Google cel mai puternic super-computer !

An interesting tidbit coming out of the Google S-1 filing is that they have spent about $250 million on hardware equipment. From there, we can get a few guesses at the magnitude of the Google system. Based on quick back of the envelope calculations, it looks like Google is managing between 45,000 and 80,000 servers. Here's how I arrived at this conclusion:

According to calculations by the IEEE, in a paper about the Google cluster, a rack with 88 dual-CPU machines used to cost about $278,000. If you divide the $250 million figure from the S-1 filing by $278,000, you end up with a bit over 899 racks. Assuming that each rack holds 88 machines, you end up with 79,000 machines.

However, one must recognize that equipment is not all CPUs. As a result, you must discount the figure of $250 million to account for routers, firewalls, machines for employees, etc... So let's assume for a minute that only about $200 million is going to the CPUs. That still leaves us with 719 racks or a bit over 63,000 machines.

Even if we discount other equipment to be costing $100 million, we end up with a bit over 31,654 machines on 359 racks.

So how much processing power is that? Well, once again, the Google cluster document provides some interesting tidbits. Per the document, the racks that were used were
88 dual-CPU 2Ghz Intel Xeon servers with 2 Gbytes of RAM and an 80-Gbytes hard disk.

That means that, on the low end, the Google cluster has the following stats:
359 racks
31,654 machines
63,184 CPUs
126,368 Ghz of processing power
63,184 Gb of RAM
2,527 Tb of Hard Drive space

In the middle range of my estimates, the cluster would have:
719 racks
63,272 machines
126,544 CPUs
253,088 Ghz of processing power
126,544 Gb of RAM
5,062 Tb of Hard Drive space

And on the high end of my estimates:
899 racks
79,112 machines
158,224 CPUs
316,448 Ghz of processing power
158,224 Gb of RAM
6,180 Tb of Hard Drive space


Assuming that the 1Ghz chip is going at about a third the gigaflops of a 2Ghz processor (3.3Gflops), we can then guess at the size of the Google supercomputer. Just for the sake of argument, let's go with 1 Gigaflop per processor. This means that the Google supercomputer has about 126 teraflops of power on the low end of my estimates, 253 teraflops on the middle end, and 316 teraflops on the high end. This would easily put it on top of the list of fastest computers in the world.

Any way you slice it, that's a lot of power.

sursa

Edited by cartman_sp99, 14 January 2006 - 22:28.

   nu se pooooate!

Filip the Wise, on Jan 14 2006, 22:36, said:

Si eu am suferit un soc cind am vazut stirea   e muuuuult prea muuuuulta putere de calcul !!!

holly f**k.  asta da putere de calcul

nu stiu ce reactie sa am... intr-un fel ma asteptam, dar nu imi puteam imagina!
totusi e Google!

Edited by kraMMer, 14 January 2006 - 22:53.

de ce va mirati? Credeti ca rezultatele rapide pe care le intoarce google (ca sa nu mai zic de indexarea de site-uri noi) se face cu un 486? Eu is mai curios de cat personal e necesar pentru intretinerea si supravegherea atator servere si eventual daca cumva o parte din servere sunt third party sau sunt toate ale google?

romaximusro, on Jan 14 2006, 22:57, said:

Sincer nici nu ma intereseaza de cati oameni are nevoie, sau cat loc are nevoie pentru depozitarea lor, singurul lucru concret e ca da de pamint cu toate  "super-computerele" actuale.Tinind cont ca stirea e din 2004 s-ar putea sa mai fi imbunatatit configuratia serverelor si puterea de calcul sa fie mai mare decit cea estimata de noi  

Edited by cartman_sp99, 14 January 2006 - 23:08.

si totusi, nu poate fi adevarat.
1. NU e nevoie de atata putere de calcul
2. E nevoie de MULT mai mult storage-space cu tot ce tine de asta.

