exotic about this. The military builds racks of electronics into shipping containers all the time. It's mostly a cable management and maintenance access problem. You have to be able to do everything from the front of the rack, which requires some design work but isn't rocket science.

    1. Re:Sounds like Cringely saw a Petabox by ottffssent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google needs much beefier CPUs than that. They're not running a SAN where pushing bytes is the only goal. They're running a massively parallel distributed computing project, that just happens to like ready access to a boatload of disk.

      The petabox project has essentially one design goal: "What is the absolute minimum amount of hardware we can wrap hard drives in and still have a useful system?" And the answer, apparently, is "a 1U half-depth case with a tiny Via board". That they can get power consumption down to 40W/TB is incredible - that's just twice the power consumption of the disk they're building with. But it's not useful to Google.

      Google is asking a completely different question, because they need not just a boatload of disk, but a lot of processing power to be constantly crunching that data, either running Gmail, web searches, data analysis, Google Maps, or whatever the AJAX app of the week is. These boxes will be doing a lot more than serving data, they'll be responding to queries that in aggregate will require thousands of MIPS and terabytes of RAM.

      Ultimately, I suppose, it's the same quest. Least stuff-you-don't-care-about possible. Most value per {dollar, watt, square foot, ...} But the approaches are different. Last I heard Google was using dual-proc 1U machines. I suspect they're still doing that. It's a cheap, standard size, and provides a good mix. You can get a pair of dual-core Opterons in a case that size, along with 2-4GB of RAM fairly cheaply, and you've got room for 2TB of disk too. Multiply that by a few thousand and you've got the numbers Cringeley's quoting.

  35. Re:Lots of heat, lots of power by ottffssent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even with liquid cooling it's a hard problem. For one thing you need 5000 little hoses, and beefy pumps to get the water through there at a reasonable speed. Opterons are specced to run up to about 85C (depends slightly on model / family). Suppose you've got incoming water at 10C, and heat it up all the way to 85C. That's 75C difference, or 313.5J/g of water you're taking away. That works out to 5.75 million grams of water per hour, or just under 6000 liters per hour. You can't just dump it into a lake or river or you'll completely nuke the resident ecosystem. It's a manageable number from the point of view of getting it through the machines, but it's still an awful lot of energy to get rid of.

    The sort of temperature-differential energy recovery you speak of is technically possible but isn't efficient enough to substantially reduce the cluster's power requirements, and thus its need to vent waste heat.

  36. Re:5,000 opterons? That'd make a fine... by jrockway · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By unplugging it.

    --
    My other car is first.
  37. Re:Scary by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They don't have control. As long as there is one search company in business Google will not have control. You give them control but competition is so low barrier that google will not be "The One"

  38. Why not? by Auraiken · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What if one day googlenet becomes a place of education? Or even a government that would help locate you into your new job?

    Is doing what we're told bad altogether or are people going to open their eyes?

    1. Re:Why not? by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      many popular pacifist religions, such as Christianity


      Heh, good one. I guess it depends on how you define Christianity -- are you referring to the teachings of Mr. Christ, or to the actual beliefs and practices of contemporary people who call themselves Christians? Because the two are widely separated these days... (not that that's anything new of course)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  39. Re:Scary by acroyear · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google will win when google holds 1) the speed (see latency discussions above; taking their multiple redundant data centers and moving them closer to the customer solves that problem) and 2) the vast majority of the information itself.

    In fact, I can see this working because the media companies themselves (the labels, the networks, the studios), the very ones who can't afford to have all those redundant servers and data and managing their own damn network, will be the ones to finance it all by buying local cache space. rather than serve up "Welcome Back, Kotter" from media1.abc_and_nick_at_nite_joint_server.com and killing that server, they'll serve it up from "abc_nick_at_nite_joint.googlemedia.com" and the DNS system will return the nearest google.com to the user -- boom, no latency and no 1 million hits all on the same server killing it in seconds from a public announcement of "first season of Friends is available now!".

    A site served up by google in this way would survive a slashdotting without any second thoughts.

    Google cache, google mail, google groups, google maps, google yellow pages, google-licensed 3rd party services serving up all the above google stuff, all financed by google advertising and all of the media paying for hosting on google's redundant servers rather than killing their own network servers...

    with all of that information in google's hands, able to return the fastest searches around, the other search tools, *especially* microsoft's late entry into this market, simply won't matter.

    google doesn't care about the search business as such anymore; they've already won it big enough to make the search market itself a commodity as much as microsoft made the OS a commodity, much as they kept insistent they weren't going to...

