Google Computers - Hardware Coming to Town

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:33:51 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

I am guessing that most of Google's boxes 00those that collect dust in
large
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
datacentres
(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
Google.

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.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=EBAS&...-stoichiometry
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&...ion_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&...n_calcul ator

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:00:01 +0100, Borek
<m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:33:51 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

I am guessing that most of Google's boxes 00those that collect dust in
large
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
datacentres
(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
Google.

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.

BB
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/ kruse (AT) crystal-liaison (DOT) com
Home of gifts so shiny!

__/ [Big Bill] on Wednesday 04 January 2006 15:06 \__

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:00:01 +0100, Borek
m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 12:33:51 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

I am guessing that most of Google's boxes 00those that collect dust in
large
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
datacentres
(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
Google.

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
too.

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
manufacturing cost.

Roy

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote

__/ [WhoTurnedOffTheLights] on Tuesday 03 January 2006 19:18 \__

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:dpdtld$8kh$1 (AT) godfrey (DOT) mcc.ac.uk...
Apparently you can sell computers to boost your search engine
popularity,
or
encourage use of Web services.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,3503327.story

Maybe it's just an attempt to gnaw at the competitor's share and maybe
an
attempt to invade a new sector for good. It stirs many thoughts in one's
mind. Google Mini, Google O/S, Java Runtime Environment...

Walmart? If true, then I wonder how many others had turned down their
ideas
before they had to settle for something like Walmart. I don't exactly see
folks rushing to the electronics section of Walmart these days. Locally,
Folks with half a brain would sooner head over to more well known
electronics stores as well as reputable online merchants. But then again,
I
CAN see Tigerdirect selling a Google Box.

I think that Google aim for the not-so-IT-savvy crowd. These are the
people
who not will invest a decent amount of money in their workstation or even
fully-understand what is being offered.

I didn't realise till now that Sam's Club & Walmart are one and the same (or
somethin' like that).
Never been to Sam's but I know that folks don't bother with such items at
BJs or Costco so who knows?

People who shop for computers at Walmart are more likely to be using
Google
Mail and whatever browser gets installed by default. They are more
/obedient/ to the vendor, so Google can make up for the low cost of the
computers. Microsoft have used similar tactics: incorporating MSN/Hotmail
to
IE and Outlook (Express). On-line services and the channels to these
services are key to success. Also, cost of a computer can be reduced (a la
Dell) by allowing all kinds of trial versions of AV software and ISP's to
be
bound to a pre-installed base.

You left out AOL. Lots of folks I've known who were AOL users hardly venture
out beyond their AOL Communities.

Let's face it, you can already get a PC for a few hundred.


Got one for GBP 165 recently.

Oh, for some reason I thought you were here in the states Roy.

If there's any validity to this article then methinks Page and cohort are
stretching a tad bit too far.

We've had this discussion before Roy on a few occasions. Microsoft will
not
fall asunder. But then again......?


What excited me the most about this is availability of alternative
choices.
Like Firefox has proven, diversity leads to better awareness and less
susceptibility to lockins. I am sometimes a sufferer of X which only works
on Y, exclusively.

I know I continue to defend MS but I can't help likin' the underdog. 'but
yeah, it would be nice to have 'better' alternatives to what there is out
there now. Maybe such a move on Google's part would propell/compell
Microsoft to get their act together.

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

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
too.

Think of something like the SETI screensaver / data-cruncher program.
Perfect!

Marketing the idea: Google would give you a free mini-computer, or free
software, or a free network enabled phone, or free tunes, or free
airline miles, or something of "perceived value" if you let google use
your machine while you were online but not "doing" anything. The more
time you logged for google tasks (that is, online time you let them use
your machine), the more free stuff you would get.

What a splendid concept! They should test this on a small scale in
Northern California. I would sign up immediately.

cat yronwode
internet magickal supplies
http://www.luckymojo.com/catalogue

__/ [catherine yronwode] on Thursday 05 January 2006 00:51 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

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
too.

Think of something like the SETI screensaver / data-cruncher program.
Perfect!

Marketing the idea: Google would give you a free mini-computer, or free
software, or a free network enabled phone, or free tunes, or free
airline miles, or something of "perceived value" if you let google use
your machine while you were online but not "doing" anything. The more
time you logged for google tasks (that is, online time you let them use
your machine), the more free stuff you would get.

What a splendid concept! They should test this on a small scale in
Northern California. I would sign up immediately.

That concept is becoming popular, but not among commercial bodies which must
find ways to lure people to exposue of themselves. SETI just burns energy in
vain in my humble opinion. The World Community Grid is helping science <
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ > and some other search engines use this
idea already < http://www.majestic12.co.uk/ >

Best Wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Brazil spans 47.8% of S. America
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:50am up 25 days 13:01, 10 users, load average: 0.10, 0.29, 0.42
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

__/ [catherine yronwode] on Thursday 05 January 2006 00:51 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

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
too.

