__/ [Big Bill] on Wednesday 04 January 2006 15:06 \__
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:00:01 +0100, Borek
> <m.borkowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:33:51 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>>> I am guessing that most of Google's boxes 00those that collect dust in
>>> datacentre -- are built to be cheap, which in turns enables Google to buy
>>> more (thereby accumulating more storage, do more crawling, etc.). No
>>> software licences are needed either. I would not be surprised if
>>> (not only Google's) got accommodated with some otherwise 'junk yard 486'
>>> PC's. At least they serve someone.
>>> Cost-effective computing at Google pays off, albeit it serves a different
>>> purpose year. It's affordability for customers and scalability for
>>If Google hardware staff is as good as their html staff - you are right.
>>But only then :)
>>You can't make cost-effective computing with old computers. 24 100MHz 486
>>eat several times more energy than 1 2.4GHz Pentium, plus you need 24 times
>>more manpower for maintaining it and 24 times rack space -- assuming they
>>do the same job, 2.4GHz is a cheaper solution.
>>To remain cost-effective their datacenters have to be rebuilt every 2-3,
>>maximum 4 years.
> I seem to recall that Google have indeed been moaning about the cost
> of energy lately. Maybe these new machines are a response to that.
Machines? I thought they used pigeons.
Google could possibly pay customers and then borrow some resources (net-
work bandwidth is important) from them. Ultimately, customers would report
back to the datacentres. If they sell machines worldwide, this could help
establish distributed, fragmented datacentres that perhaps act as proxies
Their new machines could have these functions embedded; Linux has excel-
lent multi-tasking capabilities. In fact, they could afford to distribute
their boxes for virtually a pittance (enough to ensure people don't buy
unneeded boxes for the heck of it). Microsoft are using similar tactics
with the Xbox 360, which is sold at a price that does not cover for the