Alice, on Jan 15 2006, 03:05, said:

Cind ai zis ca nu poate fi adevarat la ce te-ai referit ....??

google nu are asa ceva in dotare... stiu ca acum cativa ani am citit un articol in care scria ca se bazeaza pe (multe) 486-uri. ipoteza care mi se pare mai plauzibila.

Sint curios ce OS ar rula pe serverele astea? Windows 2003, Linux sau Mac OS X Server?

Alice, on Jan 15 2006, 03:50, said:

Uite ce zic baietii astia de pe wikipedia :

Based on the Google IPO S-1 form released in April 2004, Tristan Louis estimated the current server farm to contain something like the following:
719 racks
63,272 machines
126,544 CPUs
253 THz of processing power
126,544 GB (approx. 123.58 TB) of RAM
5,062 TB (approx. 4.77 PB) of hard drive space

According to this estimate, the Google server farm constitutes one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world. At 126–316 teraflops, it can perform at over one third the speed of the Blue Gene supercomputer, which is (as of 2005) the top entry in the TOP500 list of most powerful unclassified computing machines available to humanity.

http://en.wikipedia....Google_platform
Da ai dreptate acum cativa ani google folosea 486 .... dar asta era acum cativa ani

Edited by cartman_sp99, 15 January 2006 - 05:14.

02.03.05

http://www.internetn...cle.php/3487041

To deal with the more than 10 billion Web pages and tens of terabytes of information on Google's servers, the company combines cheap machines with plenty of redundancy, Hoelzle said. Its commodity servers cost around $1,000 apiece, and Google's architecture places them into interconnected nodes.

All machines run on a stripped-down Linux kernel. The distribution is Red Hat (Quote, Chart), but Hoelzle said Google doesn't use much of the distro.

In fact, at Google, many will fail every day. So, Google has automated methods of dealing with machine failures, allowing it to build a fast, highly reliable service with cheap hardware.

Wiki:
Published specifications:

100,000 servers ranging from 533 MHz Intel Celeron to dual 1.4 GHz Intel Pentium III (as of 2005)
One or more 80GB hard disk per server. (2003)
2–4 GiB memory per machine (2004)


La 50-100.000 de tzompuri ce e de preferat?
- 100.000 buc x p3, putere de procesare 1X / buc (x nu stiu cum sa-l definesc), cost energie electrica 1Y / buc, cost / bucata 1Z
- 50.000 buc x p4, putere de procesare 3X / buc, cost energie electrica 3Y / buc, cost/bucata 1.5Z

pentru o bucata e clar ca se alege varianta 2, dar in cazul asta e clar ca se alege varianta 1. Costul energiei electrice nu este deloc de neglijat, iar in cazul asta ne intereseaza performanta/watt

Din estimarile din primul post, e ca si cum as face un file-server (FILE server, si atat) cu un quad opteron, 64GB ram, 7800GTX, SLI, win95 si hdd de 80GB, sau un tzomp pt. randari cu [email protected], 256ram, s3@1mb, 2048GB RAID 5, win2k3 advanced server.

Puterea de procesare este relativ mare, dar google are nevoie, in principal, de:
- redundanta
- acces FOARTE rapid la storage space
- f. mult storage space
puterea de procesare este pe plan secundar. logic.

Edited by Alice, 15 January 2006 - 05:43.

va dati cu parerea in loc sa cititi la ei pe site

http://www.google.co...pigeonrank.html

Nu Google nu are nici pe departe cel mai mare/performant computer.
Cine este interesat de computere performante, mai bine sa citeasca aici, dacat sustinerile unor amatori:
http://www.top500.org/system/7747
http://www.top500.or...s/2005/11/basic

mda , de asta pana imi deschide un gmail dureaza 5 minute (asta daca reuseste sa-l deschida ) . ori ,ne aburesc cu super 486-le lor ori nu stiu sa foloseasca sculele alea .

@Sergiu, alea 5 minute sunt din cauza legaturii tale la net. Mie imi ia gmail-ul in 3 secunde!

HOLLY SHIT! Asta da sever!!