 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:06:13 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Pictures or it didn't happen. :-P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwPSFpLX8I perhaps?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Pictures or it didn't happen. :-P
They're out there.
>> And you know, I really, really miss SQL. :-)
> Even if it does violate the relational model? Aww, it must be wuv...
Far better than what you get to use at Google. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Pictures or it didn't happen. :-P
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwPSFpLX8I perhaps?
...the HELL?! o_O
1. I had no idea they had this many computers.
2. I had no idea it required engineering on this scale to run that many
computers.
3. That seems like quite a lot of empty space, actually...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 9:12 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Pictures or it didn't happen. :-P
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwPSFpLX8I perhaps?
>
> ....the HELL?! o_O
>
Nor am I out of it. ;-)
> 1. I had no idea they had this many computers.
>
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html
> 2. I had no idea it required engineering on this scale to run that many
> computers.
>
It is not a domestic operation.
> 3. That seems like quite a lot of empty space, actually...
It does not mean that it is wasted space, though. You need space for
construction and maintenance. Not to mention air flow for cooling.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 1. I had no idea they had this many computers.
>>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10209580-92.html
My God. o_O
>> 2. I had no idea it required engineering on this scale to run that many
>> computers.
>
> It is not a domestic operation.
Sure. But given that computers are very low-power devices, you don't
think of a computer plant as something requiring megawatts of power and
entire rooms of cooling equipment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 10:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> Sure. But given that computers are very low-power devices, you don't
> think of a computer plant as something requiring megawatts of power and
> entire rooms of cooling equipment.
I would not say that computers are *very* low-power devices. As it said
in the article the containers have a power consumption that can reach
250 kilowatts. So you only need 4 containers to have to supply a
megawatt of power. Then add the cooling requirements and the utilities
and it all adds up.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 11:20 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/01/2012 10:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> Sure. But given that computers are very low-power devices, you don't
>> think of a computer plant as something requiring megawatts of power and
>> entire rooms of cooling equipment.
>
> I would not say that computers are *very* low-power devices. As it said
> in the article the containers have a power consumption that can reach
> 250 kilowatts. So you only need 4 containers to have to supply a
> megawatt of power. Then add the cooling requirements and the utilities
> and it all adds up.
Compared to an industrial cement kiln or a smelting works, a computer
uses virtually zero power.
The difference, of course, is that we're not talking about a computer.
We're talking about *thousands* of computers. Much like a light bulb
uses almost no power, but the entire Blackpool illuminations probably
use quite a bit of power...
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's surprising.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 11:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's surprising.
Why do you think that it is surprising?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 01:08 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/01/2012 11:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's surprising.
>
> Why do you think that it is surprising?
Or, to put it another way, why do you *not* think it's surprising?
I guess once you already know something, it probably doesn't surprise
you any more...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 1:10 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 20/01/2012 01:08 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/01/2012 11:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's surprising.
>>
>> Why do you think that it is surprising?
>
> Or, to put it another way, why do you *not* think it's surprising?
>
I have worked in heavy industry and when I worked offshore on production
platforms I was familiar with most aspects of utilities.
> I guess once you already know something, it probably doesn't surprise
> you any more...
That is true but if you stop and think (no slur intended) you might find
on reflection it is not really surprising. It is like doing a quick
mental calculation to see if an answer is in the correct range.
Guesstimate power requirements for 1 server = 200 Watts
Power for 1000 servers in a container (X 1000) 200 KW
Power for 12 containers = 2.4 MW. See no surprise. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
