Wired 14.10: The Information Factories
Popularity Report
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 5 people (1 private), first by anonymouse user on 2006-11-27
- Wroush on 2008-03-30 - Tags cloudcomputing , gilder , google
- Eyalnow on 2007-12-09 - Tags cloud-computing , george-gilder , google , petabyte-age , technology
- Khalido on 2007-04-25 - Tags internet
- B3zx313 on 2006-12-26 - Tags tech-info
- Smpark on 2006-11-27 - Tags electricity , gilder , google , power , technology , wired
Public Sticky notes
Highlighted by smpark
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
BACK IN 1993, in a midnight email to me from his office at Sun Microsystems, CTO Eric Schmidt envisioned the future: "When the network becomes as fast as the processor, the computer hollows out and spreads across the network." His then-employer publicized this notion in a compact phrase: The network is the computer. But Sun's hardware honchos failed to absorb Schmidt's CEO-in-the-making punch line. In which direction would the profits from that transformation flow? "Not to the companies making the fastest processors or best operating systems," he prophesied, "but to the companies with the best networks and the best search and sort algorithms."
Schmidt wasn't just talking. He left Sun and, after a stint as CEO of Novell, joined Google, where he found himself engulfed by the future he had predicted. While competitors like Excite, Inktomi, and Yahoo were building out their networks with SPARCstations and IBM mainframes, Google designed and manufactured its own servers from commodity components made by Intel and Seagate. In a 2005 technical article, operations chief Urs Hölzle explained why. The price of high-end processors "goes up nonlinearly with performance," he observed. Connecting innumerable cheap processors in parallel offered at least a theoretical chance for a scalable system, in which bang for the buck didn't erode as the system grew.
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
ese cabinets once held as many as eight UUNet routers apiece. Now each 10-foot frame houses 42 black Dell PowerEdge servers, interconnected by a Rastafarian tangle of wires – tens of thousands of computers in total. Hovering above the cabinets like a midday emanation over Death Valley, a shimmering haze of heat signifies an awesome consumption of power.
If it's necessary to waste memory and bandwidth to dominate the petascale era, gorging on energy is an inescapable cost of doing business. Ask.com operations VP Dayne Sampson estimates that the five leading search companies together have some 2 million servers, each shedding 300 watts of heat annually, a total of 600 megawatts. These are linked to hard drives that dissipate perhaps another gigawatt. Fifty percent again as much power is required to cool this searing heat, for a total of 2.4 gigawatts. With a third of the incoming power already lost to the grid's inefficiencies, and half of what's left lost to power supplies, transformers, and converters, the total of electricity consumed by major search engines in 2006 approaches 5 gigawatts.
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
UNTIL HUMANKIND devises an inexhaustible font of electricity that can be situated wherever it's most convenient, the best hope for cooling overheated data centers is to make computers themselves more efficient. The dire state of data center economics (as well as customer demand for portable computers with a reasonable battery life) has driven chipmakers to throw all their weight behind efforts to design low-power chips. AMD's Opteron CPU, debuted in 2003, consumed significantly less power than its predecessors, reversing the trend toward higher speed and greater power consumption that had held since the microprocessor was invented. The Opteron upgrade this past summer brought an additional 30 percent reduction in power usage. Intel, introducing its competing Core architecture, recently acknowledged that the market now values energy efficiency over clock speed. But with the Internet's expansion and the migration of desktop applications online, these improvements won't be enough to avert a meltdown.
An even more daunting roadblock stands ahead: Further dramatic gains in efficiency may be physically impossible without radical breakthroughs in chip design. Microsoft's Craig Mundie bluntly describes the predicament. "We have now run into a brick wall," he says. "What brought all of us faster computing was raising the CPU's clock rate, which increased power consumption. Raising the clock rate without consuming more power was only possible because we could lower the voltage. We can't do that anymore because we're down into electron volts. If you can't lower the voltage, you can't raise the clock rate without using a lot more power."
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by b3zx313
Highlighted by wroush
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
According to Bell's law, every decade a new class of computer emerges from a hundredfold drop in the price of processing power. As we approach a billionth of a cent per byte of storage, and pennies per gigabit per second of bandwidth, what kind of machine labors to be born?
How will we feed it?
How will it be tamed?
And how soon will it, in its inevitable turn, become a dinosaur?
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Google's magical ability to distribute a search query among untold numbers of processors and integrate the results for delivery to a specific user demands the utmost central control. This triumph of centralization is a strange, belated vindication of Grosch's law, the claim by IBM's Herbert Grosch in 1953 that computer power rises by the square of the price. That is, the more costly the computer, the better its price-performance ratio. Low-cost computers could not compete. In the end, a few huge machines would serve all the world's computing needs. Such thinking supposedly prompted Grosch's colleague Thomas Watson to predict a total global computing market of five mainframes.
The advent of personal computers dealt Grosch's law a decisive defeat. Suddenly, inexpensive commodity desktop PCs were thousands of times more cost-effective than mainframes.
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow
Highlighted by eyalnow


Public Comment