From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-165030-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0E3138CEE
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:33:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 33989E08DC;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ACE1E07DB
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:32:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so157128146wig.0
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=dbc+Sso3IgVegJLEYOozi5paHF85albvjGh1EyAnc28=;
b=0kBh18RdHdoYDg1Pr+4257gVcYuifY+LoXFbM5f9hwKga7ycimwSESZIykl6eAwcRZ
iHfIyDNW3SkYjOOYFNHhT5lH64O5dJfYU9fbES/vzK6o4XbqjeuVXC8sgtUr5cXyxBE7
Io0i9nbaBDBISlajs0nVkJQcfeLbIqjrOuTfcpqtjye1bngZODdDw1s9iGMKFWkY+FH+
tkpeihk0mG+55DIJusbPJBJERt2Mxs+c6iZpXq4DCimnEXaE1oCmgfvW1Wxr079ICH9+
PKYj/QZAT6csAKvP3JuVybY5/Fy5bzCZR4C4jHCWh1rTzkjieedb7q8tiGY4ZVMQbXn0
3bcw==
X-Received: by 10.194.61.129 with SMTP id p1mr79042104wjr.92.1435221171514;
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.0.41] (105-237-183-213.access.mtnbusiness.co.za. [105.237.183.213])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id az1sm1932629wib.0.2015.06.25.01.32.49
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] necessary use flgas
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
References: <CAO5-k+ojMQ5Z5kzoXPVCsNM=ke66PWugfkqR4bw1-jZ9GXN1vg@mail.gmail.com>
<558A90E4.2090905@gmail.com> <20150624115007.GA1427@greenbeast>
<558BB724.3020303@gmail.com> <558BBB5D.5080305@gmail.com>
From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <558BBCB1.6070202@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:32:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.0.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <558BBB5D.5080305@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: f4f31f4b-2569-450c-a5b3-de4b44c6a1b6
X-Archives-Hash: d02b6aeb29c8965e82a7abbb4cf3a33b
On 25/06/2015 10:27, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 24/06/2015 13:50, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote:
>>> P.P.S. Also, on 1% better performance: My professor for the compilers
>>> class I took used to (maybe still does) work at Google. Apparently
>>> Google sees a <1% increase in performance as *the best thing ever*,
>>> because it can save them a bunch of money in infrastructure and power.
>>> Apparently Google are the ultimate ricers.
>>
>> Sounds like a case where Google already did the sensible optimizations
>> long long ago and are now hitting the diminishing returns from the long
>> tail. There are probably many of these and they all add up.
>>
>> One thing I've learned about Google's setup - there's nothing else like
>> it out there and they are truly unique. Almost nothing Google does to
>> optimize their setup is widely applicable to anything else :-)
>>
>> Take their power density. Last figures I have is they were running at 4x
>> the kW per square foot as anyone else with a brain. This terrifies
>> people who know about cooling. But, that's the setup and that's what
>> Google has to work with. Now suddenly, all those lots of little
>> improvements start to become a huge deal.
>>
>> So yes, ultimate ricers. Also the ultimates in
>> "riding-co-close-to-the-edge-you-fall-off-the-cliff" :-)
>>
>
>
> Do we even have a clue how many puters Google has now? I read several
> years ago it was like 10,000 or so. No telling what they have now. o_O
Around 2006, it was at least 100,000
You are out by an order of magnitude :-)
I would not be surprised if today Google had 5 million custom-built
stripped-down motherboards in production. Google long ago moved past the
idea of "having individual computers". By all accounts they have many
large systems, and those systems are made up of lots of small parts -
each part being a thing with CPU/RAM/disks and whatever.
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com