Slashdot Mirror


How Google Uses Linux

postfail writes 'lwn.net coverage of the 2009 Linux Kernel Summit includes a recap of a presentation by Google engineers on how they use Linux. According to the article, a team of 30 Google engineers is rebasing to the mainline kernel every 17 months, presently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26 and inserting almost 300,000 lines of code; roughly 25% of those patches are backports of newer features.'

4 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Is it worth it? by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This company had about a million servers last time I cared to find out. I dont think 'more cheap hardware' means the same thing to you as it does to Google.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  2. Re:Open source is the coat tails that Google rides by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hmm, you realize that Android alone is over 10 million lines of code right? That's a pretty big open source contribution right there. But then there's also over a million lines of code across 100+ smaller projects too. So I am not sure what your definition of "table scraps" is but it's significantly more lines of code than most companies do.

  3. Re:Is it worth it? by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also consider the fact that Google has been basically deploying new servers non-stop for many many years. They are already purchasing cheap hardware at a very high rate. Even a tiny 1% improvement in efficiency for the existing and future servers is a huge huge win for them.

    That could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars saved over the next decade, and it doesnt take a genius to realize that a couple dozen programmer salaries will be a hell of a lot less than that.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  4. Re:Togh by pathological+liar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah great work Linus.

    The distros STILL stick with older versions and backport fixes, because who in their right mind is going to bump a kernel version in the middle of a support cycle? It's even MORE broken because the kernel devs rarely identify security fixes as such, and often don't understand the security implications of a fix, so they don't always get backported as they should.

    The Linux dev model is NOT something to be proud of.