    --
    "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
    -- Joe
  40. Shipping Containers can be problematic by linuxtelephony · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in 1991 I worked for a wireless company that tried using data containers for quickly deployed cellular switch and cell sites. The idea would be to prebuild these at a central location and then drop them at areas where they needed to go up.

    The idea was good, except for a couple of problems.

    These shipping containers are nothing but a giant metal box. Grounding can become an issue, so can accidnentally having the box be one of of the poles for a DC based power system. If you are near an active AM tower, the box becomes a giant antenna and it's virtually impossible to filter out the AM signal internally.

    Last, and certainly not least, these shipping containers are vulnerable to rust and other problems due to exposure to the elements. That can take several years (5 or so) if the box is in perfect shape at the start, but if they are using used boxes then it can take less than 2 years for rust holes to be a problem.

    Plus, physical security isn't all that good unless the walls are beefed up.

    I'm hoping these are not "standard" shipping containers, just something that looks like them.

    This grand experiment with shipping containers for cellular applications was an attempt to make it cheaper to deploy equipment to new locations. And, shipping containers (especially used) were a _LOT_ cheaper than fibrebond or other prefab buildings for that purpose. Of course, the fibrebond building had a lifespan a lot longer than 2 to 5 years. So, you get what you pay for.

    --
    . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
  41. Not all that much of a heat load to deal with by snStarter · · Score: 2, Informative

    So you need to cool about 600KW worth of heat dissipation. A ton of ac/ is about 3.5 KW or in the neighborhood of 180 tons of a/c required that will take about 1.4 kw per ton to eject that energy. So you'll need another container-sized unit to hold the a/c and then some sort of radiator or cooling tower to eject the heat.

    Clearly you're talking about serious energy density here with cooling which is on the order of what it took to cool a 637 class nuclear submarine underway in moderately cool water. Of course you'd really need TWO of those a/c units because you will want to protect that investment (still fits in the same footprint) and be ready to pay some substantial utility bills.

    1. Re:Not all that much of a heat load to deal with by bigtrike · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the nuclear submarine guess is right, then there would be some issues. Assuming you have access to a high voltage power feed (7kV or more) which allows you limit your windings and keep your pumps small, the pumps, heat exchangers, and power electronics for that level of cooling would probably take up half of any cooling trailer. Water cooling on that scale would also be very dangerous to your hardware. One leak in the wrong spot and you'd fry the entire thing.

      If I were engineering it, I'd probably skip the water step and investigate CO2 or freon refridgeration cooling. CO2 can be used as a refridgerant in place of freon, but it's typically not as efficient for air cooling purposes. The only real reason to look at CO2 is that it may be a safer solution when you have so many possible sources of leaks. Presumably you'd have multiple loops and leak detection/shutoff valves on each blade. You'd have to be careful to make sure that any condensation from your blade or chip coolers drips into a drain system. You could also put a thermal plug in each blade and use it for primary fire supression. Precautions against leaks would still be necessary, as high concentrations of either gas can kill people.

  42. The crazy thing is... by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The crazy thing is, if it isn't in Google's cache today, it will be in the next couple of days once Google crawls this page.

  43. Re:Google is Skynet? So is Wikipedia now Google? by pimpkracker69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ironically, the Wikipedia server is so slow, I'll often Google whatever Wikipedia entry I'm looking for. It usually doesn't require any special syntax, e.g., "Tin Foil Hat" Wikipedia although sometimes it's handy to be more explicit, like site:en.wikipedia.org "tin foil hat" Both queries (plus I'm Feeling Lucky) return the desired search result in this instance. And not only does Google tend to return the desired page faster, it also makes for more precise Wikipedia searches.

  44. This is pure bullshit by fluor2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's this really about?

    It's about that Google want to be able to move Google computers around in any datacenter asap. We know that google uses a grid of single computers, that all compute the search results as fast as possible. All these computers create a space-problem (physical space) at any datacenter that Google owns. Also, shipping these computers around costs money. I bet google store this "secret package" just to be able to send it around anywhere where there suddenly is a problem with the network.. We all know how much money google loose if they are experiencing downtime...

