 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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. ;-)
I guess the thing is, most people will never, ever see 1000 computers...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:12:41 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> 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.
It hit a number of the sites a couple years ago (see the date on the
video)
> 2. I had no idea it required engineering on this scale to run that many
> computers.
You've got to manage them *somehow*, right?
> 3. That seems like quite a lot of empty space, actually...
You have to circulate air to keep things cool. Overheating in such an
environment could be a serious problem.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:18:25 +0000, 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've done work in a 20,000 sq. ft. data center. Data centers are big
business these days.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/20/2012 2:18, 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.
Each of those containers has over 1000 computers in it. There's 50
containers in this one building. (That's a small building for Google.) This
is from 2005 or so, when computers weren't as efficient. So how much power
do you think it takes to run 50,000 computers, plus air conditioning for
them, if each has (say) 150W power supply?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 20/01/2012 18:02, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> > 2. I had no idea it required engineering on this scale to run that many
>> > computers.
> You've got to manage them *somehow*, right?
>
Wondering if they are running MS Windows:
1. Did they get a rebate on number of license ?
2. In case of security update, did they all update & reboot at the same
time ?
Obviously, they are not using Apple's computers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/01/2012 05:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:18:25 +0000, 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've done work in a 20,000 sq. ft. data center. Data centers are big
> business these days.
The biggest data center I've ever been in was one largish room populated
with server racks.
Heh, I still remember looking at one of the stacks, and seeing that it
had *seven* 4.2 GB drives in it. (Remember, in 1997, those suckers where
EXPENSIVE.) I remember feeling slightly giddy trying to compute how much
total storage space such a monster RAID setup... Ah, the memories.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/01/2012 05:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 1/20/2012 2:18, 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.
>
> So how
> much power do you think it takes to run 50,000 computers, plus air
> conditioning for them, if each has (say) 150W power supply?
As I say, the point is that most people will never see 50,000 computers
in one place all at once.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/01/2012 07:23 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Wondering if they are running MS Windows:
> 1. Did they get a rebate on number of license ?
> 2. In case of security update, did they all update& reboot at the same
> time ?
>
> Obviously, they are not using Apple's computers.
I'm pretty certain it all runs Linux. (I seem to recall a Google paper
about how they made various improvements to the Linux kernel to handle
SCSI error conditions better or something like that...) I have no idea
*which* Linux, of course... It's quite possible that it's something that
does cost money.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/15/2012 6:05 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> And also I'm assuming this is not cheap, so management do not want.
>>
>> Making something truly zero down-time is exceedingly expensive.
>
> Yeah, reducing down-time isn't usually too bad, but /zero/ down-time
> requires going to absurd lengths.
When I was stationed at Onizuka AFB, California (the Blue Cube, for
those who live or work near the south end of the San Francisco Bay), we
had two large SATCOM dishes, called Sun East and Sun West.
One chronic problem was that getting downtime for preventive maintenance
was as difficult as pulling gold teeth from a chicken. The user
community (who was and always will be better connected than the
maintenance community) were as stubborn as mules about allowing any
downtime for any reason.
"Hey, what if we took each dish down, once every six months, and do all
of the preventive maintenance specified in the technical orders?"
"No, no, we need those dishes up 24/7. Denied."
You'll never guess what the result was.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:31:05 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> On 21/01/2012 05:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 1/20/2012 2:18, 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.
>>
>> So how much power do you think it takes to run 50,000 computers, plus
>> air conditioning for them, if each has (say) 150W power supply?
>
> As I say, the point is that most people will never see 50,000 computers
> in one place all at once.
That isn't really necessary to be able to do the math....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
