Skip to comments.Inside the internet: Google allows first ever look at the eight vast data centers
Posted on 10/21/2012 5:35:35 PM PDT by jwsea55
* Data centres range from vast warehouses in Iowa to a converted paper mill in Finland
* Buildings are so large Google even provides bicycles for engineers to get around them
* Street View tour of North Carolina facility reveals Stormtrooper standing guard
Google has given a rare glimpse inside the vast data centres around the globe that power its services.
They reveal an intricate maze of computers that process Internet search requests, show YouTube video clips and distribute email for millions of people.
With hundreds of thousands of servers, colourful cables and even bicycles so engineers can get around quickly, they range from a converted paper mill in Finland to custom made server farms in Iowa.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Google has done quite well in delivering information to ... everyone! Imagine a government doing something like this ...
This is my home town... Haven’t seen any storm troopers wandering around the site.. really impressive retaining wall that must be about 70 feet tall running around the south eastern side of the property that goes for about 1/4 mile
Of interest? Enormous server farm pix at link.
Not just delivering info but also extremely good at collecting it and connecting the dots.
Their search/indexing/quering algorithms are incredible. God help those like FBers who post everything on themselves.
I don’t do business with companies that practice anti-Second Amendment bigotry.
“The exterior of a Dulles, Oregon server farm”
Sloppy reporting. That should be The Dalles, Oregon.
You are in Iowa?
No Lenoir, N.C. article says street view of N.C. facility
Google's alogrithms are pretty much leaps and bounds above anything out there, though.
Have you checked out Ixquick?
What’s changed is not the huge rooms, it’s the computers. Once they were huge and there was one of them, now they’re small, PCs really and there are many, thousands of them. Progress? I don’t think so. I’d take one DEC Alpha, or say a five Alpha cluster over 100 PCs!
Now most of programming is just bloatware. Hardly an elegance or succinctness.
Advertising where your datacenters are is not wise.
Lol. First dadacenter I visited filled a vast hall in a large manufacturing plant, was so noisy that the had a giant concert band blaster they rolled around with the operators (8 feet tall) and had all of 16K memory :).
Google's alogrithms are pretty much leaps and bounds above anything out there, though.Not true; Bing routinely beats Google in search relevance. They beat us sometimes too, but lately we've been beating them more.
Precisely. I remember when I was learning perl. I had a mentor, whom I have since come to consider the best perl programmer I have ever met or known about. He used a word to describe some programming solutions, a description it took me a while to understand, but I have since applied it to other things, like... rock music and art photography. I've no idea if this word is common in the programming or perl or in engineering community in general. The word was (is) GASP! nothing more than "interesting"!
He'd describe my early efforts as "not interesting", and later solutions as "interesting". I never dared to ask him what he meant, but in time I learned to understand it on my own, and appreciate interesting things in programming.
The problem is they are so hard to hide because of their power needs. If I recall correctly, these data centers consume 3% of the country's total power consumption (most it related to cooling...for every watt used to run a data center 2.5 is used to cool it). They like lots of cheap, plentiful and reliable power. (Hydro dominated power sources are preferred locations.) That limits site choices.
For good or bad, porn drove the early internet technology.
Non-descript windowless grey buildings located next to railroad tracks, i.e. right-of-ways are your Internet data centers, every fool knows that.
And our good friend Billy Gates, "all you will ever need is 256."
Oregon also has a town named Boring.
Oooops, you gave away their one secret.
Yes, we went to the moon on this, One of NASA's IBM computers.
My comment is reflecting that the more we think we are doing new things in computers, we really have done something similar, and already worked out the bugs, previously.
A great article I read maybe 20 years ago was right on, and still is 20 years later. The author complained that everything in computers has to be invented three times. Take multitasking operating systems. Mainframes could do it in the 60s. Then people invented minicomputers, which could not multitask. But everyone hated the mainframes so they went to mini computers. But then, people complained because they couldn't multitask, so multitasking operating systems like UNIX had to be written for them. Then PCs were invented, and everyone hated mainframes, and mini computers, and wanted to work on PCs. But they didn't multitask, but that was ok. Then people started complaining, and so companies had to write multitasking PC operating systems. Each time it was the same thing over again, but people thought it was some great new discovery.
You can point out almost any area of computing and see the same thing. Granted, I love the extra speed and capacity of modern machines, but we still just keep reinventing the wheel and slapping on new buzzwords.
If you've never read his book "Hackers" (nothing to do with the movie), it's really interesting!
Does crack me up what people think is new. I was emailing in the 80s. I was "using" part of the ARPANET in the early 90's when it open to a more public domain purpose. It was pretty unfunctional, pretty archaic, command dependent, not much out there. ARPA was pretty functional once you were inside the government sponsored world.
It does make me laugh at what people thought was multitasking. "No, your processor is really just concentrating on another thread." At the same time, it is pretty amazing at how much processing capability is now in 3 cubic inches.
From the article...For years Google didnt share what it was up to. Our core advantage really was a massive computer network, more massive than probably anyone elses in the world, says Jim Reese, who helped set up the companys servers. We realized that it might not be in our best interest to let our competitors know.
Laughable since they want to share everybody elses personal data.
The one thing the article didn't cover was what Google is doing with/in hard drive(s) world. If I find something, I will post a link later.
Yes, Hackers needs to be added to my reading list.
Thanks. I am familiar with the story.
I worked on a technology with the retired Xerox guy who was responsible for bringing Jobs and Waz into Parc. The Steves saw the first mouse based computer and eventually got to take it home with them. It took them awhile to understand it wasn't theirs. Funny how Isaacs book is slightly different story from the version I heard.
My friend was extremely complementary of Jobs and Waz: thought they were some of the brightest guys he ever met. Not a bad complement coming from someone (who if he was known publicly) would be considered one of the top technologists of the Twentieth Century.
He also brought some kid by the name of Billy Gates in for funding in the late 70's. His boss was too busy, though, and Xerox passed. I forget which company that was. There were other similar stories.
Not true; Bing routinely beats Google in search relevance. They beat us sometimes too, but lately we've been beating them more.
I personally haven't found Bing is 'better' than Google in getting tough search results...and I support Bing because it is good to have the competition...but that is just my experience.
I personally haven't found Bing is 'better' than Google in getting tough search results...and I support Bing because it is good to have the competition...but that is just my experience.No doubt. We're talking very minor differences here. Thanks for the support.
Just 20 years ago, this would have been a science-fiction movie and people would leave the theatre thinking that this would never happen in our lifetimes.
“It blows my mind at what people were doing back in the 60s with the available technology. “
Well, for one thing, slide rules were used to design the equipment that took us to the moon.
I kept my dad's. I figured if we didn't have an EMP it could always be useful for propping open a window or something. Beautiful little device.
“I kept my dad’s. I figured if we didn’t have an EMP it could always be useful for propping open a window or something. Beautiful little device. “
I used a slide rule for all engineering and scientific calculations until my senior year as an undergraduate, when the first TI scientific calculator came out. Many years later, I tossed my slide rule during some cleanup purge, and of course I now wish I had kept it. The calculator eventually gave up the ghost too.