  45. Re:Google is TV ?? by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe Google will end up becoming the first sentient AI,...

    Not AI, try TV and broadcasting on demand. What else could you do with that much storage, CPU and memory?

    My guess, and it is only a guess, GoogleTV is geting a lot bigger and going to carry some 500,000 to 1,000,000 full length movies and shows or something. And it will be so kewl for us to watch what we want and not what some clown wants us to watch. I suspect it will change ratings too as your not stuck picking from the least boring shows because there is nothing better on. No more pre-empting Enterprise.

    http://news.com.com/GoogleTV+is+hiring/2100-1026 _3-5876654.html

    Or maybe I am being wishful.

  46. The limit's definition is posted on everything2 by genner · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:The limit's definition is posted on everything2 by genner · · Score: 2, Funny

      Glad you got the joke and realized it wasn't a spelling error.
      Definition of patiented
      http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Patiented &lastnode_id=1765531

    2. Re:The limit's definition is posted on everything2 by andy_t_roo · · Score: 2, Funny

      bah, no hit counter on that site, so as yet the value of Crzmblski's Limit is still undefined

  47. For some reason... by Fortyseven · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...I immediately thought of the crates from the 'Worms' games.

  48. Already been done by the telcos... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gridnet did the same thing back in the 90s. Except they used small prefab buildings (the same type used for regen huts). Inside were racks of modems, routers, backup batteries, and SONET transmission equipment. They would buy or rent a small patch of land in a parking lot within the magical "zero miles" of the bell central office. Truck their pre-built "point of presence" to the location, have a crane move it into place, connect the power, and start ordering circuits. This allowed them to get modems into nearly every LATA within a matter of months.

  49. Cringley is wrong. Google is going ISP by zymano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why then buy all the fiber ? There are areas of the country that aren't attractive to telcos/cable co.s.

    I hope they succeed along with their WIFI access.

    Good job boys.

    One more point if anyone at Google is listening. How about a tax on chip companies to use this highspeed access. It would be nice if they could help support it since they are the ones who benefit.

  50. Re:Is this a joke? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a reference from Keith Laumer's novel "The Great Time Machine Hoax". Don't know if I spelled it quite right.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  51. Re:Lots of heat, lots of power by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
    and super cooled electronics begin to achieve super conductivity
    That doesn't happen yet, and liquid nitrogen conducts electricity so you don't want to immerse things in it. High temperature superconductors that will work in liquid nitrogen exist and can be made fairly easily (the BiSiCuYt superconductor has been made in a lot of high school labs) but you don't see any of them in electronic components. Also think about what you are using the things for - you want your semiconductors to be semiconductors and not superconductors for your computer to work in the first place.

    As for lots of hot water - if you are worried about heating up part of a small lake you just run the water through some open drains to cool off a bit first. If you are going to recirculate it you let it drop down from a height to get some evaporative cooling - the principle behind cooling towers.

  52. Re:Google is Skynet? So is Wikipedia now Google? by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wikipedia is a big help in refining your searches enough to use Google. A few bad Google searches are all the proof I needed to believe Wiliam Gibson's assertion that for the first time in history, the new threat to civilzation is being overwhelmed by too much information to make meaningful choices.
            In addition, I've noticed that any time I don't find much help on Google, invariably I can easily rephrase what I want as a series of very general questions, and then feeding a few of them to Ask Jeeves will get genuinely useful hits. The more I have only the simple, "obvious" lay-man's questions on the subject the more some of Google's alternatives are the way to go.
            The last time for me was finding useful stuff on DIY satellite dishes. If you don't yet know any of the terms (which I didn't, then), like C-band, Ku-band, LNBF, Free To Air, and such, Google gives a huge number of useless to just plain evil links. It's not just lots of people who want to sell you a overpriced 'complete solution', but 6 year old, never updated web pages that want to sell you a dish 5 meters across at 30,000$, "Christian" Broadcasters who want you to help them buy more gear and have replaced all the standard terms with "It needs a new thingee, around here we just call it a Jesus-box, won't you please help?", and Utar Pradesh complaining about how Nepal either needs to translate their G2S's signal out of Hindi, or into it.
              The only way around it starting from Google seems to be running across about 5 of the 'insider' terms, Wiki for every single one of them, look for what other terms are links, keep Wiki'ing, and thus fairly swiftly refine your search. Basically, without Wikipedia or some other shortcut, you have to get to about the depth where you know how (and WHY) global positioning works differently for civilian uses (like Onstar) and Military uses, and which idiots in Congress voted which way on it, just as a side effect of learning enough to build your own TV receiver (assuming you're already a fair solder jockey and don't need to learn what a MOSFET is). That's a terribly steep learning curve.
            This is for a subject that's not really all that esoteric, but it has a half dozen facets, all of which Google can't sort out by simple searches - for just one example mistaking sites that are about beaming 'politally free' info into authoritarian countries for 'own instead of rent type free' consumer solutions. In the process, you are likely to still not know many things that might be of much more interest to most people wanting to build or just own a home satellite system, such as the existence of PC card recievers and motor controllers, or if you can combine satellite internet access with TV reception when you are trying to avoid just renting a dish.
            Something like "How do I get satellite TV free?" on Ask Jeeves will get you that whole list of terms and some basic definitions and diagrams very quickly. Ask Jeeves seems to try and match the whole question if it can, before searching for phrases and keywords, and that leads to pages that are set up in question and answer format. In this case, the first link back when I tried it was to a "How things work" page that gave accurate and generally unbiased info, frequently updated.
      (Warning, I haven't tried this lately, for all I know Ask Jeeves has gone out of business and I missed it).

