Google Update Promises 50% Fresher Results

[JMcEntegart]

Google has finally announced the completion of a new search index that will deliver 50 percent 'fresher' search results.

Google Update Promises 50% Fresher Results : Read more

 

[awood28211]

"100 million gigabytes"... There's my next hard drive... I wish!

 

[N.Broekhuijsen]

oooh shiny!!! but where is the money for all the storage going to come from??

that's a lot of data I wonder how they do the searches so fast if there is 100 million GB of unique data, and it has to find your exact query.

it cannot possibly all be on a RAM like solution in order to make it fast enough....

this, (addressing steve jobs) is magical!

 

[awood28211]

Being simple, the money it's $10,000,000 US if they paid $100 per drive @ 1TB each is some super huge array (hoping I did my math right). Of course that's just drives and $100 is probably conservative but not too far off if they buy it all in bulk. That doesn't include ANYTHING else... Servers, racks, drive-chassis, software, development, physical buildings... even if the rest tripled the initial cost, $30 mil is probably not that hard to swallow for them. How I wish I could say that for my wallet. Of course I could have blown the math (as I'm being lazy right now) and I could be totally wrong.

 

[el_bastardo74]

very nice...even as sophisticated as the search engines are now, compared to 1998(my first pc), i still get frustrated doing more nuanced, detailed searches

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]awood28211[/nom]Being simple, the money it's $10,000,000 US if they paid $100 per drive @ 1TB each is some super huge array (hoping I did my math right). Of course that's just drives and $100 is probably conservative but not too far off if they buy it all in bulk. That doesn't include ANYTHING else... Servers, racks, drive-chassis, software, development, physical buildings... even if the rest tripled the initial cost, $30 mil is probably not that hard to swallow for them. How I wish I could say that for my wallet. Of course I could have blown the math (as I'm being lazy right now) and I could be totally wrong.[/citation]
we just replaced our SAN which is 96 tarabytes = just under $100,000

I would think Googles storage is around $700 a tarabyte (discounted)
SOOO 100,000,000 gigs = 97656.25 tarabytes
=$68,359,375


if 1 gig = $700, Keep in mind this is not hardware you use @ home... there not hooking up 100,000 caviar black drives.

 

[killerclick]

We'll maybe read this news in some archive 15 years from now and laugh about the pitiful amount of data Google was working with.

 

[rizky_pratama]

Just wondering 100 million of data processed or stored that is a different thing.

 

[killerclick]

[citation][nom]grieve[/nom]we just replaced our SAN which is 96 tarabytes = just under $100,000I would think Googles storage is around $700 a tarabyte (discounted)SOOO 100,000,000 gigs = 97656.25 tarabytes=$68,359,375 if 1 gig = $700, Keep in mind this is not hardware you use @ home... there not hooking up 100,000 caviar black drives.[/citation]

What's a tarabyte?

 

[awood28211]

[citation][nom]grieve[/nom]we just replaced our SAN which is 96 tarabytes = just under $100,000I would think Googles storage is around $700 a tarabyte (discounted)SOOO 100,000,000 gigs = 97656.25 tarabytes=$68,359,375 if 1 gig = $700, Keep in mind this is not hardware you use @ home... there not hooking up 100,000 caviar black drives.[/citation]

Wow, what were you thinking? 700 per Terabyte? I am in tech and realize they don't buy SATA drives off the walmart shelf, but seriously the drive alone even at 100% duty cycle quality even if they add fibre channel drives should never cost 700/tb. At my last job, we had a 20 TB total EMC SAN with 15K RPM Fibre channel drives and the drives themselves only cost around 350 a TB and that was 3 years ago pricing. Not to argue, but I think you could have done better on a per TB price. Now, if your whole system came out at 700/TB that makes more sense. Our 20 TB was far more expensive than 7000 dollars in raw drive cost. As stated, there is a lot of infrastructure needed to support those drives. They just don't set around and soak up data...as you know.

