Slashdot Mirror
The IT Strategy That Makes Google Work
savio13 writes "InfoWeek published an article on Google's IT Strategy, which can be summarized as: 'Use customized open source where possible, custom build where necessary , and buy if it's not related to something that will give Google a competitive advantage.' The author interviewed several senior IT folks at Google and the article is surprisingly thorough considering how closely Google guards information about their actual IT environment." From the article: "Google managers tend to be reticent on the subject of IT strategy, they're loath to talk about specific vendors or products, and they clam up when asked about their servers and data centers. But a day spent with some of the company's IT leaders reveals there's more to Google's IT operations than a search engine running on a massive server farm. Behind the seeming simplicity is a mash-up of internally developed software, made-to-order hardware, artificial intelligence, obsession with performance, and an unorthodox approach to people management."
One of the things that has consistently impressed me about Google is their willingness to look at old problems in new and innovative ways. Of course this is one of the hallmarks of a successful company, but it is not always successfully implemented. One example is their Google Earth application that made huge waves in certain agencies like NIMA. The interface made more than one NIMA/NRO/CIA analyst/project manager smack their forehead in stunned recognition of a superior way of layering and interacting with diverse types of data.
The other thing that really impresses me about the company is the flat egalitarian structure that at the same time allows for tremendous independent freedom while also making much of the management fairly transparent which does tremendous things for morale. I also respect the encouragement of discourse including criticism. Not many companies can tolerate that sort of structure because they are built upon protectionism of management structures and establishment of castes of a sort. It shows that Google is one of the few companies like Apple that are succeeding because of their inherent talent. Google knows this and I would encourage them to resist the pressure to devolve into management structures that are having negative effects on tech companies as diverse as SGI, HP, Dell and Microsoft.
As an aside, Google has shows a tremendously insightful ability to pick and choose product development talent at all levels over the years. I've been impressed by many of their hires. Whoever is heading up their HR dept. is talking actively with the Google special sauce R&D folks and they know their stuff.....
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
For those don't know the URL, you can find google here.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Very similar, no?
"The IT Strategy That Makes Google Work Today"
Everyone's talking about how bloated and old Microsoft is... give Google 10 or 15 years - rest assured we'll be seeing comments like "Where Did Google Go Wrong?" or "Google Delisted" or something like that.
... and buy if it's not related to something that will give Google a competitive advantage.
Are the network cables bought pre-made at fixed lengths or does an army of interns who spend the summer making cables instead of coding?
Google uses so much open source they claim, why aren't they contributing more? Maybe Stallman is onto something with the GPL 3.
Want to read about some cool Google "cooked up" technology?, read this white paper on the Google File System (one of the coolest, simplest, most elegant file systems I've seen).
>> is a mash-up of internally developed
*!*SMACK*!*
Stop with the "mash-up" already!
Hey Google, where's the source for your GNU/Linux-based range of appliances? I'm sure *that's* not the IT strategy that makes Google work... given their public commitment to Free software, funding of the Summer of Code and so on, I'm sure it's just an oversight.
a mash-up of internally developed software, made-to-order hardware, artificial intelligence, obsession with performance, and an unorthodox approach to people management
;-) In my industry, mashups mainly (only?) applies to maps...
At first, I though the word 'mashup' was misused, but this wikipedia entry for Mashup tells me I'm somewhat wrong. Somewhat because there's no application involved. But it doesn't matter, misusing a word can be seen as writing with style
Animoog.org
fried, not mashed.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Sorry to spoil your paen to Google, but Google did not actually develop Google Earth. That was done by Keyhole, Inc. (in the guise of their Earth Viewer application), who Google acquired.
However, credit can be given to Google in this case for recognizing when someone else is looking at old problems in new and innovative ways, and adapting their approach.
Google's strategy: Phase 1: Make a search engine Phase 2: ????? Phase 3: Profit! I'm sorry, but it had to be said, and just once I wanted to be the one to say it. I'll go hide in the corner now.
Programmer: an ingenious device that converts caffeine into code.
At least when they get their party jet completed.