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  53. Re:article doesn't explain network by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Running with your numbers, look at this. Quoting you:
    With 500GB drives, it would take 7340.032 drives to attain 3.5PB... with NO redundancy.
    For the Deskstar7k500 [Please note that this isn't the "DeathStar" anymore, it was just when they put five instead of the industry-standard four platters into the DeskStar that they started dropping like flies, and I suppose the DeathStar reputation no longer stands. I've never owned one.]

    The specifications [see footnote for a few other sites] state
    Height (mm) 25.4
    Width (mm) 101.6
    Depth (mm) 146
    146 mm) x (101.6 mm) x (25.4 mm) x 7 340 = 2.76551705 m^3,
    and, running with the article's numbers, let's see how much of 20 feet cubed that is... (article: the most storage, memory and power support into a 20...foot box -- note that a BOX of course is less cubic area than a 20-foot cube)....

    ((146 mm) x (101.6 mm) x (25.4 mm) x 7 340) / (20 (feet^3)) = 4.88316565...

    WHAT? it's not a fraction, but larger by a factor of 4+??? Just for the hard-drives? Even when we assumed a CUBE???

    Man, I want some of the shit that guy's smoking. I was expecting to debunk with just the hard-drives taking an impossibly large percentage of the proposed 20-foot "box". But....man. Cringely must not have done even a basic sanity check. (And remember, I'm pretty sure he didn't have a 20 foot high, 20 foot wide box in mind, or he would have said cube. To a writer, a "20-foot box" sounds like an elongated storage container, e.g. 8x8x20 feet.... BTW that's the first hit for 20 foot storage container, I can only assume a writer would have such a thing in mind...)

    English and math, people, English AND math.

    Footnote:
    Other sources for specifications:
    1. First.
    2. Second.
    3. Third.
    4. Fourth.
    5. Fifth.
  54. Re:So is Wikipedia now Google? Nope, too slow... by Kent+Recal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, that's a common problem in our generation.
    Grown up with TV and playstation our attention span has degraded to..Oh, something beeped, hold'on a sec.

  55. Crmblznski's Limit -- Definition by Un-Thesis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Taken from http://www.incendiary.ws/node/194

    Crmblznski's Limit, sometimes spelled Crizmblski's Limit, has its origins in Keith Laumer's novel "The Great Time Machine Hoax" [1].

    The basic theorem is that there is a finite limit to the complexity of any given machine, which specifically precludes the operation of "a machine with sufficiently extensive memory banks, adequately cross-connected and supplied with a vast store of data, [that by its very essence] would be capable of performing prodigious intellectual feats simply by discovering and exploring relationships among apparently unrelated facts." The Limit is an irrational number, much like Pi, in that the total complexity of machine is wholy dependent upon both hardware and software designs.

    --
    Promote freedom; fight fascism.
  56. Re:Is this a joke? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just dug out my copy of the book ... it was actually spelled "Crmblznski". My mistake.

    Here's a link to the entire text of the novel, for anyone that's interested:

    The Great Time Machine Hoax

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.