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 Dale :-) :-)