Subject line says it all, really. I've always worked with companies and projects that start out playing catch-up and try too many shortcuts using packaged software, so I don't tend to see things where the philosophy dictates the action (instead of the reverse).
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Let me say that I'm a tech bad-ass with a ton of experience and gold stars, and when I applied to Google, their recruiters grilled the heck out of me, everyone I talked to was very skilled and found my weaknesses quicky, and I didn't get a job offer... despite the fact that many other companies continue to actively recruite me.
I was humbled
Anyone who reads all 5 pages of that article is going to learn more than just one new valuable thing.
A little secret known by some companies is that if they don't use commodity SW they can gain a big advantage over their competitors that do. The trick is in tailoring Free Open Source SW to match their business model instead of the other way around like you do with MS and other commodity SW. This approach does require someone knowledgeable enough to make it work.
It consistently bugs me that so many companies think they can save money by taking the “not invented here” philosophy on as much as possible. I am convinced, especially after learning about the inner workings of Google, that this just does not work. So much time and effort is wasted getting third party products working for very specific tasks and when all is said and done, you can often put together a solution that meets your needs exactly in nearly the same amount of time. And then in the long run, even if you are successful at first, you will fight a larger maintenance and cost nightmare as your vendors shift and change directions and you find yourself wishing you had more specificity in the solution.
Join Tor today!
Ok this basic approach has been done before. The American Airlines SABRE system which for years was THE strategic advantage of American Airlines. SABRE was a massive project that involved the custom development of an Operating System: TPF which IBM built specifically for extremely high speed transaction processing - much faster than CICS over MVS. SABRE also lead the development of very high performance non relational DB's. IMS and IDMS are direct offshoots from this work, in fact IDMS was probably the fastest general purpose DB ever until Teradata came along. On the hardware side, they squeezed performance out of the IBM TCM mainframe line that no one thought possible. IBM had trouble benchmarking it is was so fast and it was years before they even published their results.
But again, the basic approach was to start from scratch and build the biggest fastest business application system they could design. The problem with SABRE is that change control and management were nightmarish in their complexity.
What I'd be interested in learning is how Google handles patch management, security APARs, change control, health checking and all those mundane process driven chores that catch us all up.
And yes I am old geezer. I did extensive work in high performance CICS systems such as running CICS as a continuous communications task.
The article noted that Google uses a custom tuned Linux kernel. Does anybody know what changes (if any) Google has contributed back? I'd suspect that said tuning includes some kernel changes.
From TFA:
"Everything that's done privately is done publicly here," he says. (As if to make the point, Merrill took off his T-shirt during our photo shoot, showing off his tattoos.)
Guess there had to be a downside to working at Google as well..
They offered me a job but I declined because the salary wasn't enough.
Perhaps your difficulty is in someway related to your ego, o great "tech bad-ass".
[Z?]
Finally, something worth reading here on Slashdot. It's been awhile. Thanks. 'Twas an interesting article.
.. and when you run out, you start employing idiots and they become management, then they rename the company to Micro* to reflect their micromanagement skillsets.
custom build where necessary , and buy if it's not related to something that will give Google a competitive advantage
Hi. Welcome to everyone's IT strategy. So Google uses OSS too. What's the news?
Why does this sound Oh, SO comedic? Oh, right... You're a 12 year old who wishes he worked for Google? :D
I heard the same thing from some kids about Flight Simulator's team...
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price.
I think this article is a PR hit. Anyway, Google is far from the only company to develop a lot of their code in-house. My current employer is one, and it greatly increases the quality of life. I used to strongly advocate this approach, but now I understand that it's right for some companies and not others.
It all depends whether the company is a tech producer or consumer. Tech consumers buy or outsource everything but their core competency. This eliminates the risk of in-house development. Tech producers usually roll their own, accepting the occasional late and over-budget project in exchange for many cheap and quick projects.
So if you work for a Tech Consumer, and you hate the crappy Enterprise Software they inflict on you, don't evangelize them - go work for a Tech Producer.
