| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Google's got 'em beatGoogle's got 'em beatPosted Jun 5, 2007 18:46 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)In reply to: Google's got 'em beat by dwheeler Parent article: DreamWorks Animation 'Shrek the Third': Linux Feeds an Ogre (Linux Journal)
Yes, but Google is not in the film industry.
Besides, Google has (last I checked) several terabytes of RAM in their server cluster. Terabytes of RAM, not disk. Their disk space must be in the exobyte range at least; I don't even want to imagine what their power costs alone would be for the server cluster, let alone HVAC, bandwidth, and such. I read somewhere (can't recall the link) that Google alone accounts for 15% of the worldwide market in RAM and hard drives.
So really, saying "Google has 'em beat" is going to be a given in a LOT of ways.
(Log in to post comments)
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 5, 2007 20:04 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] For servers there may be no contest, but for desktops? Does anyone know if Google uses Linux on the desktop too?
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 5, 2007 20:36 UTC (Tue) by aseigo (guest, #18394) [Link] 1000 desktops is not even close to being largest. even if we restrictourselves to commercial deployments (e.g. not education, which tend to often be huge, or gov) there are deployments in the >10k range out there.
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 4:38 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I think that the article was saying that this is the largest deployment of Linux boxes dedicated for graphics _workstations_ in the movie industry, not the largest ever. The writer didn't realy do a very good job of getting that point across.
A lot of people who hear about Linux being used for high-end graphics they automaticly assume stuff like "Oh well of course they are using it in the servers/rendering, everybody knows that for film stuff {OS X, Windows XP} is standard."
When in relatity it's actually the Linux desktop is the one that dominates in this sort of arena.
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 10:25 UTC (Wed) by hawk (subscriber, #3195) [Link] I recall reading that the engineers at Google get to choose if they want a Mac, Windows or Linux machine. (See http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/02/g...)
Considering the extreme ratio of really techie people at Google, I would think that they must have a decent share of Linux desktops.
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 2:10 UTC (Wed) by Nick (guest, #15060) [Link] Heh. I think SGI has several terabytes of RAM in a single machine!
... but doesn't Google have several hundred thousand PCs in their
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 5:28 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I think it's over petabyte by now. I've heard from guys in Google that this estimate is pretty close to the reality - and Google built few new datacentres since then. And since they fight for reduced latency they should have systems with a lot of RAM rather than with a lot of disk. So my guess is that they have at least petabyte of RAM and less then exabyte of disk. But nobody knows for sure, obviously...
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 8:37 UTC (Wed) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]
From the summary:
So there.
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 14:02 UTC (Wed) by briangmaddox (subscriber, #39279) [Link] And the previous sentence you omitted talked about the film industry. All these posts going way too literally over two sentences :)
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 10:40 UTC (Wed) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] Times change. Terabytes used to be a terrible impressive word. There used to be Microsoft "Terraserver".
These days you can get a terabyte in a single normal SATA hard-disc (though 2*500GB is still cheaper) for a cost low enough that it's achievable for the average western teenager...
Terabytes of RAM is also not as impressive as it used to be. You get 1GB of RAM for aproximately $30. So a Terabyte of RAM is $30.000 or thereabouts -- assuming you get no discount whatsoever for buying a thousand of them at once (probably an unsound assumption)
OK, so it's not a single desktop-machine, but it's not "WOW" stuff either.
Yeah, it's hard for us old-timers. I saved up for quite some time to upgrade my Amiga to 1024KB of memory, from the original 512KB. And I used to be impressed with the Amiga -- a full order-of-magnitude improvement over my previous machine...
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 12:08 UTC (Wed) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] I am sometimes struck when I notice a single file on my disk that would have filled the 50MB hard drive I had on my Amiga back in 1991....
-Rob
Google's got 'em beat Posted Jun 6, 2007 12:49 UTC (Wed) by hein.zelle (guest, #33324) [Link] Try ocean or atmosphere modelling. The output files of my models typically don't (or just) fit on the drive of my workstation (presently a laptop). That's been the case for the last 8 years, so the problem doesn't seem to be going away, either :-)
We will always push software as far as the hardware will go, I think.
|
|
||||||||||||