Inside the internet: Google allows first ever look at the eight vast data centers

The Daily UK ^ | 17 October 2012 | Mark Prigg

[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.

[Revolting cat!]

Advertising where your datacenters are is not wise.

Non-descript windowless grey buildings located next to railroad tracks, i.e. right-of-ways are your Internet data centers, every fool knows that.

[jwsea55]

Have you seen the coded that comes back from India? I have looked a few times at it and could only think, "that garbage was worth what you think you saved in dollars? what are you going to do when you need to do version X+1? spend twice as much?" Overall, pre-1995 US programmers produced pretty good code.

And our good friend Billy Gates, "all you will ever need is 256."

[steve86]

Oregon also has a town named Boring.

[jwsea55]

Non-descript windowless grey buildings located next to railroad tracks, i.e. right-of-ways are your Internet data centers, every fool knows that.

Oooops, you gave away their one secret.

[Vince Ferrer]

It blows my mind at what people were doing back in the 60s with the available technology.

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.

[Slump Tester]

Here's the link to the Wired article by Steven Levy.

If you've never read his book "Hackers" (nothing to do with the movie), it's really interesting!

[jwsea55]

Great add!

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.

[Vince Ferrer]

Did Steve Jobs Steal The iPad? Genius Inventor Alan Kay Reveals All

[jwsea55]

Great add! A bit long but definitely worth the read for those that want a more indepth view than the article.

From the article...For years Google didn’t share what it was up to. “Our core advantage really was a massive computer network, more massive than probably anyone else’s in the world,” says Jim Reese, who helped set up the company’s 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 again.

[jwsea55]

>Did Steve Jobs Steal The iPad? Genius Inventor Alan Kay Reveals All

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.

[jwsea55]

>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.

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.

[Scutter]

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.

[SamAdams76]

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.

[catnipman]

“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.

[jwsea55]

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.

[catnipman]

“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.