From TFA: "The challenge for Google is to remain different--which is part of its competitive advantage--while staying true to its mission to organize the world's information and make it universally, rather than selectively, accessible and useful.
Yeah, universally available to all those living outside of China.
"Dewey, you fool: Your decimal system has played right into my hands!"
Much more Google techie info is on Rob Pike Usenix 04 talk: "Cheap Hardware + Fault Tolerance = Web Site" http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix04/tech/thurs.h tml
Did you know for example, that he says fancy cooling is only necessary, if your components are in a box. Wrap them to racks with velcro, drop the boxes, and you need no active cooling.
Anssi Porttikivi / app@iki.fi
Having worked at a company with very similar structures and values to Google (thought not in the high tech industry) I can say it can be an amazing ride pulling in amazing people to go wonderful work in a great environment. Treating people like people and not 'head count'. That can do really amazing things for a company and can create amazing value for the stakeholders.
The problem is, of course, that there is a very strong pull to devolve to the mean. To become average, normal, or safe. It takes a HUGE amount of effort and skill to stay flat; just a few poor managers at the right level and you can take a flat company that kicks butt to a layered company that can't find its own, well, you know what. Throw in some greed and there you have it.
In just about four years this company went from a place that everyone wanted to work at to a place that has problems attracting even the most average employees. Average sucks. Employees know it and so do customers!
I, personally, cannot understand Google's rise to prominence. Sure they have a neat technology, but are they the "best"? Hardly. Here are my top reasons why Yahoo is better than Google: 1. Yahoo's search technology is superior: When comparing searches, I consistently find what I want quicker on Yahoo than on Google. 2. Yahoo actually has its own content: Unlike Google who just links you to other sites and their tools, Yahoo has its own content in areas like Business, Finance, News, and more. Outside of the Google Map feature, Google relies completely on other sites for its content. 3. Yahoo gets more traffic: Surprise - Yahoo gets more traffic on its site than Google. 4. Yahoo's Mail service actually works: Unlike Gmail, Google's mail service, Yahoo Mail actually works. Gmail has been in BETA for years. Literally. 5. Google is a hypocrite: Despite their "Dont be evil" mantra, and their promise to not let their IPO turn them into evil capitalists, Google did just that. They folded to China's demands that their web results be censored in that country. 6. Click Fraud: Google does not have a real plan to prevent unscrupulous websites from fraudulently clicking on Google ads, and in the process funneling money from unsuspecting advertisors to the rogue website. 7. Yahoo isn't kidding themselves: Google wants to put Microsoft out of business. Dont laugh. As I predicted about 3 years ago, Google is using their IPO money to build business applications like Word Processing, Spreadsheets, etc to compete with Microsoft Office. Too bad that they dont work if you arent on the web. 8. Stock Price: Google is trading at a 600% EPS premium over Yahoo. This is what happens when emotions trump logic in the stock market.
Now that would be one hell of a water cooling setup.
Don't you hate glorious self-promotion? Visit my Blog
I noticed in the article that it mentioned that Google ran a heavily customized version of the Linux Kernel. I'm no expert on the GPL, but doesn't that mean that Google is required to release the source code for those modifications? Has it been posted anywhere?
... you will clog your tubes!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Most of those are pretty subjective, so I'll stick to two:
:)
>4. Yahoo's Mail service actually works: Unlike Gmail,
>Google's mail service, Yahoo Mail actually works. Gmail has been in BETA for years.
What about GMail doesn't work? I use it constantly and successfully.
>8. Stock Price: Google is trading at a 600% EPS premium over Yahoo.
>This is what happens when emotions trump logic in the stock market.
So short it
I won't comment on your other points - I never use Yahoo, so I can't evaluate their services versus Google's. However, regarding point 5...
Is it worse to be a hypocrite than to do evil? Yahoo has done all the evil that you accuse Google of. Their lack of a claim to "not do evil" is no defense whatsoever in my book.
I think everyone should hold themselves to the highest standard. Sometimes you will fail to meet that standard. You should recognize your failures and try to do better. To hold yourself to no ethical standard certainly doesn't excuse ethical lapses - it just makes them more frequent.