Think of something like the SETI screensaver / data-cruncher program.
Perfect!

Marketing the idea: Google would give you a free mini-computer, or free
software, or a free network enabled phone, or free tunes, or free
airline miles, or something of "perceived value" if you let google use
your machine while you were online but not "doing" anything. The more
time you logged for google tasks (that is, online time you let them use
your machine), the more free stuff you would get.

What a splendid concept! They should test this on a small scale in
Northern California. I would sign up immediately.

That concept is becoming popular, but not among commercial bodies which must
find ways to lure people to exposue of themselves. SETI just burns energy in
vain in my humble opinion.

Well, that's an opinion. At east it was a pioneer in the distributed
computing field.

The World Community Grid is helping science
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ > and some other search
engines use this idea already < http://www.majestic12.co.uk/

Thanks for the information on majestic12. Too bad you have to join to
use the search capacity. It's rather like buyng a pig in a poke, letting
them into your machine for the dubious benefit of searching their
database. Have you tried it? Anyone you know? See... that's why i was
hoping google would mount a beta version distributed search engine --
'cause i kinda-sorta trust them, due to their status as a publicly
traded corporation.

cat yronwode
traditional African American hair care products
http://www.luckymojo.com/mojocathaircare.html

__/ [catherine yronwode] on Thursday 05 January 2006 06:59 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

__/ [catherine yronwode] on Thursday 05 January 2006 00:51 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

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
too.

Think of something like the SETI screensaver / data-cruncher program.
Perfect!

Marketing the idea: Google would give you a free mini-computer, or free
software, or a free network enabled phone, or free tunes, or free
airline miles, or something of "perceived value" if you let google use
your machine while you were online but not "doing" anything. The more
time you logged for google tasks (that is, online time you let them use
your machine), the more free stuff you would get.

What a splendid concept! They should test this on a small scale in
Northern California. I would sign up immediately.

That concept is becoming popular, but not among commercial bodies which
must find ways to lure people to exposue of themselves. SETI just burns
energy in vain in my humble opinion.

Well, that's an opinion. At east it was a pioneer in the distributed
computing field.

Many innovative ideas tend to come from hippies and the hackers culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_Culture

I hope you can spot the sarcasm here. *smile*

The World Community Grid is helping science
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ > and some other search
engines use this idea already < http://www.majestic12.co.uk/

Thanks for the information on majestic12. Too bad you have to join to
use the search capacity. It's rather like buyng a pig in a poke, letting
them into your machine for the dubious benefit of searching their
database. Have you tried it? Anyone you know? See... that's why i was
hoping google would mount a beta version distributed search engine --
'cause i kinda-sorta trust them, due to their status as a publicly
traded corporation.

I don't know anyone who participates, but back when I was looking at
feasibility of knowledge engines, I knew distributed computing would be
necessary. I am still in favour of one search engines that is managed using
people's resources and serves people's interests. It's dangerous to let
information be managed by a corporate body with an agenda.

By the way, regarding a knowledge engine, I never lost hopes, but I can't
afford the time because it's write-up period now and I don't want to put the
Ph.D. in jeopardy. The Gate system from Sheffield appears to incorporate
plenty of mechanism that can be re-used. All of these utilities are resource
hogs nonetheless.

Best regards,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | "The speed of time is one second per second"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
1:45pm up 25 days 20:56, 10 users, load average: 0.57, 0.55, 0.34
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 13:55:36 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [catherine yronwode] on Thursday 05 January 2006 06:59 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

__/ [catherine yronwode] on Thursday 05 January 2006 00:51 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

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
too.

Think of something like the SETI screensaver / data-cruncher program.
Perfect!

Marketing the idea: Google would give you a free mini-computer, or free
software, or a free network enabled phone, or free tunes, or free
airline miles, or something of "perceived value" if you let google use
your machine while you were online but not "doing" anything. The more
time you logged for google tasks (that is, online time you let them use
your machine), the more free stuff you would get.

What a splendid concept! They should test this on a small scale in
Northern California. I would sign up immediately.

That concept is becoming popular, but not among commercial bodies which
must find ways to lure people to exposue of themselves. SETI just burns
energy in vain in my humble opinion.

Well, that's an opinion. At east it was a pioneer in the distributed
computing field.


Many innovative ideas tend to come from hippies and the hackers culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_Culture

I hope you can spot the sarcasm here. *smile*

More realistically it's Stoner Culture that does the heavy-duty
thinking, at least some of which is productive.

NN
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/ kruse (AT) crystal-liaison (DOT) com
Home of gifts so shiny!