 

[darksun20]

Google makes their own hard drives, that's why the storage space ticker on the g-mail page keeps going up.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]awood28211[/nom]Wow, what were you thinking? 700 per Terabyte? I am in tech and realize they don't buy SATA drives off the walmart shelf, but seriously the drive alone even at 100% duty cycle quality even if they add fibre channel drives should never cost 700/tb. At my last job, we had a 20 TB total EMC SAN with 15K RPM Fibre channel drives and the drives themselves only cost around 350 a TB and that was 3 years ago pricing. Not to argue, but I think you could have done better on a per TB price. Now, if your whole system came out at 700/TB that makes more sense. Our 20 TB was far more expensive than 7000 dollars in raw drive cost. As stated, there is a lot of infrastructure needed to support those drives. They just don't set around and soak up data...as you know.[/citation]
we made a deal with IBM where they pay half and we pay half if we upgrade many servers...
we spent $250,000 total. Our main san is SSD/fiber and yah was almost 100k for 96 TB retail, we paid only $50 (half price)

 

[ssdmaster]

Actually they are mostly caviar black drives. Most of google's computers are old out dated computers.

 

[ssdmaster]

omg you work with IBM? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You should do some research into that company.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]ssdmaster[/nom]omg you work with IBM? HAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. You should do some research into that company.[/citation]
seriosuly? what do you do for a living?
we didnt just pick IBM and give them $250k we did research for months.

@ one time i used to be an IBM employee even. (hate them)

 

[ssdmaster]

I'm an IT consultant (but who cares?) And I've heard horror stories of IBM Consulting.

What does your company do that's so sensitive to data integrity it will pay $700 per terabyte? (I'm not attacking you, just curious).

 

[Xlick]

[citation][nom]awood28211[/nom]Now, if your whole system came out at 700/TB that makes more sense.[/citation]

That was the impression I got from his post.

Even if we're being incredible conservative here, $100mil isn't a bad investment be any means for google to improve their search (which according to Carol Bartz is all that google does) by that much.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]ssdmaster[/nom]I'm an IT consultant (but who cares?) And I've heard horror stories of IBM Consulting. What does your company do that's so sensitive to data integrity it will pay $700 per terabyte? (I'm not attacking you, just curious).[/citation]
We sell chicken lol! seriously

We never went over the top to protect integrity, this was just the best deal we could get. Keep in mind this is Canada, not USA... we likely have higher prices.

I would like to mention, working with IBM was a nightmare, our systems were pretty "cutting edge" AKA untested! was a huge mistake.... we should have gone with last years model.

Same as our Citrix environment, we should have not upgraded to 2008, it's just too new... we are having huge issues with print servers due to lack of support from Xerox.

We also run XP on all machines until recently i pushed out 20 laptops with Win7 as testers.

 

[ssdmaster]

Chickens, sweet. Have fun with Win7 and deploying printers. I remember when I got 20 Win7 boxes to setup instead of Vista by accident... Had to research GPO changes (point and print - easy enough) for Win7 to install printers by scripts.. All in all, its a walk in the park compared to Vista.

I envy your companies decision to stick with XP. Vista is a pain to support. (Failed updates anyone?)

 

[gm0n3y]

From what I've read, Google uses mostly desktop parts for their storage.

 

[drwho1]

625,000 ipods stacked end to end for over 40 miles
bumpy ride
joy ride

 

[Gin Fushicho]

That's a lot of space.

 

[climber]

Google designs their own storage solutions from scratch, but they use COTS (commercial off the shelf) hard drives. Given how much profit big companies like IBM, Dell, HP get from servers, SANs etc. I commend Google for building their solutions themselves and it's optimized for their tech as they can probably build better and more cost effective and potentially more flexible solutions than what the big companies will offer them.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]ssdmaster[/nom]Chickens, sweet. Have fun with Win7 and deploying printers. I remember when I got 20 Win7 boxes to setup instead of Vista by accident... Had to research GPO changes (point and print - easy enough) for Win7 to install printers by scripts.. All in all, its a walk in the park compared to Vista.I envy your companies decision to stick with XP. Vista is a pain to support. (Failed updates anyone?)[/citation]
Yah so far the only issue i have with win 7 is local printers, Citrix print queue is playing nice.. I have to install printers 1 by 1 using the specific driver for the specific printer... its a pain. Normally with XP i just double click the printer in the queue and it loads fine, but win7 permissions doesn't allow it (im guessing it is a permissions issue). I have a lot of time to resolve the problem, were only deploying new machines with Win7 no big roll outs right now.

 

[winterblade]

Caffeine search engine sounds like the stuff from where skynet could born...