 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:29:40 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> 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.
Indeed, I still recall that the Fortune 50 company I worked for a decade
ago had an EMC storage array with 750 GB of storage in it....
My new *laptop* has a drive that big in it. I've got about 4 TB of
storage here at home now.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:23:08 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> 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 ?
Google? Run Windows? No, they use a custom OS AFAICR.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>
> Indeed, I still recall that the Fortune 50 company I worked for a decade
> ago had an EMC storage array with 750 GB of storage in it....
>
> My new *laptop* has a drive that big in it. I've got about 4 TB of
> storage here at home now.
The fun thing is, apparently SSD has
1. Reached price levels where Normal Humans can potentially afford them.
2. Reached capacities where you might actually buy this stuff.
Interesting times ahead, eh?
(Personally, I still can't figure out why SSD isn't several /million/
times faster than a mechanical spinning disk, but hey...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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....
Sure, that's the great thing about math; it always works right, unlike
intuition. ;-)
But it's not a calculation most people would bother to make, because the
power consumption of a PC is "negligible".
In a similar vein, the heat output of a normal human in a large empty
room is also negligible. But weirdly, if you put /a lot/ of humans in a
room, no matter how big that room is, they manage to raise the
temperature of the whole room. Unexpected, but true...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:41:25 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Indeed, I still recall that the Fortune 50 company I worked for a
>> decade ago had an EMC storage array with 750 GB of storage in it....
>>
>> My new *laptop* has a drive that big in it. I've got about 4 TB of
>> storage here at home now.
>
> The fun thing is, apparently SSD has
>
> 1. Reached price levels where Normal Humans can potentially afford them.
>
> 2. Reached capacities where you might actually buy this stuff.
>
> Interesting times ahead, eh?
Indeed, I've a friend in Scotland who has a Thinkpad with an SSD in it
and the performance is good, but the battery life is also quite good (I
think he said he gets 10 hours out of a single battery).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The fun thing is, apparently SSD has
>>
>> 1. Reached price levels where Normal Humans can potentially afford them.
>>
>> 2. Reached capacities where you might actually buy this stuff.
>>
>> Interesting times ahead, eh?
>
> Indeed, I've a friend in Scotland who has a Thinkpad with an SSD in it
> and the performance is good, but the battery life is also quite good (I
> think he said he gets 10 hours out of a single battery).
Lots of laptops have offered an SSD option for a while now. The problem
has always been that the price is a bit insane. Looks like prices are
starting to become reasonable now - although I see 100x differences in
the reported I/O performance being quoted for different models. (!!)
Also, I'm quite impressed with my own laptop. Usually laptops /claim/ to
run for 8 hours or something, but /actually/ run for about 20 minutes.
The 8 hours figure applies only if you leave the laptop turned on but
not *doing* anything. :-P But my current laptop /really does/ run for
several hours without needing recharging. It's pretty neat...
(My laptop also has /actual 3D performance/ too. I had no idea laptops
could do that now!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/01/2012 3:43 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Unexpected, but true...
<boggle>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:50:19 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> The fun thing is, apparently SSD has
>>>
>>> 1. Reached price levels where Normal Humans can potentially afford
>>> them.
>>>
>>> 2. Reached capacities where you might actually buy this stuff.
>>>
>>> Interesting times ahead, eh?
>>
>> Indeed, I've a friend in Scotland who has a Thinkpad with an SSD in it
>> and the performance is good, but the battery life is also quite good (I
>> think he said he gets 10 hours out of a single battery).
>
> Lots of laptops have offered an SSD option for a while now. The problem
> has always been that the price is a bit insane. Looks like prices are
> starting to become reasonable now - although I see 100x differences in
> the reported I/O performance being quoted for different models. (!!)
>
> Also, I'm quite impressed with my own laptop. Usually laptops /claim/ to
> run for 8 hours or something, but /actually/ run for about 20 minutes.
> The 8 hours figure applies only if you leave the laptop turned on but
> not *doing* anything. :-P But my current laptop /really does/ run for
> several hours without needing recharging. It's pretty neat...
>
> (My laptop also has /actual 3D performance/ too. I had no idea laptops
> could do that now!)
My new laptop has 3D performance as well - it's a "desktop replacement".
But I typically get about 2-3 hours off the battery in powersave mode.
Most laptops that I've used for a bit, the battery typically is good for
about an hour to an hour and a half. But a new battery generally will do
well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:43:34 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>>> 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....
>
> Sure, that's the great thing about math; it always works right, unlike
> intuition. ;-)
>
> But it's not a calculation most people would bother to make, because the
> power consumption of a PC is "negligible".
Actually not so much. A 450 W power supply draws a reasonably
significant amount of power.
> In a similar vein, the heat output of a normal human in a large empty
> room is also negligible. But weirdly, if you put /a lot/ of humans in a
> room, no matter how big that room is, they manage to raise the
> temperature of the whole room. Unexpected, but true...
Not unexpected at all - completely rational and in line with the laws of
thermodynamics.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But it's not a calculation most people would bother to make, because the
>> power consumption of a PC is "negligible".
>
> Actually not so much. A 450 W power supply draws a reasonably
> significant amount of power.
Yeah, generally you only find power supplies that meaty on high-end
"leet gamer" PCs. I'm guessing Google doesn't use those.
Even 450W is peanuts compared to what my kettle uses. (3.6 kW)
>> In a similar vein, the heat output of a normal human in a large empty
>> room is also negligible. But weirdly, if you put /a lot/ of humans in a
>> room, no matter how big that room is, they manage to raise the
>> temperature of the whole room. Unexpected, but true...
>
> Not unexpected at all - completely rational and in line with the laws of
> thermodynamics.
Sure. But humans don't think in terms of thermodynamics, they think in
terms of common everyday experience.
Random fact: If you're dangling from a wire above a pit of molten lava,
YOU DIE. In particular, you do /not/ have to actually *touch* the lava
for it to kill you. An entire lake radiates easily enough heat to cook a
small elephant, never mind your skinny arse. And that's without even
taking into account convection and all the toxic gasses.
Really, that scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is
laughably implausible... But most people actually have no clue exactly
how hot lava really is. It's not in their everyday experience.
Actually, going back to my previous point: The amount of /moisture/
emitted by a normal human is absurdly small. And yet, put enough of them
in a room, and it can get astonishingly moist in there! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
